Birth Defects - What You Can Do To Help

[gary350 0]

The obvious answer is March Of Dimes - great organization, very worthy of support. Send them some cash. Or you could even find some guy, somewhere, to sponsor in a walk-a-thon (hint: http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=913544 )

Here's another way to help:

Along with lead, mercury is a major concern for birth defects.

"The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimate that 4.9 million women of childbearing age in the U.S. - that's 8 percent - have unsafe levels of mercury in their blood. The people hit hardest will be new-born infants - every year over 630,000 infants are born with levels of mercury in their blood so high they can cause brain damage."

"The biggest source of mercury pollution in the U.S. is emissions from power plants." Even so, "The Bush administration is working to UNDO regulations that would force power plants to sharply reduce mercury emissions and other toxic pollutants"

This is really no surprise - the wholesale assault on environmental regulations by this administration (on behalf of rich polluters that contribute heavily to the GOP) has been unrelenting, completely shameless, and comes at the cost of our health.

I'll post some articles and links later.

It is doubtful that the EPA (under the control of this administration) will care, but for the next few weeks, public comments are being accepted by the EPA on the plan to defer mercury controls. At the below link, you can simultaneously send a comment to the EPA and your representatives in congress:

http://www.moveon.org/mercury/

Or, you can just send a note directly to the EPA:

Environmental Protection Agency
Ariel Rios Building
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20460
(202) 272-0167

You can submit comments directly online at http://www.epa.gov/edocket Find the "Submit Comments" link - this issue is docket OAR-2002-0056

[gary350 0]

White House, EPA Move To Ease Mercury Rules
The Bush administration is working to undo regulations that would force power plants to sharply reduce mercury emissions and other toxic pollutants,
according to a government document and interviews with officials. To view the entire article, go to
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A29807-2003Dec2.html?referrer=emailarticle

EPA Led Mercury Policy Shift
For nearly 21 months, a government task force steadily moved toward recommending rules that within three years would force every coal-fired power plant in the country to reduce emissions of mercury, which can cause neurological and developmental damage to humans. To view the entire article, go to
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A39770-2003Dec29.html?referrer=emailarticle

Proposed Mercury Rules Bear Industry Mark
The Bush administration proposed new rules yesterday regulating power plants' mercury pollution, and some of the language is similar to recommendations from two memos sent to federal officials by a law firm representing the utility industry. To view the entire article, go to
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A64630-2004Jan30.html?referrer=emailarticle

Mercury Threat To Fetus Raised
A new government analysis nearly doubled the estimate of the number of newborn children at risk for health problems because of unsafe mercury levels in their blood. Environmental Protection Agency scientists said yesterday that new research had shown that 630,000 U.S. newborns had unsafe levels of mercury in their blood in 1999-2000. To view the entire article, go to
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A17241-2004Feb5.html?referrer=emailarticle

[lawrocket 3]

Dayum! And here I thought that birth defects were Ronald Reagan's fault.

Edited to add:

Support the March of Dimes and those organizations that seek to cure these problems.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

"The Bush administration is working to UNDO regulations... This is really no surprise - the wholesale assault on environmental regulations by this administration (on behalf of rich polluters that contribute heavily to the GOP) has been unrelenting, completely shameless, and comes at the cost of our health... It is doubtful that the EPA (under the control of this administration) will care...

Gosh, I thought this message was about saving children, and instead you turn it into yet another Bush-bashing diatribe.

Moveon.org is an organization of liberal shills.

Here's some more information, from the Washington Post, which the liberal moveon.org doesn't bother to tell you, in their zeal to demonize Bush:

Quote:

The Bush administration revealed it was taking an entirely different approach, using a more flexible portion of the Clean Air Act.

The new approach would still cost the industry billions of dollars to meet long-term goals. But it was far cheaper and less onerous than the MACT approach that most experts had assumed the EPA was developing to meet a court-imposed deadline of Dec. 15.

