home
RSS
Santorum takes on EPA over mercury limits rule
January 3rd, 2012
07:15 AM ET

Santorum takes on EPA over mercury limits rule

Speaking to voters in Iowa Monday, former Sen. Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania ripped the Environmental Protection Agency's new rule placing first-ever limits on the amount of mercury that coal-fired power plants can emit into the air.

The GOP presidential contender claimed the new regulations would shut down 60 coal fired power plants in America, and he charged the EPA with basing its study on a philosophy of: "We hate carbon, we hate fossil fuels, we hate blue-collar Americans who work in those areas."

He specifically took issue with the agency's cost-benefit analysis, calling it "absolutely ridiculous" and "not based on any kind of science."

But the EPA's cost-benefit analysis cites peer-reviewed studies extensively in its 510-page "Regulatory Impact Analysis of the Final Mercury and Air Toxics Standards," which has been two decades in the making.

Santorum did not address the health dangers of mercury and other hazardous pollutants that could be limited by the new regulations. His campaign did not respond to questions by CNN.

"Everyone from the EPA and the FDA (Food and Drug Administration) to the National Academy of Sciences have found mercury to be dangerously toxic - especially to children. For someone who claims to be so pro-life, Santorum's baseless statement shows he isn't pro-healthy-life," says Heather Taylor-Miesle, director of the NRDC Action Fund, which is affiliated with the Natural Resources Defense Council environmental group.

"He needs to get the facts because right now he just sounds like he is pandering to rich polluters."

The benefits of the new regulation include preventing up to 11,000 premature deaths and 130,000 asthma attacks every year, according to the EPA.

In terms of dollars, the new rule is estimated to save as much as $9 in health benefits for every dollar spent on installing new technologies to meet new emission limits.

There's a long list of benefits, however, both to human health and the economy that the EPA says it cannot accurately estimate, and therefore leaves outside of the official cost-benefit summary.

For example the established effects of methylmercury beyond IQ loss - such as changes in memory, behavior and the cardiovascular system - and the cancer-causing effects of some hazardous air pollutants are not included. Effects on vegetation and wildlife are also described, but not quantified.


soundoff (80 Responses)
  1. OhPlease

    Send Sticky Rick to China, they have plenty of toxins in the air, water and food, plus he can spout his pro life government in your doctors office spittle to people that really know big government. Send the rich GOP back to their vacation homes in 2012!

    January 3, 2012 at 09:03 | Report abuse | Reply
    • J. Crobuzon

      Mao said good communists weren't affected by mercury pollution, and apparently good conservatives aren't either. The rest of us don't want retarded kids and are just fine with the EPA. Boohoo, poor rich power companies having to scrub the mercury out of their waste. I feel SO SORRY for them.

      January 3, 2012 at 09:24 | Report abuse |
    • lucianne

      most of us reproduce responsibly so we don't have extra kids to donate to the convenience of coal companies. but what the heck, if you have bunches and one or two die of toxin poisoning, you still have plenty more. right to life, apparently, refers only to the not-yet-born, not those already breathing.

      January 4, 2012 at 15:12 | Report abuse |
    • Robert

      the EPA: Public Health is Top Priority. Please voice your support for clean air by lttieng the EPA know you support the Mercury and Air Toxics

      September 11, 2012 at 15:19 | Report abuse |
  2. OrangePekoe

    Nonsense. NO one "hates" blue collar workers! That's utter bushwa but typical of extremist right wing rhetoric.

    January 3, 2012 at 09:14 | Report abuse | Reply
    • J. Crobuzon

      GOP voters just eat that "hate the bluecollars" stuff right up without ever thinking twice. If it's on tv, it must be true.

      January 3, 2012 at 09:40 | Report abuse |
    • John in PA

      When jobs are more important than health, we have a problem. No thanks GOP; we are sick of your toxic BS. I support regulating toxins in our envirnoment, our food and water. Thank God someone gives a rats patootie about health and the planet as a whole. Keep up the good work, EPA!

      January 3, 2012 at 16:33 | Report abuse |
    • MarkinFL

      If anyone hates blue collar workers, its the GOP.

      January 4, 2012 at 11:16 | Report abuse |
    • GT

      Santorum is an idiot. I am a former molecular biologist/research scientist/research scientist. We do not need more millionaire pandering politicians in Washington.

      January 4, 2012 at 17:41 | Report abuse |
  3. J. Crobuzon

    Santorum, please show us how harmless mercury is by drinking a tall glass of it. Brainless idiotic reactionary liar.

