Utility plans added curbs on mercuryProposed coal-fired plant will have additional filter in stacks By Doug Pardue (Contact)
The Post and Courier
Wednesday, July 2, 2008
AP An artist's rendering of Santee Cooper's proposed coal-fired power plant in Florence County. Special ReportSantee Cooper plans to stick with its effort to build a proposed $1.25 billion coal-fired power plant in Florence County, but will install improved pollution controls to further reduce the amount of poisonous mercury sent up the stacks. At the same time, the state-owned energy company launched a public relations effort Tuesday called "The Real Story on Mercury," which is designed to portray the nation's coal-fired power plants as only a tiny part of the mercury pollution problem. In an updated analysis, Santee Cooper said the state's need for cheap electric power makes the coal plant the best short-term alternative. Without it, the company said, it will not have enough electricity to meet growth needs and "to ensure the lights remain on for all Santee Cooper's two million direct and indirect customers." The Florence plant on the Great Pee Dee River is planned to come online in 2013, just as the company's ability to meet needs would fall short. The company hopes to have a new nuclear power plant online by 2016 to provide for longer-term needs. Environmentalists accuse the company of trading the health and well-being of citizens for cheap power. That cheap power might end up being more costly, they say, as the nation moves toward stricter regulation of greenhouse gases, especially carbon, which coal-fired plants release in massive amounts. Blan Holman, an attorney with the Southern Environmental Law Center, called Santee Cooper's public relations campaign "nothing more than an effort to deflect blame from its role as the state's single biggest mercury emitter. ... No amount of public relations lipstick will make this pig pretty." Santee Cooper said the scrubbers at the Florence plant are state-of-the-art in reducing greenhouse gases. The company also reworked the plant's pollution controls to further reduce mercury releases by installing a fabric filter called a baghouse. That is expected to cut mercury releases to 57 pounds per generating unit per year, about a 95 percent removal. The company's early mercury scrubbing system would have removed an estimated 93 percent of the poisonous metal. Mercury is a powerful neuro-toxin, and even tiny amounts can cause numerous health problems, particularly in children. The amount of mercury in a thermometer could prove hazardous. Plans initially call for one generating unit at the facility, but a second one could be added. Previously, the plant received preliminary approval from state environmental regulators to release 69 pounds of mercury per unit. The plant is characterized by environmentalists as antiquated technology. Opposition to the plant mounted late last year after The Post and Courier ran a three-day series revealing that many people who ate fish from mercury-contaminated sections of the state's rivers have elevated levels of mercury in their systems. The biggest man-made cause of mercury pollution is coal-fired factories and power plants, according to studies. Santee Cooper revisited its mercury pollution-control proposal at the Florence plant earlier this year after a federal appeals court struck down the Bush administration's proposed "cap-and-trade" program, which would have allowed utilities to buy and sell mercury pollution credits. In effect, that program would have permitted the Pee Dee plant to release more mercury than the Environmental Protection Agency normally would allow. Consequently, Santee Cooper conducted a review of mercury releases and came up with the baghouse plan. In its "The Real Story on Mercury" effort, Santee Cooper emphasizes that "only about 1 percent of the entire world's mercury emissions are produced by U.S. power plants," and that the bulk comes from fast industrializing China and other Asian nations. The company also contends that local and regional mercury pollution may not be from a local or regional coal-fired plant, because mercury pollution can travel thousands of miles. However, several studies, including one this year by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, indicate that about half of mercury pollution in an area comes from nearby plants. Holman said Santee Cooper is using misleading information. "To suggest that most local mercury comes from coal plants in China rather than from mercury-belching plants in South Carolina defies common sense and sound science. Santee Cooper needs to help solve our state's mercury problem, not make it worse." Santee Cooper also said mercury is just one of life's risks. "We do not live in a perfect world," the company said. And just as there are risks in taking X-rays to help in medical diagnoses, "...when we turn on lights, air conditioners or computers, we need electrical power." Environmentalists counter, saying that is a bogus argument because Santee Cooper has rejected alternative forms of energy production that produce no or very little mercury pollution, such as gas-fired power plants. Late last year the U.S. Department of Interior urged Santee Cooper to abandon the coal-fired plant proposal for a cleaner one. Santee Cooper rejected the alternatives as experimental or impractical. Approval still depends on months of regulatory review. |
Article tools
| |||
|
Notice about comments: Charleston.net is pleased to offer readers the ability to comment on stories. We expect our readers to engage in lively, yet civil discourse. Charleston.net does not edit user submitted statements and we cannot promise that readers will not occasionally find offensive or inaccurate comments posted in the comments area. Responsibility for the statements posted lies with the person submitting the comment, not charleston.net. If you find a comment that is objectionable, please click "suggest removal" and we will review it for possible removal. Please be reminded, however, that in accordance with our Terms of Use and federal law, we are under no obligation to remove any third party comments posted on our website. Full terms and conditions can be read here. |
Comments
This article has 44 comment(s)
Posted by CharlestonJim on July 2, 2008 at 12:50 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I care about the Earth, but anything other than coal will cost 3 times as much. I think we lose sight of that sometimes, that the cure may be worse than the injury.