The administration's alternative plan would technically downgrade the danger of mercury pollution; grant utility companies 10 more years to develop and install new anti-pollution equipment; and launch a cap-and-trade system that would allow utilities to buy emissions "credits" from lesser-polluting companies to meet an overall industry target, or cap, without having to install new scrubbers or anti-pollution equipment on every plant.

The proposed rule mirrored President Bush's "Clear Skies" legislation, which was stalled in Congress, and would regulate mercury pollution along with two less toxic air pollutants, sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide. Mike Leavitt, the new EPA administrator, said the approach would provide "the largest air pollution reductions of any kind not specifically mandated by the Congress."

EPA and White House officials say their approach is actually "greener" than the one prescribed by Congress and considered by the working group. In the long run, they say, it will encourage development of mercury-removal technologies beyond existing techniques envisioned under MACT; offer utilities economic incentives to continuously reduce mercury emissions; and cover emissions from plants to be built, although new facilities are likely to use clean-burning natural gas, not coal.

End quote.

Source

Pardon me for letting facts get in the way of a good 'ol Bush-bashing.

You really should not take what moveon.org says at face value. You need to consult other sources to round out your knowledge.

Good people can come up with different ways of doing the same thing. Just look at how many different ways we have to train skydivers. Just because Bush changed direction a little and is taking a different approach to accomplish the same thing, does not mean that he is out to kill children for the benefit of big business.

[gary350 0]

Quote

"The Bush administration is working to UNDO regulations... This is really no surprise - the wholesale assault on environmental regulations by this administration (on behalf of rich polluters that contribute heavily to the GOP) has been unrelenting, completely shameless, and comes at the cost of our health... It is doubtful that the EPA (under the control of this administration) will care...

>Gosh, I thought this message was about saving children, and instead you turn it into yet another Bush-bashing diatribe.

Getting rid of Bush IS saving children. His administration's craven environmental policies are causing more birth defects than the March Of Dimes can possibly keep up with, all for the gain of the wealthy polluters.

>Moveon.org is an organization of liberal shills.

What does moveon.org have to do with this? All the articles I posted are from the Washington Post. Moveon.org has a simple way to forward comments to both the EPA and applicable representatives. Don't change the subject or attack sources that weren't even used.

>Here's some more information, from the Washington Post, which the liberal moveon.org doesn't bother to tell you, in their zeal to demonize Bush:

None of my articles was from moveon.org - In fact, I posted the SAME article you quoted from, ONLY I DIDN"T SELECTIVELY TAKE PIECES OF IT OUT OF CONTEXT TO MAKE POINTS, LIKE YOU DID. Another truly pathetic technique, along with plagiarism and outright lying. (Though I'm sure Rush would be VERY proud of you!)

At the end of this post, let's pretend I use the same technique, from the SAME ARTICLE. Actually, I don't even need to stoop that low - the article speaks for itself, WHOLE. Read the whole thing.

>Pardon me for letting facts get in the way of a good 'ol Bush- bashing.

The facts about this administration's environmental policies speak for themselves. "Bush-bashing" in this case is simply reporting the facts. I welcome any attempts by you or anyone else to show me how this admin has not been an overwhelming disaster for the environment, and therefore for health concerns like birth defects.

=================================
For nearly 21 months, a government task force steadily moved toward recommending rules that within three years would force every coal-fired power plant in the country to reduce emissions of mercury, which can cause neurological and developmental damage to humans.

The Environmental Protection Agency-sponsored working group had a well-regarded mix of utility industry representatives, state air quality officials and environmentalists. Without settling on specific emission reductions, the panel agreed that all 1,100 of the nation's coal- and oil-fired power plants must use the "maximum achievable control technology" (MACT) to reduce mercury and other hazardous pollutants.

But in April, the EPA abruptly dismantled the panel. John A. Paul, its co-chairman, said members were given no clue why their work was halted -- that is, until late last month, when the Bush administration revealed it was taking an entirely different approach, using a more flexible portion of the Clean Air Act.

The new approach would still cost the industry billions of dollars to meet long-term goals. But it was far cheaper and less onerous than the MACT approach that most experts had assumed the EPA was developing to meet a court-imposed deadline of Dec. 15.

