Grk-- ack--- Choking on My Own Rage Here!

Speaking of witchcraft, at least the scientists who conducted this study weren't burned at the stake. They were just completely ignored.

When the Environmental Protection Agency unveiled a rule last week to limit mercury emissions from U.S. power plants, officials emphasized that the controls could not be more aggressive because the cost to industry already far exceeded the public health payoff.

What they did not reveal is that a Harvard University study paid for by the EPA, co-authored by an EPA scientist and peer-reviewed by two other EPA scientists had reached the opposite conclusion.

{snip}

The Harvard study concluded that mercury controls similar to those the EPA proposed could save nearly $5 billion a year through reduced neurological and cardiac harm. Last Tuesday, however, officials said the health benefits were worth no more than $50 million a year while the cost to industry would be $750 million a year.

So, there you have it. In Bush's America, if it costs the utilities any extra money, it's not worth it to preserve your health or the health of you children. Pardon my French, er, I mean Freedomspeak, but what a crock of shit. The utilities would just pass the costs on to the consumers. So, ask yourself: Would you rather pay a little more each month in your utility bills if it meant cleaner air and water, or would you rather pay a lot more in medical bills and taxes to cover increased community health care costs?