Sfdebris.net

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/16/climate/epa-mercury-coal.html

As my dad put it, "What the fuck?"

That sounds like really bad idea and it is.

More of the same really. This is the same EPA that said "Radiation is good for you".

Fuzzy Necromancer wrote: ↑Fri Apr 17, 2020 10:28 pm More of the same really. This is the same EPA that said "Radiation is good for you".

You know, that puts them in a really negative light. You should have a little more respect.

I may want to cut back on the canned tuna for a while. But it's so protein efficient for the price...

Fuzzy Necromancer wrote: ↑Fri Apr 17, 2020 10:28 pm More of the same really. This is the same EPA that said "Radiation is good for you".

So I can assume based on that that EPA are just stooges of corporate America?

ProfessorDetective wrote: ↑Sat Apr 18, 2020 12:06 am I may want to cut back on the canned tuna for a while. But it's so protein efficient for the price...

Chicken breasts at Costco?

This does seem like a bad idea to me. It'll probably cost more in healthcare than is being saved on the pollution controls.

Darth Wedgius wrote: ↑Sat Apr 18, 2020 7:05 pm This does seem like a bad idea to me. It'll probably cost more in healthcare than is being saved on the pollution controls.

But guess who'll be footing that bill? Answer: neither the government not the idiots dumping mercury into everything.

ProfessorDetective wrote: ↑Sat Apr 18, 2020 7:08 pm

Darth Wedgius wrote: ↑Sat Apr 18, 2020 7:05 pm This does seem like a bad idea to me. It'll probably cost more in healthcare than is being saved on the pollution controls.

But guess who'll be footing that bill? Answer: neither the government not the idiots dumping mercury into everything.

Probably people who want health care.

Though nobody for a while, AFAIK. I think most of the coal-burning plants have the equipment in place from Obama's regulations. I think this is a problem (but I haven't been able to find a lot of firm statistical projections), but it's probably a long-term problem more than an immediate thing.

My understanding is:

The power plants had equipment put on to help limit mercury emissions in part because it also helped reduce some other emissions. The EPA now doesn't want it calculated that way, making the mercury limitation have to stand on its own, and decided the cost/benefit wasn't worth it.

While I support weighing costs against benefits, I think not including secondary benefits is not the most logical way to weigh them.