When the Environmental Protection Agency unveiled a rule last week to limit mercury emissions from U.S. power plants, officials emphasized that the controls could not be more aggressive because the cost to industry already far exceeded the public health payoff.Hey, I'm sure it was an accident. Anyone can make a mistake, or lie or cheat or falsify.
What they did not reveal is that a Harvard University study paid for by the EPA, co-authored by an EPA scientist and peer-reviewed by two other EPA scientists had reached the opposite conclusion.
That analysis estimated health benefits 100 times as great as the EPA did, but top agency officials ordered the finding stripped from public documents, said a staff member who helped develop the rule. Acknowledging the Harvard study would have forced the agency to consider more stringent controls, said environmentalists and the study's author.
- EPA: Too Much Mercury? Too Bad, December 16, 2003
- Unprecidented, But Not Surprising: Industry Lobbyists Write EPA Mercury Rule, March 16, 2004
- Well, This is a Surprise! EPA Distorted Mercury Analysis, GAO Says, March 8, 2005
- EPA Sells Mercury Pollution, March 15, 2005