    January 3, 2012 at 09:22 | Report abuse | Reply
    • kevin

      Here here....

      January 3, 2012 at 14:19 | Report abuse |
    • Church of Suicidal

      Judging from the ridiculous comments Frothy Rick makes, his mother may have been mercury poisoned. He certainly shows the signs of mental degradation.

      January 3, 2012 at 16:59 | Report abuse |
    • Steve

      Actually drinking Mercury, while not advised is not nearly as toxic as breathing the vapor. He may survive a glass full.. but the intestinal gas may be lethal to all around him.

      January 3, 2012 at 21:44 | Report abuse |
  4. anarchic teapot

    The people in the photo are all looking at him as if he's about to explode or something. Or possibly I've just developed telepathical powers, because I can hear them all thinking "Is this idiot for real? And people vote for that?"

    January 3, 2012 at 12:52 | Report abuse | Reply
  5. OldPhysio

    Since, in Santorum's view, we all came from "intelligent design" (not evolution), God would never have allowed us to be senstiive to mercury because He knew we would generate environmental mercury by burning coal.

    January 3, 2012 at 13:03 | Report abuse | Reply
  6. SuZieCoyote

    Mercury is one of the most toxic substances that exists. Rick Santorum and his conservative buddies think we should ingest more of it so they can make more money.

    January 3, 2012 at 13:30 | Report abuse | Reply
    • kevinB

      This guy will say ANYTHING to be elected: "Repeal abortion" { as IF that's gonna happen} No GAYS ANYWHERE!!! { yeah...like that's really gonna happen}, Send blacks back to the Plantation...Oooops...that one slipped out, but he'd do it IF HE COULD...gotta appease those Tea baggers...etc, etc...it'll be funny to see HIM LOOSE!

      January 3, 2012 at 14:21 | Report abuse |
    • scieng1

      Yes, mercury is a toxin–which is why the EPA mandates we use more of it in our homes ane expose our children to greater amounts of it as mercury light bulbs break. The EPA mandates more mercury be added to our city dumps and water supplies. Then they say mecury is bad, so we need to shut down our factories and homes to gain a higher standard of living. The problem is the EPA not understanding either science or ethics, and being controlled by libs who hate the middle class.

      January 3, 2012 at 18:54 | Report abuse |
    • CTYank

      scieng1:
      Typical conversational input from an apparent right-winger. Sure gonna head things toward the middle with your fire-bombing approach to discussions. Lotsa luck with the foil-hat crown.

      January 4, 2012 at 06:18 | Report abuse |
    • lucianne

      and those lucky blue collar workers will die of mercury poinsoning, so we won't have to worry about unemployment. and without health care, they will die quickly, so maybe they won't suffer too much.

      January 4, 2012 at 15:14 | Report abuse |
  7. Richard Hurtz

    Don't worry Santorum's 15 minutes are nearly up. Even with a strong showing in Iowa (like anyone cares what those right wing hicks think) , the more people look into him, the more they will see he is a complete loon. He'll be flushed down the same toliet that Cain was....

    January 3, 2012 at 15:35 | Report abuse | Reply
    • Chris

      You had a valid point right until you alienated your audience. The mark of a good discussion is that it doesn't need to insult to make it's point.

      January 3, 2012 at 21:32 | Report abuse |
  8. Katherine

    In addition to the health risks for those already born, huge numbers of spontanious abortions occur because of mercury and other toxins. Does Santorum think unborn life does not matter when it is posed against Big Business? Santorum is anti-abortion unless corporate profits get in the way. Then he could care less about the unborn.

    January 3, 2012 at 15:40 | Report abuse | Reply
    • Coponthebeat

      Apparently Rick Santorum is PRO-ABORTION.

      January 3, 2012 at 15:50 | Report abuse |
    • bird

      maybe if you had facts instead of feminine hysteria you'd sound less like a whiny shrew

      January 4, 2012 at 10:02 | Report abuse |
  9. steve

    "He needs to get the facts because right now he just sounds like he is pandering to rich polluters."

    Sounds Like?

    January 3, 2012 at 15:42 | Report abuse | Reply
  10. Coponthebeat

    If you are NOT a millionaire - and you vote Republican - you are stupid. Everything the Republicans do is geared to helping the rich at the expense of the rest of us! This is just one more example. Rick Santorum doesn't want the EPA to force polluters to put scrubbers on their smokestacks to remove pollutants like mercury. Hey Rick, if you love breathing mercury, take your wife and kids to live in Beijing for a year.

