Originally published June 4 2014
Why is Obama concerned about mercury in coal power plants but not in vaccines?
by Ethan A. Huff, staff writer
(NaturalNews) The Obama administration's war on carbon is advancing the battle lines to coal production, with a new proposal by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to attain a 30 percent reduction in carbon dioxide emissions from energy production by 2030. Based on the premise that natural carbon is causing man-made global warming, the proposal aims to push energy companies to invest more in renewable energy technologies and cut pollutants like arsenic and mercury from the equation.
According to The Wall Street Journal (WSJ), the new rules would apply to hundreds of fossil fuel energy plants across the country, including 600 coal-fired power plants. Though carbon emissions have been steadily dropping on their own since 2005, the EPA's requirements would forcibly restrict carbon output and force energy producers to participate in new cap-and-trade programs with set limits on carbon release.
"Each state will have different reduction standards, and the national average will be 25% by 2020 and 30% by 2030," explains WSJ, noting that further details about the plan have yet to be unveiled. "The rule gives states and companies as many as 15 years to comply."
The plan coincides with a recent ruling by a federal appeals court upholding EPA-proposed rules from 2011 which aim to curb the release of mercury, lead, arsenic and other heavy metals and pollutants from coal and oil burners. Those rules were set in motion by the Obama administration on the basis that mercury is a highly toxic poison that harms children, particularly during early childhood development.
"Mercury is a potent neurotoxicant," explains a report by the Environment America Research & Policy Center. "Mercury exposure during critical periods of brain development can contribute to irreversible deficits in verbal skills, damage to attention and motor control, and reduced IQ."
Mercury is okay in childhood vaccines, but not in coal power plants This is all true, of course, and fully substantiates the administration's move to limit mercury exposure from air pollution by 90 percent or more in the coming years. What does not make sense, however, is why Obama has remained completely silent about the continued use of mercury in childhood vaccines, which is a much more significant threat due to concentrated doses of this chemical being injected directly into children's muscle tissue.
As we recently reported, batch flu vaccines pushed on young children and pregnant mothers are loaded with mercury. The popular influenza vaccine FluLaval, made by drug giant GlaxoSmithKline, for instance, was found by the Natural News Forensic Food Lab to contain mercury at levels of up to 51 parts per million. This is more than 25,000 times greater than the maximum contaminant level for inorganic mercury in drinking water set by the EPA.
Breathing in mercury from the air or consuming it in tainted fish each comes with their own respective risks. But having mercury injected directly into muscle tissue is a whole different animal, and regulators have been mysteriously silent on the immense risks associated with this common practice, including the likelihood that elemental mercury will cross the blood-brain barrier and accumulate in brain tissue.
"[T]himerosal [is] a mercury-based preservative with a highly questionable history," explains the Alliance for Natural Health USA (ANH-USA) about the mercury component of vaccines. "[A] 2009 study published in the journal Toxicological & Environmental Chemistry found that thimerosal induces neural damage similar to that seen in autism patients--even in low levels."
Visit Vaccines.NaturalNews.com and HeavyMetals.NaturalNews.com for more information and breaking news on vaccines and heavy metals such as mercury, respectively.
Sources for this article include:
All content posted on this site is commentary or opinion and is protected under Free Speech. Truth Publishing LLC takes sole responsibility for all content. Truth Publishing sells no hard products and earns no money from the recommendation of products. NaturalNews.com is presented for educational and commentary purposes only and should not be construed as professional advice from any licensed practitioner. Truth Publishing assumes no responsibility for the use or misuse of this material. For the full terms of usage of this material, visit www.NaturalNews.com/terms.shtml