The administration's alternative plan would technically downgrade the danger of mercury pollution; grant utility companies 10 more years to develop and install new anti-pollution equipment; and launch a cap-and-trade system that would allow utilities to buy emissions "credits" from lesser-polluting companies to meet an overall industry target, or cap, without having to install new scrubbers or anti-pollution equipment on every plant.

The proposed rule mirrored President Bush's "Clear Skies" legislation, which was stalled in Congress, and would regulate mercury pollution along with two less toxic air pollutants, sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide. Mike Leavitt, the new EPA administrator, said the approach would provide "the largest air pollution reductions of any kind not specifically mandated by the Congress." But some task force members were shocked and angered.

"It is as though the working group never existed," said Paul, supervisor of Ohio's Regional Air Pollution Control Agency. "Just when we think we have a process in action to control mercury from every power plant, they walk away from it."

"It was a huge decision that demonstrated that [the EPA's] desire wasn't to regulate mercury in the way that Congress and a federal advisory committee and other stakeholders had anticipated," added panel member S. William Becker, executive director of a bipartisan association of state air quality officials.

EPA and White House officials say their approach is actually "greener" than the one prescribed by Congress and considered by the working group. In the long run, they say, it will encourage development of mercury-removal technologies beyond existing techniques envisioned under MACT; offer utilities economic incentives to continuously reduce mercury emissions; and cover emissions from plants to be built, although new facilities are likely to use clean-burning natural gas, not coal.

But critics accuse the White House and its allies in the utility industry of subverting a process involving one of the most toxic chemicals known, which once airborne can pollute rivers, lakes and oceans and penetrate the food chain. John Stanton of the National Environmental Trust, a member of the working group, said the administration's decision marks "really a fundamental shift in the recognition of the threat posed by mercury to the very most susceptible," including the fetuses of pregnant women who eat mercury-tainted fish.

Stanton and other environmentalists charge that by shifting the regulations from the rigorous Section 112 of the Clean Air Act, crafted by Congress to deal with the most hazardous pollutants, to the more permissive Section 111, the administration will excuse the utility industry from controlling more than 60 other toxins associated with the burning of coal and allow power plants to continue polluting for another decade. "This is a case of politics polluting science," Stanton said.

Some critics blamed White House political adviser Karl Rove, Office of Management and Budget regulatory experts or Vice President Cheney's office for dictating the new policy. In fact, the regulatory turnabout was engineered by Jeffrey R. Holmstead, the EPA's senior air quality official and a former industry lawyer, who is little known outside a circle of government regulators and utility industry executives.

Holmstead had been a scholar with a libertarian group that advocated market solutions to environmental problems and a partner at the Washington law firm Latham & Watkins, which has represented electric power companies and other industries before Congress. He was associate counsel to President George H.W. Bush, with primary focus on environmental issues.

Neither Leavitt nor Christine Todd Whitman, when she was EPA administrator, played a significant role in developing the mercury rule backed by Holmstead, although Leavitt became a strong advocate of the overall cap-and-trade approach during last-minute high-level meetings, said a Leavitt aide.

"I was the one who started talking about [the approach] about a year ago," Holmstead confirmed in a recent interview. "I can assure you that no one on the industry side ever spoke about it."

Holmstead said he first considered using Section 111 to regulate mercury, instead of the more restrictive Section 112, shortly after he joined the EPA, as part of deliberations over the administration's "Clear Skies" legislation. The proposed legislation uses market mechanisms to encourage development of new technology to meet mandatory industry-wide emissions caps.

"It appeared we could get much greater pollution reduction from the power sector if we could do cap-and-trade for all three pollutants," Holmstead said.

Under the administration's approach, utilities would have until 2018 to cut those emissions by 70 percent. By comparison, the EPA working group considered various approaches that would cut mercury pollution by 35 percent to 93 percent within three to four years.

Rove said in an interview that although he attended several interagency meetings on mercury, "I was not a principal mover" in the decision-making. A senior White House adviser said: "If you had to pick one person, it was Jeff Holmstead in EPA's air office who played the key role in development of the cap-and-trade approach to regulation of mercury emissions."