    January 3, 2012 at 15:48 | Report abuse | Reply
    • MarkinFL

      And yet the GOP hypocritically claims the dems are try to start class warfare. Frankly, they are just pointing out that it is already being waged by the GOP.

      January 4, 2012 at 11:20 | Report abuse |
  11. Brian

    So he's pro life, for capital punishment, and anti-EPA. So he's all for unwanted children being born into a pollution filled world where our society allows other human beings to be put to death.

    Forgot to add that this world was created by God.

    Got it...and Conservatives wonder why no one wants to listen. So the only way they get their message out is through shouting and fear mongering.

    January 3, 2012 at 16:11 | Report abuse | Reply
  12. brad

    I don't think anyone would argue that mercury is very toxic to the human body in many ways. It amazes me the ignorant idiotic comments people will leave on here without thinking before typing. Do you all really think conservatives want you to ingest more mercury??? Rich power companies??? Last time I checked businesses were allowed to make profits (although Obama is doing his best to change that! Idiots.. Slapping regulations on companies in any sort of power generation field that can severely damage their ability to do business without first coming up with a better way to do it is very counterproductive. ***Newsflash*** fuel and energy costs arent going down anytime soon, only up as the population soars. There is NO affordable alternative to fossil fuels and nuclear power. Hamstringing energy companies and decreasing production drives costs up even faster. What then, when nobody can afford power?? Do you all expect solar power to come and save the day?? haha, research that for 5 minutes and you will see that it can never work affordably on this planet.
    The funds the EPA receives from our tax dollars would be better spent researching and creating safer cleaner ways to use the resources, in this case coal, that we have that can be used at an affordable cost to Americans THEN mandating that all plants use this technology.

    January 3, 2012 at 16:14 | Report abuse | Reply
    • Natalie

      Tell that to my friends in Wy. where their kids can't go outside on certain "low quality" air days due to fracking. Also, some of their neighbors can put a match to their water faucets and get flames....lovely, eh? Stick your "Newsflash" where the sun don't shine. Sick of what companies are willing to do to our environment for a profit.

      January 3, 2012 at 16:55 | Report abuse |
    • brad

      Natalie, ok that what im talking about. You hate the conditions and they need to improve. Elected officials and the agencies they run, EPA in this case, need to use our tax money (public and corporation tax dollars) to actually come up with a better way to run the current system. Not just "regulate" which only makes things harder on us all. Use my tax money to physically create a better mercury catching smoke stack or cleaner fracking implements. Biting the hand that feeds you wont work. I dont care if its a republican or a democrat but they need to run a system that leads by example. First create a BETTER tool then mandate its use.

      January 3, 2012 at 18:19 | Report abuse |
    • c s

      brad – If the EPA told the power company how to run their business, you would scream that the EPA is not competent to do it. All the EPA is doing is telling the power companies to limit their emissions of Mercury; how the company decides to do it is up to them. I guess it OK with you if your kids or spouse get Mercury in their bodies, just so long as the EPA gets told how to protect the environment by a Republican. By the EPA was created by Republican President Nixon. So I guess you consider President Nixon a environmental lunatic?

      January 3, 2012 at 20:24 | Report abuse |
    • Greg

      So what is your point? The technology is here already. These plants are closing because they are no longer efficient and it doesn't make sense to pour money into upgrading them. But I guess they still have some political mileage left in them!

      January 3, 2012 at 20:56 | Report abuse |
    • A scientist

      Maybe you should learn a little about issue before you call others names. In many cases environmental regulations are tough issues - balancing a desire to preserve the environment with the economic cost of remedies. This is not one of these cases. Study after study has shown that this new EPA rule will not only reduce mercury pollution, but also actually save money. Mercury pollution results in huge health care costs. The small cost of the proposed mercury-reducing remedies is far eclipsed by the huge health care savings.

      In reality, this issue is the perfect one for assessing which GOP members are honest and principled and which are just mouthpieces for power companies. Many of the environmental measures proposed by the far left can legitimately be opposed based on their substantial economic impact. This is not one of those cases; the only reason to opposed this new regulation is if you are either a strong libertarian (like Ron Paul), or if you are completely bought and paid for by energy companies. Sadly, we have reached the point where facts and reason no longer matter - many Dems will support any environmental regulation, no matter how little benefit is obtained or how high the cost, and many Republicans will oppose any environmental regulation, no matter how obvious the benefit. Santorum is obviously one of these.

