What’s the first thing you think of when you sit down to a delicious, seafood dinner? If you enjoy eating seafood even half as much as I do, you are probably already salivating at the very thought of it. You probably are not looking at this masterfully cooked cuisine and wondering whether the catfish was farmed or wild or whether the grilled Salmon once swam in one of the Great Lakes or the great Pacific Ocean. Of course not. There is, however, one question that we all may be forgetting to ask… just how much mercury has accumulated in my broiled mahi mahi?

This question should be of particular concern to Hoosiers as Indiana’s coal-burning power plants emit the fourth-largest volume of mercury in the country. Indiana is one of the most coal-dependent states in the United States and actually generates approximately 95 percent of the state’s electricity from fossil fuel at its 21 plants. As a result, Indiana’s dirty power plants have helped the state receive very high marks among our nation’s top polluters. In fact, Indiana is ranked among the top-five polluting states in the country.

But just what is mercury and how does burning coal result in the emission of mercury into our environment?

Mercury is a naturally-occurring metal found in water, air, soil, and is actually an element of the earth’s crust. Humans cannot create or destroy mercury. Mercury can exist in many forms; however, pure mercury is actually a liquid metal that is also known as quicksilver. Traditionally, mercury has been utilized in the production of, to name a few, thermometers, some types of light bulbs, and switches; although, most people are exposed to mercury primarily by eating contaminated fish.

As an element of the planet’s crust, mercury can be found in many types of rocks. One very useful mercury-containing rock just happens to be coal. When coal is burned, mercury is released into the air. Once in the air, mercury will eventually settle in water or on land where it is swept, along with other pollutants, into the water as storm water runoff. After mercury enters a pond, river, or lake, various microorganisms that live in the water begin to transform the element into the very toxic methylmercury.

This is where the real problems start as methylmercury is a highly poisonous substance that collects in the bodies of certain shellfish, fish, and many fish-eating animals, including us humans. And, because fish and shellfish are the leading cause of human methylmercury exposure, it is important for us to remember that some types of fish and shellfish are more susceptible to methylmercury and will build up higher levels of the toxin than others.

For this reason, we need to pay particular attention to the types of fish we are eating. This can be a confusing subject though as the amount of methylmercury found in fish and shellfish will depend on several factors: What did my large mouth bass typically dine on, how old was he, and just how high on the food chain did he rank. It can be assumed that the bigger the fish, the higher on the food chain (the more little fish he gobbled), the higher the risk of eating a mercury-laced dinner.

Not very appetizing, huh?

So, what does this mean for those of us in Indiana?

For one thing, data collected by the United States Geological Survey at four Indiana monitoring stations has determined that the quantity of mercury falling from the Hoosier state’s sky is roughly 25 percent higher than the national average. When you consider the size of Indiana compared to the nation as a whole, 25 percent is considerable. Further, even though the southwestern part of Indiana has one of the greatest concentrations of coal-fueled power plants in the United States, it is interesting to mention that currently there are no monitors in that part of the state.

As an attempt to curb methylmercury poisoning and contamination, Indiana’s coal-burning power plants must now, for the first time, slash mercury emissions as a result of a recent federal ruling. This new regulation, signed into effect in March 2005, is intended to radically reduce the release of toxic mercury by 70 percent nationwide over the next 15 years.

The majority of the pollution reduction will be a result of tighter controls on smog and soot-type contaminates. Having a reduction in these types of pollutants as a result of new pollution controls will present Indiana utilities with a price tag in the billions. Indiana will also have to fork over the necessary funds to cut the toxic mercury levels back to the new stricter standards by the year 2018.

Similar to the smog and soot regulations, the EPA’s new mercury strategy sets a national limit on emissions. What this really means is that all utilities that successfully reduce mercury pollution will be permitted to sell pollution “credits” to those companies who do not meet the standards. This “bartering” can take place as long as the nationwide cap is not surpassed.

Currently, 48 tons of mercury are discharged into the environment each year. By the year 2010, this figure will reportedly be restricted to 38 tons. By the year 2018, the limit should be 15 tons; however, it could very likely take several more years to fully realize this level because the utilities that significantly reduce their emissions during the early years will actually have more time to comply with this important environmental ruling.

What all of this indicates is that the amount of overall mercury emissions will decrease over time; however, some of the “dirtier” power plants will be allowed to purchase the right to continue releasing the elevated levels of mercury. The obvious, possible result would be mercury “hot spots.” These hot spots would be the waterways around the power plants that still emit the higher levels of mercury. These elevated levels of mercury would eventually work its way up the food chain, of course, concentrating its efforts in fish.

Do you feel that these emissions and pollution regulations are really enough? Some medical doctors and environmentalists are saying that even these pollution reductions are not extensive enough, nor immediate enough, for Indiana. Some who work in the power plant and utilities industries are saying that these new regulations are a clean-air landmark; however, quite a few environmentalists are not satisfied and believe these new regulations to be too lax to ensure the health of Hoosiers.

In fact, many are coming to the worrisome conclusion that the mercury problem in Indiana is actually putting Hoosier kids in danger. According to the Hoosier Environmental Council, for many Indiana kids, predominately from lower-income and/or minority families, state-caught fish is actually one of their biggest sources of protein.

To illustrate this danger, take a look at a couple of startling statistics:

In Indiana alone, there are roughly 1,127,326 kids living just about 30 miles away from a coal-burning power plant. 30 miles is the estimated area in which the most damaging and severe health impacts are realized. Using the same geographical closeness, research has found that infants exposed to consistently elevated levels of particulate matter pollution are at a 26 percent increased risk of Sudden Infant Death Syndrome as well as a 40 percent increased threat of death as a result of severe respiratory illness.