Posted by newbattleaxe on July 2, 2008 at 2:42 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Hear, hear, Jim!
I wonder how many of these "environmentalists" live without air conditioning, refrigerators, lights, stoves, etc."?
Posted by watchdog on July 2, 2008 at 7:46 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I thinks you fools are missing the point. We have better technology, so why not use it.Charleston Jim's lame excuse is the price tag, if we are speeding 1.2 billion, why not spend 20% more to do the right thing. The numbers do not matter. Do the math fool.
Posted by nikkiP on July 2, 2008 at 8:12 a.m. (Suggest removal)
watchdog, you really need to stop throwing the word "fool" around when getting into a discussion about this. What you have to say is absurd.
Money does matter. Duke power has already had to cut 500 people off of their power because they could not afford to pay their bills. Are you trying to say that the impoverished people aren't important?
The alternative technology you speak of is probably the wind, solar, etc. All of these are incredibly inefficient when you compare their output to the cost. Solar energy will never actually pay for itself. Wind energy costs a great deal of money, but the largest wind farm in the world is off the coast of sweden (norway? Somewhere around there.) and is only 180MW max. The smallest coal plants in SC put out that much almost constantly. There are too many variables that make the current technology of alternative energy unreliable.
Regarding nuclear, it is out best option. But the current price tag to start a plant with one reactor is actually $12B or more. And while Santee Cooper is still working with SCE&G on those plans, it's years away and people need to realize that we need power now. Why? Because people like to do things like leaving lights on when you don't need them, keeping the TV plugged in when no one is home, etc. A little inconvenience on your part (such as unplugging your cellphone charger when it's not in use) can help a little with energy bills and the generation.
And you do the math, what's 20% of 1.2 billion? Still a lot of money.
Posted by theronce on July 2, 2008 at 8:22 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I am sure that mercury is bad for us (as is just about everything that humans consume, expel, and manufacture). However, when I see articles like this, I remember as a kid in the mid to late 50's breaking thermometers to watch the stuff roll around. It was kind of neat to play with. Of course my mother would have put the belt or stick to us at the time, but sometimes I could get away with something. Also, I never thought about eating the leaded paint off the walls. I am as sure now as then that it probably would have tasted pretty bad and only one bite would have stopped me. But, dang, that mercury was fun to play with.
Posted by JOANITO on July 2, 2008 at 8:31 a.m. (Suggest removal)
To the elite at Santee Cooper:
Continued amateur grade fearmongering is not the answer needed to combat the public relations nightmare that this plant is creating for you. Your continued "lights might go out scenarios" are absurd.
How can Santee Cooper officials argue that this plant would be the cheapest alternative when
1. The price of coal has skyrocketed along with other commodities in the face of resurgent demand in worldwide markets. Cheap is not the word I would use to describe coal. It s a very inefficiently used fuel source. Typically only 35% of the heat generated from burning coal is actually converted to energy. The rest goes right out through the smokestack. So yes, it may be cheap, but look at the quality of what we're buying. It's toxic junk.
2. There is no credible long term scenario in which coal fueled polluters will face LESS regulation and fewer penalties for continuing their massive assault on air quality and the health of the general public and ecosytems.
3. It's only a matter of time until very large class action personal injury/mercury contamination lawsuits are filed against Santee Cooper and other heavy mercury polluters and DHEC for permitting this nonsense. It happened with big tobacco didn't it, and the victims in that case chose to smoke. Nobody has gone on record yet saying that they chose to be poisoned by mercury fallout along with the rest of their family and neighborhood. What happens when mercury related claims are denied coverage by health insurers who will undoubdetedly lable poison vicitims as having pre-existing conditions. The largest flood insurers have left the highest risk coastal areas in droves. Why won't health insurers leave highly contaminated areas (mercury triangle) which can't prove profitable for them to cover based on the inconveniently higher number of claims that will surely come out of these areas, and I'm not even touching Asthma and other particulate related claims and lawsuits.