      January 3, 2012 at 21:41 | Report abuse |
    • Steve

      companies need to be accountable for the end to end costs of their operations including proper and safe waste disposal. When the Cuyahoga River caught fire in the 1960s, the predecessors of Mr Santorum warned of the horrible liberals trying to interfere with good upstanding business turning the river, Cleveland and Lake Erie into open sewers with industrial waste. Today its not possible to catch it on fire although I would hate to drink it, you might be ok eating the fish out of Lake Erie and its possible for it to get better. So much for the dire warnings and fear mongering 50 years ago... Power companies need to operate safely and if that incrementally increases the cost of their operations, then it behooves them to find the route to cleaner production of their products. I can show you the salt deserts in Texas created by oil companies dumping salt water on the surface that they claimed they could not afford to dispose of properly (today it goes back into the reservoirs to increase production)... I am not liberal.. I want my grandchildren to have the chance to live in an environment that lets them prosper and invent. Remember the Romans killed themselves with Lead in their drinking water... Make this change.. it is 20 years in the making, as thorough as it can be and admits that there are unknowable issues it cannot predict.. which is at least honest. Its time to build a bridge and get over this issue...

      January 3, 2012 at 21:57 | Report abuse |
    • Natalie

      No Brad, it is the company that needs to be accountable for the quality of the equipment and processes, not the government. After all, is it not the GOP that screams for smaller govt?

      January 3, 2012 at 22:13 | Report abuse |
    • Manen

      As a general rule 'environmental' regulations are pure garbage...made by the affluent at the expense of everyone else. And in the end we create a business environment that can't create a decent job outside of India or China...and the children of the same affluent well-meaning idiots who created the mess wonder where the prosperity went. We should 'Occupy' the EPA.

      January 5, 2012 at 02:37 | Report abuse |
    • MakeThemEatCake

      Burning coal and other fossil fuels to generate power, in the form of electricity or horsepower to propel vehicles, was decided upon because it was available (there is a lot of it) not because it was the only way to do it. Medical advances allow us to see what affect such sources have on people directly and on the environment as a whole. Clean coal ? there is no such thing. The definition comes from technologies that are used to attempt to reduce (not eliminate) the pollution generated.
      Fracking to access natural gas supplies is being used because it is the cheapest not most efficient. and definitely not the most desirable. Those that hawk its use do not live anywhere near the areas that are affected by its use. Regulation is one way to get the energy production sector of our economy to even LOOK at finding another way to provide for our growing population. And if economically forced to use renewable sources believe me the drive for profit will push them to FIND a way to do so in a cost effective manner. We spent billions developing a space program initially for an ego stroke (we cannot let them heathen commies get to outer space first) but NOW we are reaping the benefits of that investment. Cell phones or anything else that uses a satellite in any way would not exist today unless those satellites were able to be put into space in the first place. I would think another ego stroke (why do we let them heathen Muslims control the price of oil) and the investment in such a program would itself be enough to convince people that there are other methods to generate power.
      And don't start with the "drill baby drill" argument as the price of the oil we produce is not controlled by how much we produce but by the world's price. A surprising story a few days ago detailed how one increasing U.S. export is fuel (not oil). We are exporting large amounts of diesel fuel, natural gas, jet fuel, etc because we are producing so much but for some reason the price we pay HERE for such commodities is not going down. why? because the price the whole world will pay drives the price here as well. any increase in oil available to the world will be offset by reductions in production from OPEC so the price will remain the same. We need to develop/use renewable sources to generate our power. you need to ship goods across our country; develop and use trains that use electricity. Wait, that will reduce the truck drivers being employed. Wait, have those driving trucks drive the small trains instead. they already share the road, what is wrong with laying track and having them share the tracks? We have already existing roads so building the tracks would cost too much. the through way is already there (no need to study where to put the tracks). Existing roadbed is already level so the bulk of the work is already done. Increase in the demand for steel would create jobs. Steel production can be done with plants that use electricity. Job creation was huge when the interstate system was designed and put in place so those jobs would need to be created again.

      there are alternatives to the way we do things now. If American capitalists are so great, finding efficient and cost effective ways to switch over should not REALLY be a problem.

      January 5, 2012 at 08:15 | Report abuse |
  13. Bigereads

    The miserable quality of Republikkklan candidates is evident that the party is dying a slow death, one that we all have to suffer through. Sanctorum as a candidate is truly insane. This man has a hate list as long as your arm. In fact there are very few Americans the Republikkklans actually like or care about. I don't know how they can swallow the mediocrity of those running for office without being honest with themselves. I listened to Romney this morning and honestly, he appears to be on speed. He has an answer for everything, no matter how inane the answer is, and yet the Klanners will vote for him. Once out of iowa the ball will bounce a different way and we'll have to load up our liquor supply to get through New Hampshire and North Carolina where illiteracy reigns.