The Clinton administration considered a similar approach in 2000 but abandoned it after EPA officials found it was not legally supportable, said then-EPA director Carol Browner. "The career people at OMB basically proposed what industry wanted," Browner said. But agency lawyers said the approach "had some legal vulnerabilities."

Over the summer, some EPA staffers cautioned Holmstead that treating mercury as a lesser pollutant and allowing for trading might not hold up in court, an EPA official said.

"Sure, there's concerns about legal problems with this approach, but that doesn't mean you shouldn't try it or that it doesn't have value," said Philip S. Angell, an adviser to Leavitt. Ann Berwick, associate director of the Clean Energy Group, an association of utilities advocating more environmentally sound policies, said her members are concerned that the administration plan is "a little dicey from a legal standpoint" and may not offer much regulatory certainty.

As a legal hedge, the administration last month simultaneously proposed a second mercury regulation that would provide a 29 percent reduction in emissions and require all plants to install pollution controls. The EPA had to offer that proposal to comply with a legal requirement, and Leavitt and other officials made it clear it was not their first choice.

In December 2000, the EPA concluded that mercury emissions from power plants were a hazardous pollutant that should be controlled under Section 112, which mandated swift adoption of the "maximum available technology." The EPA agreed to propose the MACT rule by Dec. 15, 2003, and finalize the rule a year later to settle a court case.

The EPA created the Utility MACT Working Group in August 2002, around the time Holmstead joined the agency. The group included six representatives of state and local air quality agencies, eight environmentalists and 15 industry representatives. Although it was clear from the start that it would be impossible to develop a consensus view among the competing interests, Paul and other members said there was general agreement that there would have to be some type of a MACT standard, affecting every U.S. plant, to comply with the law.

Interviews with leading industry lawyers and representatives indicated that although utility executives backed a flexible cap-and-trade system for mercury, most assumed the EPA would eventually adopt some type of MACT standard. Industry officials offered their views during at least five White House meetings between May 21 and Nov. 4.

"People in the industry never expected EPA to go in that direction of a mercury trading program," said an industry lawyer. "It's something they liked, but [executives] thought the MACT standard was on the table, and they were resigned to that."

Ohio-based Cinergy and the Clean Energy Group went so far as to ask the EPA for computer analyses to help assess the economic impact of the task force's MACT proposals. On April 1, Sally Shaver, an official of the EPA's Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards in North Carolina, told Paul and others that a decision on the computer runs had been indefinitely postponed.

That was the last time Paul heard from the EPA.

[Beerlight 0]

Quote

I'll post some articles and links later.

No thank you! I'm about sick of all these political threads...... I get enough via the TV.....

[sdctlc 0]

Best way to avid Birth Defects is to use a condom for a guy and the pill or something like that for the woman...

Solves the problem!

Scott C.

"He who Hesitates Shall Inherit the Earth!"

[lawrocket 3]

So Watt?

James Watt? Get it? HA HA HA!!

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[gary350 0]

Quote

So Watt?

James Watt? Get it? HA HA HA!!

I got it. What's really not funny is that I could never have imagined an administration coming along that would make James Watt and Reagan look like Sierra Clubbers by comparison.

The arrogance of these people is beyond belief, and nobody in the GOP seems to care the slightest. One of my favorite things is how when a scientist publishes a report about the greatly elevated risks of mercury to children, it disappears from the EPA website after a few days.

But when the administration wants to change regulations to allow drastically more pollution, they propose it - enter it into the Federal Register - using language directly written by lawfirms representing the polluting industries! They don't even try to hide it!

[gary350 0]

Quote

Quote

I'll post some articles and links later.

No thank you! I'm about sick of all these political threads...... I get enough via the TV.....

Too late, sorry.

[gary350 0]

Quote

This is really no surprise - the wholesale assault on environmental regulations by this administration (on behalf of rich polluters that contribute heavily to the GOP) has been unrelenting, completely shameless, and comes at the cost of our health.

