Sender: -2.6 (spamval) -- NONE
Message-ID: <42403009.405 &AElig umich.edu>
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0 (Windows/20041206)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2005 09:47:37 -0500
To: improvetheworld &AElig umich.edu
From: Andrew Skol <askol &AElig umich.edu>
Subject: Politics hijacking science and our health
Status: RO

Hi all,
    Below are the first three paragraphs of a WP article that talks 
about how the EPA not just ignored, but kept from public record, a 
Harvard University study that showed that the current mercury level 
regulations being put forth by that agency are insufficient to protect 
public health.  And can you imagine if we just allowed industry to 
regulate itself, as Bush would like. 

Andrew

New EPA Mercury Rule Omits Conflicting Data  
(http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A55268-2005Mar21.html)
Study Called Stricter Limits Cost-Effective

By Shankar Vedantam
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, March 22, 2005; Page A01

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.

That analysis estimated health benefits 100 times as great as the EPA 
did, but top agency officials ordered the finding stripped from public 
documents, said a staff member who helped develop the rule. 
Acknowledging the Harvard study would have forced the agency to consider 
more stringent controls, said environmentalists and the study's author.