    January 3, 2012 at 16:24 | Report abuse | Reply
  14. TD

    Mercury (Hg)... Santorum (Hg aka hapless greenhorn)

    January 3, 2012 at 17:15 | Report abuse | Reply
  15. Harmonious-DNA-Molecules

    What about the health of the Blue Collar workers that he is claiming to care about? The health effects of working in coal are well-known and are a serious issue amongst coal mining and coal plant communities. I can count 6 very close family members of mine (including myself) here in Utah who have acquired cancer... most of us eat very healthy and none of us smoke cigarettes – we have our speculations as to some environmental causes for this – but the definitive cause remains unknown. What could possibly be wrong with limiting the chemicals that we DO know cause cancer?

    I urge Rick Santorum to sit down and talk with a cancer survivor who believes (as I do) that their disease was brought on by environmental pollutants.

    January 3, 2012 at 18:02 | Report abuse | Reply
    • scieng1

      Check your facts. Mercury is not a known carcinogen. A few mercury containing compounds might be, but are not released by coal plants. Mercury is a toxin, and the body expells it slowly if it is not trapped by a reaction within the brain. Mercury is naturally present in the environment and the small amounts released by coal have little effect. This regulation will have no impact on health, but will have massive impact on employment and living costs.

      January 3, 2012 at 18:48 | Report abuse |
    • CTYank

      Apparently scieng1 embraces the myth of "clean coal." And some fringe righties go on about "drinking cool aid."

      Prev. poster did NOT claim coal in mercury is a carcinogen; read carefully before reacting.
      There's lots of dangerous stuff we come into contact with regularly. Stopping that contact should not be held hostages to some well-protected accountants.

      Get your facts straight before you get in anyone's face.

      January 4, 2012 at 06:31 | Report abuse |
  16. Voltairine

    Rick Santorum: Helping to make Minamata Disease* airborne in our day : ) Poisoning our environment isn't an acceptable or wise or necessary way to create jobs...which, incidentally, is an excuse; these big business ... people ... just want more profits and they'll do anything they thing they can get away with to make their profits, like say, breaking-ground on involuntary Soylent Green factories for their "human resources".

    *Check-out the photograph in Wikipedia for Minamata Disease. Although there are plenty of more contemporary examples, that graphically depicts what big business, big money and their many political minions, are PERFECTLY willing to do to you and your children to make more profits.

    January 3, 2012 at 18:39 | Report abuse | Reply
    • Manen

      You're talking about those CFLs the stupid 'global warming' 'catastrophe' whackaloons want us all to use...you know, the ones with the MERCURY in them....right? Always toss them in the dumpsters when they burn out, because one good hypocrisy deserves ... a little heavy metal in return.

      January 5, 2012 at 02:40 | Report abuse |
  17. scieng1

    The EPA also mandates bringing mercury contamination into our homes (mercury lights) where effects of releases (broken mercury lights) have the greatest impact on children and adults? Santorum is right. This is not about improving health, but about ending another 20 million jobs and raising living costs for everyone (how the EPA and libs measure success).

    January 3, 2012 at 18:40 | Report abuse | Reply
    • pro human

      Mercury is bad for health...Mercury is present in energy efficient light bulbs mandated by EPA; therefore EPA is not interested in protecting health.

      vs.

      Mercury is bad for health... Mercury as emission from coal fired power plant is regulated by EPA; therefore EPA wants to put people out of work and so do liberals, vote Santorum!???

      I'm confused???

      January 3, 2012 at 19:28 | Report abuse |
    • Greg

      Wasn't it Bush who signed that law? And if you're worried about the mercury in CFL's why don't you try LED's. Regardless of the amount of mercury in bulbs if they require less energy then that reduces the demand for coal generated electricity and our dependence on oil. Sounds like a win-win to me.

      January 3, 2012 at 21:08 | Report abuse |
    • Greg

      Almost forgot! 20 million jobs eliminated by cutting 60 or so coal-fired generating plants? Must be a union shop ;-) I'll have to start watching Fox News more so I can keep my facts straight ;-)

      January 3, 2012 at 21:14 | Report abuse |
    • A scientist

      As others have pointed out, the EPA did not mandate CFL bulbs; there are other options - LED lights, or the new higher efficiency incandescent lights. Furthermore, although there is some mercury in CFL light bulbs, there are also huge benefits to the bulbs - they use far less electricity, reducing coal use and our dependence on foreign oil. So, while you might opposed CFLs due to the mercury, it is certainly understandable that other people might feel that the benefits outweigh the costs.

