A few highlights;
Quote:
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/n...ationworld-hed
U.S. issues new mercury limits, draws criticism
By Michael Hawthorne
Tribune staff reporter
Published March 16, 2005
Mercury pollution from coal-fired power plants will gradually drop nationwide under a rule issued Tuesday by the Bush administration, but critics say the limits don't go far enough or fast enough to protect the public from exposure to the toxic metal.
Environmental groups and public-health advocates say it could take decades before Illinois and other states can stop advising people to limit consumption of fish contaminated with mercury in the Great Lakes and other bodies of water in the Midwest.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency billed the long-awaited rule as the first national limit on the largest manmade sources of mercury, a neurotoxin that can irreversibly damage the brain before birth and cause developmental problems later in life. The agency estimates more than 15 percent of the children born in the United States each year are exposed to dangerous levels of mercury in the womb, most of it from fish eaten by their mothers.
|
The first ever federal limits imposed on the energy industry and on industry in general regarding mercury polluting. This adminstration the left is claiming is ruining the world, is actually putting restrictions and regulations in place. It is the first ever to limit a toxic byproduct. But, the article is not headloned as "Bush Administration The First Ever to Place Federal Limits on Mercury Production!" But it sure does include a less relevent point about some environmental groups that are ticked off because it didn't go far enough.
What is the importance on the views expressed by these environmental groups? What really is the headline, and how should this story have been headlined and written? The part about the protesting environmentalists really should be a side note near the end of the article, as the meat of the article should be focused on policy, the history of mercury - the science of it, and so forth. Center on fact, and use periphial vision to include the protest. It is a step in the right direct, yet the slam remains as "not enough". Will the media ever learn? Another attack for something in the right direction, invisioned as good.