How Do Scientists and the Media Magnify Mercury's Menace?

A thoughtful new analysis of the benefits of reducing public exposure to mercury adds to several studies suggesting that whatever it costs to make those cuts, either under the U.S. Mercury and Air Toxics Rule (MATS) or the international Minamata Convention, it's worth doing. But like that entire body of work, this new analysis is based on a controversial assumption about just how much harm mercury does in the first place. It turns out that this widely known and feared environmental bogeyman might not be as serious a danger as this new study suggests, which the environmental and science media are mostly failing to report. The study, by Amanda Giang and Noelle Selin of MIT, (summarized for non-academic speakers here, in full here) adds up all the health damage mercury is believed to do and assigns a dollar value to that harm. The study estimates that the cumulative value of the direct health benefits in the United States from the "Minamata" reductions total is a whopping $339 billion (2005 USD), with a range from $1.4 billion to $575 billion in our sensitivity scenarios. It also estimates the value to the U.S. economy from reducing the productivity losses caused when mercury pollution makes workers sick. Cumulative economy-wide benefits to the United States, realized by 2050, are $104 billion, with a range from $6 million to $171 billion. And compared to achieving reductions the "Minamata' way, the study says the value of the U.S. mercury rule is ten times greater. That's a ...
Source: Science - The Huffington Post - Category: Science Source Type: news