      The same is not true for this new EPA coal regulation. Every study has suggested that it will both help the environment and save money (by reducing health care costs). So why oppose it? If you are so opposed to the tiny amount of mercury in CFLs, why would you support Santorum's view that power plants should be allowed to spew much larger amounts of mercury? As far as I can tell, your argument is, "Mercury is bad, and I'm mad that the EPA allows mercury-containing light bulbs. Therefore, out of protest, I want coal power plants to be allowed to spew lots more mercury." Nice logic.

      January 3, 2012 at 21:53 | Report abuse |
    • TAK

      I've been using CFL bulbs for for over a decade and have yet to have a single one burn out. So this argument about mercury-filled bulbs filling our landfills is nonsense. And have you ever held one in your hand? They are not nearly as fragile as incandescent bulbs. Trust me, they won't break unless you drop them on concrete.

      Isn't it ironic that conservatives are suddenly so concerned about the environment when it comes to CFL bulbs? I think the real issue is that they oppose anything that forces them out of the 19th century so they'll grasp at any straw. When the environmental argument fails them they fall back on "but I don't like the light from CFLs, it's so harsh...". And in Edison's time the same arguments were made about incandescent bulbs versus candles. Time to join the 21st century, you Luddites.

      January 4, 2012 at 10:19 | Report abuse |
  18. johnway

    Yes, there is a trace amount of mercury in CFL's; but they are supposed to be recycled, not just thrown out (Granted, the majority of American;s are not doing that). What people dont know is that Lowe and Home Depot now both accept CFLs without charge for recyling. You can also purchase even longer lasting and more efficient LED bulbs.

    For the record, the small amount that would be released in your home should a CFL break is not very dangerous, so long as it is dealt with carefully, quickly, and properly.

    January 3, 2012 at 19:20 | Report abuse | Reply
  19. momoya

    Seriously, America, seriously? This yahoo is STILL a viable candidate for the presidency? Why?!?

    January 3, 2012 at 19:23 | Report abuse | Reply
    • Alejandra

      i know but it's better than the oarnigil one and the dark one are too much!Dont worry,i'm not that kind of guy who put lights ,wings and gadgets My priority is working good and fast!Thant for the comments!

      September 14, 2012 at 00:53 | Report abuse |
  20. johnway

    Oh, and CFL's are not being mandated by the EPA. A 25% in efficiency on incadencants was passed, and most manufacturers have already rolled out their improved products. Ones not meeting standards can be sold off until they are used up; they do not have to be pulled from the shelves. Get your facts straight.

    January 3, 2012 at 19:38 | Report abuse | Reply
  21. johnway

    Scieng, Your statements about how little impact this would have is refuted by the data in the report. unless you can produce a peer reviewed study proviing their peer reviewed study is wrong, I suggest you shut up and sit down, becuase you are only showing your own ignorance.

    January 3, 2012 at 19:41 | Report abuse | Reply
  22. Carl Peters

    Shut down the EPA before they shut down the economy.

    January 3, 2012 at 22:09 | Report abuse | Reply
    • Tom S.

      Yes, let's go completely back to the good old days of no health, safety, wage, and environmental regulations. That way we can create more jobs.

      Gov't doesn't have all the answers, but in this case saving lives and $$ makes sense. Bash gov't all you want, but then go ahead and make your own roads, hire your own army, build your own prisons, develop your own ways to deal with pollution, and so on...

      January 3, 2012 at 23:06 | Report abuse |
    • healthnut

      Some of us want to live a simple life, without regulations. For those I recommend the forest.

      January 3, 2012 at 23:25 | Report abuse |
  23. Bobby

    Conservatives just love to breath in dirty air, they are the excuse for the EPa.. If big Corporations cared about peoples health, they wouldn't need the EPA..

    January 4, 2012 at 07:55 | Report abuse | Reply
  24. docdewitt

    I might suggest that he also believes in Christ Jesus, but not santa, the easter bunny, global warming or perhaps the holocaust?

    January 4, 2012 at 07:55 | Report abuse | Reply
  25. bird

    If the EPA / Obama / Gov't wasn't pushing CFL's so hard, they would have more credibility. CFL's contain mercury. If it is toxic in coal plant emissions, it is toxic in CFL's also. More BS from the Liar in Chief

    January 4, 2012 at 09:59 | Report abuse | Reply
  26. TAK

    Mercury poisoning can stunt brain development in children. Ergo, more children grow up to be republicans.