Quote

Getting rid of Bush IS saving children. His administration's craven environmental policies are causing more birth defects than the March Of Dimes can possibly keep up with, all for the gain of the wealthy polluters.

Quote

The facts about this administration's environmental policies speak for themselves. "Bush-bashing" in this case is simply reporting the facts. I welcome any attempts by you or anyone else to show me how this admin has not been an overwhelming disaster for the environment, and therefore for health concerns like birth defects.

So, after the one pathetic hit-and-run-and-hide, nobody wants to come to Georgie's defense on the environment? Enlighten me on how his record is not really so bad, or how our polluting industries really deserve a break? Cowards.

Or maybe just nobody cares? It's been a huge step backwards, but just not an issue, even for those of you with children? Sick.

[gary350 0]

There is still time to make a comment on this issue to the EPA:

Environmental Protection Agency
Ariel Rios Building
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20460
(202) 272-0167

You can submit comments directly online at http://www.epa.gov/edocket Find the "Submit Comments" link - this issue is docket OAR-2002-0056

[yoink 321]

Don't drink any booze during pregnancy, most especially not early on. The third week is critical to the growth of an embryo and alcohol seriously undermines the chances of a normal birth.

Nuts to your political posturing. I guarentee that alcohol is the cause of more birth defects than mercury poisoning. This is a hugely serious issue - it's a pity you turned it into a political tool.

[lawrocket 3]

There's a big problem with that, though. Most women don't know they're pregnant at the third week, considering that starts 15 days after the last menstrual period.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[yoink 321]

hence the advice that most women get... don't drink until you've had a pregnancy test after any intercourse that you think may have resulted in conception.

[gary350 0]

>I guarentee that alcohol is the cause of more birth defects than mercury poisoning. This is a hugely serious issue - it's a pity you turned it into a political tool.

I don't know if this is true or not, but few would argue that the government should be working to make alcohol MORE available to pregnant women, or to REMOVE the warning labels and posters addressing alcohol consumption during pregnancy (except perhaps the alcohol industry lobby).

But that is EXACTLY what is happening with this administration - DRASTICALLY WEAKENING environmental regulations designed to protect our health and the health of our children, all for the benefit of the wealthy polluters (and surprise! - heavy GOP contributors)

>Nuts to your political posturing.

Whatever. If the below is "posturing", then I feel compelled to posture and educate and bring out the TRUTH and try to change a few minds and do whatever I can to get this piece of shit out of office for the sake of our and our children's health, among many other reasons. I'll say again:

Quote

Getting rid of Bush IS saving children. His administration's craven environmental policies are causing more birth defects than the March Of Dimes can possibly keep up with, all for the gain of the wealthy polluters.

The facts about this administration's environmental policies speak for themselves. "Bush-bashing" in this case is simply reporting the facts. I welcome any attempts by you or anyone else to show me how this admin has not been an overwhelming disaster for the environment, and therefore for health concerns like birth defects.

[yoink 321]

I'm not going to discuss politics - I don't know enough about it.

I do apologise if my first post seemed to.... vehement. It's just I've seen the effects of foetal alcohol syndrome (FAS) firsthand.

Education about FAS is the major thing that will contribute to lowing the number of infants born with this syndrome.
For an example of the severity of FAS, see the attachment.

WARNING! the image below is NOT suitable for the faint of heart. It shows a severly deformed infant stillborn as a result of FAS

once again, I apologise if I seemed out of line.

[lawrocket 3]

Okay, Gary. Were you born before Dubya took office? Or before Clinton?

I thought James Watt did more to destroy the envirmonment than anyone. Were you born before him?

Were you born before the EPA was founded?

Also, why is my lady not allowed to eat shark meat, or any of a number of other types of seafood? Due to the high presence of mercury. Did Dubya put the mercury there? Are his enviornmental policies the reason why she should not eat shark, or more than 12 ounces of fish per week?

I know you love and adore your child. I love my son, too (it's gonna be a boy!
What is responsible for birth defects? This type of person and activities will cause birth defects in far greater proportion than Dubya. Drugs, alcohol, smoking. In other words, self abuse will cause more birth defects than Dubya's policies.