Currently, throughout the state of Indiana, all women and children are cautioned to monitor the amount of fish and shellfish we eat from any of the many state waterways due to the dangerous threat of methylmercury. It has been proven that, due to its neurotoxic effects, abnormally-high amounts of methylmercury in the bloodstreams of fetuses and young children harm the youngsters’ developing nervous system which in turn causes the child to be less likely to think and learn at normally-expected levels. More specifically, the effects of mercury exposure are much like the results of lead poisoning in children – delayed mental development, significant cognitive and language deficits, and difficulties developing normal motor function, attention, and memory.

If all of you Hoosier men are breathing a sigh of relief, think again. Exposure to elevated levels of mercury proves harmful to the brain, heart, kidneys, lungs, and immune system of everyone, not just women and young children. Therefore, all Hoosiers need to watch their fish and shellfish intake. And, remember, Indiana has standard warnings advising every Hoosier to limit their consumption of and completely avoid eating many different types of fish taken from any of its 35,673 miles of rivers and caught in any of its 47,806 acres of lakes – this, in a large part, is because of mercury contamination.

Research suggests, however, that for the majority of us, fish consumption, when limited or minimal, will not present a significant health concern. However, we all might want to remember the old saying: “You are what you eat.” Conversely, there are still areas of specific concern even when fish consumption is limited. For example, 2003 research conducted by the Centers for Disease Control determined that approximately 10 percent of American women already have elevated mercury levels – levels high enough to put an unborn fetus at a potential risk for neurological damage and delays.

So, considering the fact that coal-burning power plants are responsible for the largest human-caused mercury air emissions in the United States combined with the real and present danger that methylmercury can pose to all of us; it is definitely an environmental issue that warrants much serious attention – Not just for those of us in Indiana, but across the nation.

In the case of Indiana, three of its coal-burning power plants made the Environmental Integrity Project’s “America’s Most Dirtiest Power Plants” top 50 for 2002. The EIP, a nonprofit, nonpartisan group that strives for more effective enforcement of current environmental regulations, report that three of Indiana’s power plants were among the top 50 dirties mercury polluters – Rockport’s AEP – ranked 18th, Gibson’s Cinergy – ranked 34th, and Petersburg’s AES – ranked 46th – out of a total of 491 total plants evaluated.

When I take a look at the list of fish that you and I should not consume more than once a month (canned tuna, mahi mahi, blue mussel, eastern oyster, cod, Pollock, Great lakes salmon, channel catfish (wild), and Lake whitefish) along with the pregnant and nursing woman’s inventory of black-listed fish (shark, swordfish, tilefish, and king mackerel), I feel a little sad. A “natural resource” such as our waterways and the fish who reside there should not have “warning labels.” I can see warning labels on cigarette packs, beer and liquor bottles, chewing tobacco, household chemicals, etc. But, something is definitely a little strange when we have to consider putting warning labels on the fish that we eat.

Industry officials argue that, at this time in history, the commercially-available technology to reduce mercury pollution by at least 90 percent does not yet exist. Some environmentalists are saying that the technology is out there and just has to be utilized properly. Both could be partially right; however, I would think that if we can send astronauts into space to walk on the moon, we should be able to strategically and successfully be capable of tackling methylmercury emissions.

In slash-and-burn agriculture, you first go through the thick tree cover with a machete and chop all the vegetation. That’s the slash. Then, you come back a few days or weeks later, when the vegetation has died and dried out a bit, and you start a big fire, like this one. That’s the burn. It’s happening on the edge of an undisturbed area of rainforest in the Amazon basin in Brazil.

Ideally, you would farm the cleared area for a few years. Once the soil loses its fertility, slash and burn farmers would typically leave for a few years and allow the area to regrow. This doesn’t happen anymore, and the net result is poor soils and deforestation.

Does this kind of development bring economic prosperity?

“…whenever he cleared the rainforest, the rain washed the fertility from the soil, and within a couple of years the cultivated portion of the plot had to be abandoned, and new areas of forest cleared for planting. He became yet another shifting cultivator in the Amazon rainforest.”

“Life has been hard. As each plot became exhausted, they moved on. But were soon forced to return. And each time the soils were worse, the weeds grew higher and the crops grew less well. With little cash for fertilisers and other inputs, the growing number of farmers were clearing huge areas of rainforest, leaving behind a trail of eroded soils, degraded vegetation and broken dreams.” in the field

From a teacher in Brazil:

“Burning fields and pastures is very common here in Brazil. There are two reasons for it: bugs, rodents, snakes etc. and the acidity of the land. On our little farm, we could only convince the field hands to stop burning once we showed them how to use chemicals – fertilizers and insecticides – which got into the lake and caused minor disaster.” Katarina Berg via Tropical Poison

The area that people deforest in Brazil every year is rising again. In 2005 it will pass the peak set in back in 1995.

It’s turned the Amazon basin into a major source of pollution.

The Mato Grosso state’s governor is also the agriculture tycoon Blario Maggi, (known locally as “O Rei da Soja,” the King of Soy) who clears rainforest to grow soybeans. Maggi is the largest producer of soybeans in the world. Mato Grosso led all Brazilian states in deforestation with 48 per cent of the destruction last year, feeding Brazil’s booming Soya industry.

Recently, Maggi ousted his environmental chief, who was arrested and accused of involvement in corruption, and suspended the issuance of new logging permits.

“He acted after federal police made 90 arrests government officials and businessmen connected to loggers. Among those arrested was Moacir Pires, head of Brazil’s federal environmental protection agency in Mato Grosso.”

I suspect that Maggi would be a tough man to work for.

“Authorities allege those arrested were responsible for the illegal clearing of nearly 50,000 hectares of Amazon rainforest over the last two years, much of it on native reserves and national parks.” cnews