Media Bias, Healthy and Rampant

[The American]

A few highlights;

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.

[PatrickHenry]

Why did it take so long to get a measure of protection against mercury?

[gr8fuldaniel]

Why is this in FlameFest?

Two years ago EPA officials had been on track to require each power plant to reduce mercury emissions by as much as 90 percent by 2008. Under pressure from power companies and the coal industry, the administration scrapped that idea in favor of a trading system in which some plants cut emissions while others keep polluting as long as overall mercury levels decline

Why in the hell did the Bush Crime Family not stay the course and reduce emissions by 90% by 2008?
Corporate control of our pinhead in chief. Bush is a mere puppet whose puppeteers are willing to murder millions for profit.

[The American]

Quote by: gr8fuldaniel Why is this in FlameFest?Why in the hell did the Bush Crime Family not stay the course and reduce emissions by 90% by 2008? Corporate control of our pinhead in chief. Bush is a mere puppet whose puppeteers are willing to murder millions for profit.

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. Trig.

That's why. It is the first federal regulations put in place, there have been state regulations, but not federal. Why is it not enough? Its funny how some slam people for doing something good, and in the right direction. Focus on the media is bias.

[The American]

Quote by: PatrickHenry Why did it take so long to get a measure of protection against mercury?

Maybe it was not thought of great importance?

[PatrickHenry]

Yeah, I guess those womb-bound children who are too valuable to abort are still not worth protecting from dangerous mercury...

Until March 15, 2005. Now maybe the levels in the environment will drop. But it's still two years after the rule would have come down had it not been for Bush's energy "friends."

The EPA's own Children's Health Protection Advisory Committee urged the agency several times during the past year to reconsider a trading system for mercury. The rule "does not sufficiently protect our nation's children," the committee wrote to top EPA officials.