Literature DB >> 16915194

Assessing and managing methylmercury risks associated with power plant mercury emissions in the United States.

Gail Charnley1.   

Abstract

Until the Clean Air Mercury Rule was signed in March 2005, coal-fired electric utilities were the only remaining, unregulated major source of industrial mercury emissions in the United States. Proponents of coal-burning power plants assert that methylmercury is not a hazard at the current environmental levels, that current technologies for limiting emissions are unreliable, and that reducing mercury emissions from power plants in the United States will have little impact on environmental levels. Opponents of coal-burning plants assert that current methylmercury exposures from fish are damaging to the developing nervous system of infants, children, and the fetus; that current technology can significantly limit emissions; and that reducing emissions will reduce exposure and risk. One concern is that local mercury emissions from power plants may contribute to higher local exposure levels, or "hot spots." The impact of the Mercury Rule on potential hot spots is uncertain due to the highly site-specific nature of the relationship between plant emissions and local fish methylmercury levels. The impact on the primary source of exposure in the United States, ocean fish, is likely to be negligible due to the contribution of natural sources and industrial sources outside the United States. Another debate centers on the toxic potency of methylmercury, with the scientific basis of the US Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's) recommended exposure limit questioned by some and defended by others. It is likely that the EPA's exposure limit may be appropriate for combined exposure to methylmercury and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), but may be lower than the available data suggest is necessary to protect children from methylmercury alone. Mercury emissions from power plants are a global problem. Without a global approach to developing and implementing clean coal technologies, limiting US power plant emissions alone will have little impact.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2006        PMID: 16915194      PMCID: PMC1681952     

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  MedGenMed        ISSN: 1531-0132


  29 in total

1.  Mercury and the risk of myocardial infarction.

Authors:  Michel Plante; Stéphane Babo
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2003-05-22       Impact factor: 91.245

Review 2.  Fish consumption: recommendations versus advisories, can they be reconciled?

Authors:  Kimberly M Smith; Nadine R Sahyoun
Journal:  Nutr Rev       Date:  2005-02       Impact factor: 7.110

3.  The health of the james bay cree.

Authors:  E Robinson
Journal:  Can Fam Physician       Date:  1988-07       Impact factor: 3.275

4.  Cognitive performance of children prenatally exposed to "safe" levels of methylmercury.

Authors:  P Grandjean; P Weihe; R F White; F Debes
Journal:  Environ Res       Date:  1998-05       Impact factor: 6.498

5.  Methylmercury poisoning in Iraq.

Authors:  F Bakir; S F Damluji; L Amin-Zaki; M Murtadha; A Khalidi; N Y al-Rawi; S Tikriti; H I Dahahir; T W Clarkson; J C Smith; R A Doherty
Journal:  Science       Date:  1973-07-20       Impact factor: 47.728

6.  Mercury, fish oils, and risk of acute coronary events and cardiovascular disease, coronary heart disease, and all-cause mortality in men in eastern Finland.

Authors:  Jyrki K Virtanen; Sari Voutilainen; Tiina H Rissanen; Jaakko Mursu; Tomi-Pekka Tuomainen; Maarit J Korhonen; Veli-Pekka Valkonen; Kari Seppänen; Jari A Laukkanen; Jukka T Salonen
Journal:  Arterioscler Thromb Vasc Biol       Date:  2004-11-11       Impact factor: 8.311

7.  Measuring mercury.

Authors:  M Wheeler
Journal:  Environ Health Perspect       Date:  1996-08       Impact factor: 9.031

8.  Intake of mercury from fish, lipid peroxidation, and the risk of myocardial infarction and coronary, cardiovascular, and any death in eastern Finnish men.

Authors:  J T Salonen; K Seppänen; K Nyyssönen; H Korpela; J Kauhanen; M Kantola; J Tuomilehto; H Esterbauer; F Tatzber; R Salonen
Journal:  Circulation       Date:  1995-02-01       Impact factor: 29.690

Review 9.  The three modern faces of mercury.

Authors:  Thomas W Clarkson
Journal:  Environ Health Perspect       Date:  2002-02       Impact factor: 9.031

10.  Blood organic mercury and dietary mercury intake: National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, 1999 and 2000.

Authors:  Kathryn R Mahaffey; Robert P Clickner; Catherine C Bodurow
Journal:  Environ Health Perspect       Date:  2004-04       Impact factor: 9.031

View more
  1 in total

1.  Polychlorinated biphenyls, lead, and mercury are associated with liver disease in American adults: NHANES 2003-2004.

Authors:  Matt Cave; Savitri Appana; Mihir Patel; Keith Cameron Falkner; Craig J McClain; Guy Brock
Journal:  Environ Health Perspect       Date:  2010-12       Impact factor: 9.031

  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.