    January 4, 2012 at 10:04 | Report abuse | Reply
    • jimmer

      please plug your ears.....the excretement between them is leaking out.

      January 4, 2012 at 14:36 | Report abuse |
  27. CommonCents

    Our government, in it's infinite wisdom ALLOWS the INTRODUCTION of Mercury in CFL lightbulbs to save a few cents, (don't drop one) yet when it comes to Coal Power Plants that play by the rules, they CHANGE the Mercury, NOx and SOx limits to require billion dollar equipment upgrades. God forbid we have more earthquakes from natural gas fracking, that cripple Nuke plants. Coal will likely make a comeback by 2022, when the dust has settled. If you wish to play the stock market, it's much better odds if you are a Judge, Congressman, EPA Czaress or CEO.

    January 4, 2012 at 13:44 | Report abuse | Reply
  28. KE

    Folks,

    Comparing uncontrolled emmissions of mercury into the atmosphere from coal plants to mercury in CFL bulbs is a strange argument. It is about understanding how mercury is toxic and how to manage mercury (or any other chemical for that matter) to prevent harm to humans and/or the environment. The EPA is not saying ban mercury. Just manage it properly. I am not completely up to speed on how mercury containing CFLs are manufactured, but it seems the whole bulb thing at least has a "management" scheme in place as apposed to uncontrolled release from coal plants.

    January 4, 2012 at 14:28 | Report abuse | Reply
  29. Ron B

    I love it when people who don't know what they are talking about tell me what is good for me.......... I wish these ignorant people would simply get an education and think before they open their mouth.

    January 4, 2012 at 15:54 | Report abuse | Reply
  30. Paul

    He can blame measles on Cheetos. It really doesn't matter. Because he'll never be president.

    January 4, 2012 at 19:10 | Report abuse | Reply
  31. Manen

    A little mercury is EXACTLY what the environment needs...just ask the Obama crowd making is use those silly CFLs....you know..the ones with the mercury in them that I throw into the dumpsters when they burn out.....

    January 5, 2012 at 02:34 | Report abuse | Reply
    • MakeThemEatCake

      And if you followed the instructions on the package containing the bulb you would know that just throwing them in the dumpster is.. bad. when assembling your kids bike or toy they get for their birthday (you DO buy your children gifts, right?) you follow the instructions on the package. When cooking a frozen pizza or any other pre-packaged food you follow the instructions on the package. But for some reason, following the instructions on the CFL package intrudes too much on your hectic schedule. I take it you don't recycle plastic, paper or aluminum either.

      January 5, 2012 at 08:30 | Report abuse |
  32. John Lewis

    What should have happened is that the government should have borrowed money from China to purchase mercury scrubbing components for these power plants so that they are not closed. Then everyone is happy, more jobs, better air, and most importantly more debt. Hey if you can lose half a billion developing a solar car, a few billion to keep power plant & coal miners working is a real bargain.

    January 5, 2012 at 03:48 | Report abuse | Reply
    • Smiley

      The antagonistic rlihteonsaip of mercury and selenium is interesting, but what is the fate and how stable is the HgSe compound as it travels through the human digestive system? For example, stomach pH is around 2.

      March 3, 2012 at 17:27 | Report abuse |
  33. royhobbs

    What a sick, stupid, incredibly mean and evil and ignorant man. Even for a Republican.

    January 6, 2012 at 17:29 | Report abuse | Reply
  34. Karla

    I do not know if it’s just me or if everybody else encountering issues with your site. It seems like some of the text in your content are running off the screen. Can someone else please provide feedback and let me know if this is happening to them as well? This might be a problem with my browser because I’ve had this happen previously. Cheers

    January 23, 2012 at 06:24 | Report abuse | Reply
  35. charles myrick

    Magnificent site. Lots of helpful info here. I am sending it to some pals ans also sharing in delicious. And certainly, thanks for your effort!

    August 14, 2012 at 06:08 | Report abuse | Reply
  36. fashion designer glasses , http://www.fashionglassessale.com/ , fashion designer glasses

    naturally like your web site but you need to check the spelling on quite a few of your posts. Many of them are rife with spelling problems and I find it very bothersome to inform the truth on the other hand I will surely come back again.

