2 ms·
http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/dec2005/2005-12-14-01.asp http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/dec2005/2005-12-14-01.asp "emissions from power plants in 10 states -
by coryrc 18y ago
http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/dec2005/2005-12-14-01.asp http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/dec2005/2005-12-14-01.asp
"emissions from power plants in 10 states - Alabama, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Michigan, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Texas and West Virginia - represent almost 60 percent of U.S. mercury emissions from coal-fired power plants"
And what do we find in IL, IN, KY, MI, OH, and PA?
Though, to be fair, coal isn't responsible for the majority of mercury emissions, see:
http://www.tva.gov/environment/air/ontheair/merc_emis.htm http://www.tva.gov/environment/air/ontheair/merc_emis.htm
http://www.epa.gov/mercury/reportover.htm http://www.epa.gov/mercury/reportover.htm
- jcl 18y agoThe papers, however, were specifically looking for mercury that was "lost" during the creation of caustic soda, at plants that literally use tons of mercury for this purpose. That is, the mercury is being added when the HFCS is made, not when the corn is grown. (One paper indicates that the four plants responsible are in GA, TN, OH, and WV.) Switching to a better caustic soda process should eliminate the detectable mercury, regardless of the proximity to coal plants. And some food producers are doing so; as one of the papers points out: "No mercury was detected in the majority of beverages tested."
- coryrc 18y agoAh, I see. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodium_hydroxide#Manufacture http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodium_hydroxide#Manufacture Wikipedia claims "the membrane cell process is economically the most viable", which does not use mercury. Also, as shown in my previous links, chloralkali plants (which make caustic soda) pollute a significant amount of mercury (needlessly, in my opinion).