Methylmercury, Fish Consumption, and the Precautionary Principle

The Scientific Paper:

F. S. Lipfert, T. Morris, P. Sullivan, P. Moskowitz, and S. Renninger. Journal of the Air and Waste Management Association (JAWMA). Vol. 55. No. 4. pp 388-98. 2005.

Review This Scientific Paper’s Abstract:
http://www.awma.org/journal/past-issue.asp?month=4&year=2005

The Purpose of this Study:
These scientists consider several broad issues concerning just how much benefit the United States would get if we stopped the chemical pollutant mercury from being released from U.S., coal-fired, power plants.

These scientists base this paper on information developed from other recent papers — and certain scientific studies — about the possible bad affects of methylmercury on people.

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

• This peer-reviewed, scientific paper was published in 2005.
• Mercury exposure of the U.S. population is considered as a nation, in large part because of recent questions coming from survey and experimental results about the importance of the local deposition of airborne mercury.
• Scientists still don’t know what levels of mercury may be safe for people, because the various methylmercury scientific studies also considered the other things eaten by the people test subjects. Many of the people studied in the Faroe Islands ate not only methylmercury-contaminated fish, but also polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) contaminated whale meat. Many fish caught in some U.S. fresh waters are contaminated with PCBs.
• U.S. methylmercury exposures are well below the levels that cause bad affects in people.

A Bottom Line:
These scientists conclude that it is unlikely to see any significant public health benefits if only the United States reduces its mercury pollution emissions.

Find This Scientific Paper for Your Review:
Methylmercury, Fish Consumption, and the Precautionary Principle. Journal of the Air and Waste Management Association (JAWMA). Vol. 55. No. 4. pp 388-98. 2005.