Also, age factors are probably the single most important regarding birth defects. With so many women waiting until 30's or 40's to have children, the incidence of birth defects skyrockets.

I am worried about the possibility of birth defects in my son, like a 1/240 chance of Down's syndrome. All I can say is, that isn't Dubya's fault, either.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[Nightingale 0]

um... no it doesn't.

The ova isn't released til the middle of the cycle. Ovulation occurs 14-16 days after the first day of menstruation. Most women bleed for 4-7 days. Therefore, ovulation occurs 7-10 days after the end of her period. At the normal start time of her next period, she'd be, at most, two weeks pregnant.

At least, that's what the internet said. Elfanie would probably know better.

[lawrocket 3]

I thought I'd make some comments here..

Quote

White House, EPA Move To Ease Mercury Rules
The Bush administration is working to undo regulations that would force power plants to sharply reduce mercury emissions and other toxic pollutants,
according to a government document and interviews with officials. (This is a fact of life. The government removes regulations and replaces them all the time)

EPA Led Mercury Policy Shift
For nearly 21 months, a government task force steadily moved toward recommending rules that within three years would force every coal-fired power plant in the country to reduce emissions of mercury, which can cause neurological and developmental damage to humans. (Curious - "steadily moved towards recommending" means they aren't quite willing to recommend the rules. It means there has been no recommendation)

Proposed Mercury Rules Bear Industry Mark
The Bush administration proposed new rules yesterday regulating power plants' mercury pollution, and some of the language is similar to recommendations from two memos sent to federal officials by a law firm representing the utility industry. (Here we have actual recommendations from one side, and none from the other)

Mercury Threat To Fetus Raised
A new government analysis nearly doubled the estimate of the number of newborn children at risk for health problems because of unsafe mercury levels in their blood. Environmental Protection Agency scientists said yesterday that new research had shown that 630,000 U.S. newborns had unsafe levels of mercury in their blood in 1999-2000. (Actually, a government could raise the poverty level to $50k per four person family, and report a dramiatic raise in people living in poverty)

My wife is hotter than your wife.

• Quote

[gary350 0]

Quote

once again, I apologise if I seemed out of line.

Not in the least! It is very clear that these issues deeply move you, and I certainly am empathetic and applaud you for it. Vehement? Great - you should be! Like the bumper sticker says, "If you're not outraged, you're not paying attention!" I deeply wish that kind of caring and concern was more prevalent in our society and certainly more in our current government. That's my point.

I support ALL efforts for the cause, and don't wish to take away from any of them. My goal was not to compare or say that any one avenue to help is more important than any other. It was simply to point out ONE critical, far-reaching way to help that some folks might not be considering. Yes, It happens to be "political", but will still have a huge effect on the cause.

[gary350 0]

Quote

I thought I'd make some comments here..

Thanks for engaging intelligently - replies are forming in my head but I can't play any more right now - back later.

(A boy - cool! I have both - boy almost 9, girl almost 12)

[gary350 0]

Quote

All I can say is, that isn't Dubya's fault, either.

Of course it's not his fault that smoking, drinking, drugs, or bad genetic luck cause birth defects. It's also not his fault that there is a certain level of mercury pollution in the water and in fish. He's not responsible for pollution and related birth defects that were happening when he took office.

But he IS responsible for the future.

Why not LOWER pollution for the benefit of ALL citizens?

Why make things WORSE??? Why???

The answer is simple, in three words - GREED, GREED, GREED.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

Why make things WORSE??? Why???

The answer is simple, in three words - GREED, GREED, GREED.

I agree with you. We don't want to make things worse.

Still, I don't want to have to work for a living, but I do work for a living. There are value judgments that must be made. Not all of us share the same values. Some truly believe that all forms of human progress must be stopped to return to a more natural coexistence with nature. Others believe "Screw the planet. We'll pollute whatever we can for the buck."

Still others, like Bush, believe that a middle ground must be found. That is all he is trying to do.

My wife is hotter than your wife.