4. Has the "lights might go out scenario" been recalibrated to reflect a depression in the housing and construction markets? Is growth still occuring at breakneck pace in the lowcountry?
5. Even the Federal government, a long time staunch ally of the heaviest industrial polluters, has gone on record against this plant as it is planned.
Does anyone still think that Santee Cooper's outdated stubborn support to this filth belching antique will be "cheap" as we look into the future?
Other than nuclear, I don't know what the answer is, but COAL is antiquated filthy junk that only solves a perceived profit margin issue for Santee Cooper, and does nothing to solve the long term needs of this state as we look into the future. Do we realy want to continue trading the health of the general public and ecosystems for the profits (which the public will never see a penny of) of an obsolete dinosaur of a company?
Posted by theronce on July 2, 2008 at 9:06 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Hundreds of thousands of campfires is preferrable to this?
Posted by common_sense on July 2, 2008 at 9:12 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Joanito (you mexican or something?), thanks for your diatribe, but next time, offer a solution to go along with your rant. You'll be taken more seriously next time.
I'm just sayin...
Posted by JOANITO on July 2, 2008 at 9:20 a.m. (Suggest removal)
common_sense:
At the bottom of my post I did offer at least 1 very common_sense solution. Let's all say it together:
NOOKYUHLER.
Did your obvious ethnic bias keep you from reading that far?
Posted by common_sense on July 2, 2008 at 9:24 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Sorry, i'm trying to get past your apparent political biases. Now where's your green card?
I'm just sayin...
Posted by JOANITO on July 2, 2008 at 9:38 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Green Card? I don't need no stinkin' green card. I'm a U.S. citizen. Native born right here in the Dirty South. I don't have any political bias. I think most of the politicos in both parties are useless. I do have a serious bias on energy policy. I tend to favor conservation, efficiency and innovative policy as opposed to pointing to the failures of the past as a solution for the future.
Posted by 512c on July 2, 2008 at 9:59 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I hope you all visit mountain top removal . org to see where this "clean" energy will be arriving from.
I for one hope that each designer out there today, being asked to build a house in the wood formerly known as green, will refuse. I hope that each house, if built, has its own low voltage LED light system, which could be powered by their car at night (battery), and by solar during the day, and by wind at all times. Screw large plants that kill the mountains (all over the world). They are stupid. They only benefit large plants like DOW.
Posted by Native_Ink on July 2, 2008 at 10:29 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Dozens of states have turned down coal-powered plants recently. This plant, I think, might be the only new one to go up in America. Once again, South Carolina will be the laughing stock of the country.
By the way, I was raised here, and I'll never stop being amazed at how South Carolina seems to just be one big "company town." We're just a bunch of well-trained, lapdog hicks. Whatever the bossman says must be right!
Posted by zoomru on July 2, 2008 at 10:32 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Hey SANTEE....Its the PAYOFF...STUPID!!!
This story should be statewide.
This has nothing to do with CLEAN coal you FOOLS. Its about jobs you dummies. You are bending over for Senatoro Roberto Byrd and South America instead of focusing on the NUCLEAR JOBS right here in OUR state you "Sandinistas"!! Why don't you try to put that COAL plant in Gaffney instead of the blind PEE DEE region your pulling the WOOL over!! If you were so concerned about good stewardship, you ...YES you CEO and Board members would be concerned not only with you r hallowed BOTTOM LINE but the future generations of your employees and customers. You would be fighting PUBLICLY...yes publicly to TAP all forms of energy! ALL !!!
Clean Coal is fine ..BUT...BUT --- when we have 34 tons of NUCLEAR fuel in Aiken there is only one answer...PAYOFF !!
Suckers....you don't FOOL Me !!!! Every politician running for election will face this issue for not standing up and calling for an investigation in PRINT.
We as customers will pay the rate no matter which plant is built...SO ...it better be Nuclear. It benefits South Carolina JOBS !!!!
Posted by 512c on July 2, 2008 at 10:33 a.m. (Suggest removal)
They have apparently already bought many parts and materials and are storing them on the site.
Not just Coal, but our current federal gov is determined and has started pumping oil in many state nature reserves, without permission from populous. So, as it goes, we are moving backwards in technology and extremely fast towards fascism.
Posted by dmwallac on July 2, 2008 at 10:40 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Joanito, you are so uninformed it is maddening.
New records for peak generation demand on SC utilities have been set each of the last several years, and, despite your blind and baseless dismissal of the point, growth continues in the state and demand continues to increase, so yes, the lights will go off if more generation is not produced.
