Mercury in Perspective: Fact and Fiction About the Debate Over Mercury

The Federal Government Paper:

Resources Committee Chairman Richard W. Pombo (R-CA) and Energy and Mineral Resources Subcommittee Chairman Jim Gibbons (R-NV). March 01, 2005 http://resourcescommittee.house.gov/Press/reports/mercury_in_perspective.pdf

Review This Federal Government Paper Executive Summary:
http://resourcescommittee.house.gov/Press/reports/mercury_in_perspective.pdf

The Purpose of this Federal Government Paper:
These two elected government officials and their staffs discuss the relevant established facts about mercury and human health risks, plus about the benefits that people get from eating certain types of fish.

Some Background, Methods, Results, Caveats, and Other Select Points:

• This is not a peer-reviewed, scientific paper.
• This federal government paper was first publicly distributed in 2005.
• This is a review of the relevant mercury literature written by two U.S. Congressmen (and their staff members) who chair committees addressing resource, energy, and mineral issues. They list several of their points:
  1. Mercury is naturally-occurring and is found everywhere in the environment. Most of the mercury in the environment is released through natural processes. Everyone is exposed to small amounts of mercury no matter how much or how little mercury is placed into the environment by human activity - including mercury emissions form coal-fired and oil-fired, electric power plants.
  2. U.S. coal-fired and oil-fired, electric power plants account for less than 1 percent of all of the mercury put into the environment throughout the entire world.
  3. Mercury emissions in the United States have significantly decreased since 1990.
  4. Mercury levels in fish have remained the same or have slightly decreased since people started measuring methylmercury in fish. Recent studies comparing methylmercury concentrations in Pacific tuna caught in the 1970s and the 1990s were almost identical. Some experts believed these mercury levels in this particular type of tuna should have increased between 9 and 26 percent as a result of increases in non-U.S., manmade mercury emissions that ended-up in the Pacific Ocean.
  5. These authors believe that that is no credible evidence of harm to pregnant women or their unborn children from regularly eating fish.
  6. These authors believe that scientific research has proven the health benefits of regularly eating certain types of fish. Fish is an important part of a healthy diet. Research has demonstrated that a diet rich in certain beneficial fatty acids (here, the omega-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids from eating certain types of fish) has beneficial health effects for people with heart disease and various types of cancer - including breast cancer, prostate cancer, and endometrial cancer. In addition, eating certain types of fish are believed to be good for people with Alzheimer’s disease and also one type of diabetes.
  7. These two authors believe that the current, peer-reviewed scientific literature they reviewed does not show any link between U.S. power plant mercury emissions and methylmercury in fish.
  8. The Environmental Protection Agency’s regulatory methylmercury reference dose is the most restrictive methylmercury regulation in the world. This most restrictive regulatory methylmercury reference dose is based on the results from a single test of some children. This single test is not sensitive enough to detect mercury bad effects by themselves. The people in this one study were also exposed to very high levels of certain toxic chemical pollutants that can copy the bad effects caused by mercury in people - and can even make the bad effects caused by mercury even worse. These authors believe that this one study does not address the way Americans eat fish.
     
     
• This federal government paper recommends:
  1. Supporting a certain national way to regulate mercury emissions in the United states.
  2. Continued research and studies of mercury and eating fish. This should include again evaluating the EPA methylmercury regulatory methylmercury reference dose.
  3. Using science based on transparent and open processes to develop public policy, and continued research and monitoring of mercury as it relates to power plants and fish.

A Bottom Line:
Mercury exposure, mercury sources, and mercury adverse health effects remain highly visible, contentious issues.

Find This Federal Government Paper for Your Review:
Mercury in Perspective: Fact and Fiction About the Debate Over Mercury. http://resourcescommittee.house.gov/Press/reports/mercury_in_perspective.pdf