    November 26, 2012 at 15:02 | Report abuse | Reply
  37. Bruce Anderson

    Everyone from the EPA and the FDA (Food and Drug Administration) to the National Academy of Sciences have found mercury to be dangerously toxic – especially to children. For someone who claims to be so pro-life, Santorum's baseless statement shows he isn't pro-healthy-life," says Heather Taylor-Miesle, director of the NRDC Action Fund, which is affiliated with the Natural Resources Defense Council environmental group ,

    If this was true then why with the rise of the preventive Obama care system did Obama Appointed FDA Margaret Hamburg, who has stock in companies that makes Amalgam, with the rise of Obama preventive care in about 2009 refused to ban
    or recall compensate for many misdiagnosed given wrong kind of treatment & Drugs to make matter worse for those that
    have the mercury used in dental work known as Amalgam Note: those “silver fillings” aren’t silver. Its mainly
    mercury ! Time released poison,
    Question how many are on welfare programs with a Disablitiy such in link with or how many people is going to be forced in to plans not on the well far system all the while not holding the Government over sight the makers or or the doctors that use it libel.
    The corporate bigwigs at Henry Schein have her contact information; why shouldn’t you? Would you call Dr. Hamburg, at 301.796-5000, or write Dr. Hamburg, at margaret.hamburg@fda.hhs.gov as her bout the stock she is to hold with them
    .
    Shareholder Inquiries
    For shareholder inquiries, including requests for quarterly and annual reports, contact Henry Schein's Investor Relations department at:
    Phone: 1-631-843-5611/5562
    E-mail: investor@henryschein.com
    Investor Relations
    Investor Relations Contact:
    Susan Vassallo, Vice President, Corporate Communications
    Phone: 1-631-843-5611/5562
    E-mail: investor@henryschein.com
    General Information
    Corporate Headquarters
    135 Duryea Road
    Melville, NY 11747
    Phone: 1-631-843-5500

    February 13, 2013 at 19:58 | Report abuse | Reply
    • Bruce Anderson

      The mercury Amalgam matter The health problems reads like the nightmare of Gulf war syndrome ,pain, Ringing ear's, thyroid,liver malfunction, Kidney stone symptoms, the Amalgam Problem Goes back long way starting bout 1819 to 1826 England & France to 1830 in USA & years of rise, why don't they ban it after all of debates on the topic more Like-y the fact for the lack or reporting the truths prior to the FDA in 1918 , From Mad Hatters etc to 1861 Ménière's disease reads alot like the signs of poisoning ,lead,shrapnel poison ,Hashimoto's disease 1912 some cases. , Birth defects, memory problems like Alzheimer's, Mental Illness problems like ADHD, Schizophrenia , Acrodynia/Pink Disease

      For people on Federal or State programs from my research I found unless your Doctor says yes its medically related they will not just remove it because it not been made IIlegal, such then will then only pay for the teeth they deem as a problem again not because of the fillings , Yes such they will remove or help pay only unless its be said to be a problem like rotten teeth under not for the fact it even if 1 has Bone lose related , Yet because it not band the doctors will not remove it because it not Band.

      Try if you have this to get them removed and you will find out who pays for what...

      http://amalgam.org/

      nformation call "1 651 644 4572" or write DAMS 1043 Grand Ave, #317 St Paul MN 55105
      "dams@usfamily.net"
      Name of a Lawyer fighting back
      Robert B. Reeves The Reeves Law Group Phone: 800-644-8000
      Fax: 877-491-7860 or call 1-859-226-9000
      research to http://www.townsendletter.com/Jan2012/Jan2012.html
      Interaction Between Electromagnetic Radiation and Toxic Metals
      by Charles Masur, MD ...
      related factor about the concern with the wirless grid , sensory processing disorder symptoms
      Obama Appointed FDA Margaret Hamburg,

      February 13, 2013 at 20:03 | Report abuse |
  38. Herman Crabb

    Kidney stones typically leave the body by passage in the urine stream, and many stones are formed and passed without causing symptoms. If stones grow to sufficient size (usually at least 3 millimeters (0.12 in)) they can cause obstruction of the ureter. *,;..

    http://www.caramoan.phOur own webpage

    May 23, 2013 at 06:43 | Report abuse | Reply

Post a comment


 

CNN welcomes a lively and courteous discussion as long as you follow the Rules of Conduct set forth in our Terms of Service. Comments are not pre-screened before they post. You agree that anything you post may be used, along with your name and profile picture, in accordance with our Privacy Policy and the license you have granted pursuant to our Terms of Service.

Advertisement
About this blog

Get a behind-the-scenes look at the latest stories from CNN Chief Medical Correspondent, Dr. Sanjay Gupta, Senior Medical Correspondent Elizabeth Cohen and the CNN Medical Unit producers. They'll share news and views on health and medical trends - info that will help you take better care of yourself and the people you love.