Mercury! To think that this Roman God, who evoked speed, who was a messenger, whose Greek counterpart Hermes inspired a line of fashion (the link between the god of transit and the god of fashion eludes me), who gave his name both to a planet and an element could prove toxic.
Mercury, a liquid metal, which occurs naturally in the planet’s core, is eminently useful. It is malleable, it conducts heat and electricity; and we use it in fluorescent lamps, thermometers, float valves, et al. All of us have non-toxic levels in our bodies.
But exposure to too much mercury can leave people with severe neurological damage, damaged vision, birth defects, heart disease, cancer.
Typically, coal and oil-fired power plants (sewage, incinerators, factories) release mercury (with lead and other toxins) into the air. We end up with not only contaminated air, but contaminated water — and from there, contaminated fish. That grilled swordfish steak may make you sick.
In 2011, the Environmental Protection Agency issued guidelines for power plants (the Mercury and Air Toxic Standards Act). Subsequently the EPA sought to regulate exposure. Consumers are now cautioned about mercury in thermometers, in canned fish, in cleaning supplies. It ruled that those restrictions were “appropriate and necessary.”
Enter Donald Trump. He discounted those egg-head arguments about the dangers. He accepted all those actuarial arguments about the costs of regulations. And his Administration ruled: enough! His predecessor, President Obama, was stifling American capitalism, yoking it to arcane science that nobody took seriously anyway. So he rescinded those rules, arguing that the regulators miscalculated the costs versus the benefits.
Enter Joe Biden. He trusted scientists on the danger of exposure to mercury; he accepted the wisdom of regulation; and in January 2022 he restored those environmental protections.
The question is not the potential danger of mercury: on that, even non-scientists can agree. The data stand. The calibration of harm, though, is tricky. Mercury exists in our atmosphere, in our bodies. How much additional mercury can we allow into our air, our water? If we lower the limits of “acceptable,” how many people will suffer?
As for the costs of environmental safeguards, of course those will raise the costs of production. Again, though, the calibration of costs is flexible. Will different scenarios yield different estimates? If we tighten the regulations, how much higher the costs of production, and what will those higher costs mean for manufacturers, investors, workers, consumers? Production is not static, but changes as technology, and productivity change. If the country segues into solar power, the need for so many coat and oil-fired power plants will drop.
The ultimate question: who decides, weighing the harm of too much mercury, versus the harm of higher costs of production? In a laissez faire world of capitalists run amok, those who produce the power would decide on the means of production; and they would focus on actuarial, not morbidity statistics.
We have only the government, in the guise of an under-funded Environmental Protection Agency, to argue for “public health” in the ultimate decision. The Biden Administration’s decision to restore the Trump-rescinded rules on power plants is a below-the-fold story in the back of the newspaper. It deserves praise. As you eat grilled swordfish, thank the scientists at the EPA and the politicians courageous enough to back them.
Joan Retsinas is a sociologist who writes about health care in Providence, R.I. Email retsinas@verizon.net.
From The Progressive Populist, March 15, 2022
Blog | Current Issue | Back Issues | Essays | Links
About the Progressive Populist | How to Subscribe | How to Contact Us