Or bought. Yes, we could have Santee Cooper, when they come up short in a few years, just buy power from utilities in nearby states who will allow new power plants. Of course it will drive up power bills in the state because it will cost more. But at least we won't be spewing greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere. The gasses will be spewed, on our behalf, by neighboring states, into said atmosphere.
Nuclear is also in the works, but it takes longer. The projection for growth demands more generation now (coal) AND also later (nuclear).
And your rant about profits. Santee cooper is non-profit. Their savings on cost of generation are reflected in their customers bills in the form of rates and fuel adjustments.
Gas is over $4/gal. Power bills are already up. People are struggling to make ends meet. Thanks for you help.
Posted by dmwallac on July 2, 2008 at 10:45 a.m. (Suggest removal)
512,
China is buying that coal, and will continue to do so, increasingly. Oh, and they don't use scrubbers to reduce plant emissions...
Posted by Early on July 2, 2008 at 10:45 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Melody
money, money, money, money,,,,,,money!
Let me ask, with the largest decrease in housing in 30 years, why the rush?
57 POUNDS of mercury a year, a 40 year life span, that 1200 POUNDS of mercury which most will effect the general area, WOW!!!!
Posted by JOANITO on July 2, 2008 at 10:57 a.m. (Suggest removal)
dmwallac
Speed up nuclear. Forget about coal. If coal's really the answer, why are proposed coal fired plants getting scrapped around the country in the permitting process?
All we do by continuing in our failure to heed common sense is worsen the pollution epidemic we will hand off to our kids. It sounds like that's ok with you, so long as you can pump cheap gas into a bloated gas tank and have cheap electricity to pump through a grid that needs to be updated into houses that waste energy like it's still cheap. Sounds like you're part of the me generation.
In my mind we've already handed future generations trillions of dollars in debt, and I don't think that getting "cheap" juice at the expense of future generations is making things any better.
Also, we are to blame for $4.00 gas as well.
Welcome to the new world order,
now quietly take your place in line
Posted by zoomru on July 2, 2008 at 10:59 a.m. (Suggest removal)
When VOTERS realize the TAX REVENUE and jobs that are being sent OUT of State. There are NO coal MINES or MINERS .....HERE !!! We have ...you guessed it...NUCLEAR !!
Both Democrats and Republicans will get CREAMED!!!
Posted by ceecee on July 2, 2008 at 12:04 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Dearest Joanito,
I for one don't think your name is "American" sounding enough to listen too. I think we should just build a fence around this site to keep you out. (or at least in the areas where you are most likely to sneak in)
As for coal being abandoned, please wake up from your dream and do like I am going to. I plan on having my windows and children’s cribs retro-fitted with the scrubbers from Santee's plant. I mean hell I've already racked up thousands of dollars in credit card debt issued in my kids name the scrubbers are the least i can do. That 95% removal sounds pretty good, this way I will have 190% removed. As for the 5% that escapes at least you won't have to spend money on local fish to get your recommended allowance of mercury.
Posted by dmwallac on July 2, 2008 at 1:04 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Joanito,
Pretty high-minded aren't we? Lumping me as part of the "me" generation as you sit there in your air-conditioned space typing away on your computer, causing coal to be burned, and touting a solution that saddles "future generations" with nuclear waste.
Moving away from gasoline and from coal as energy sources are not the simplistic "cold turkey" exercises you suggest. Building more coal plants (and more gas-powered cars) is something we have to do in the short term. Nuclear power is helpful, but not without its own problems. If we can create more efficient coal plants (and more fuel-efficient gas-powered cars) then so much the better. Taking your hard line is equivilant to suggesting we just stop burning coal in the existing coal plants. In fact they are far dirtier than ones being designed today. SC is not the only state building them, look it up. And by the way, if the US were to stop burning coal, Economics 101 here, then the descreased demand would drop the price of coal for countries such as China who burn without scrubbers and with no regard for environmental issues. Coal is an energy source in an energy demanding world. It will be burned.
And although there is no way that we could be as important a generation as your "future generations" we are a generation saddled with the burdens of coal and gas passed on from prior generations. And whether "we" are to blame for $4 gas or not doesn't make it any easier for our poor to pay for it along with their higher power bills as they try to raise their "future generations."
Posted by MindBath on July 2, 2008 at 1:26 p.m. (Suggest removal)
So BUILDING "clean" coal plants is part of a move AWAY from our dependence on coal???
Posted by Newt on July 2, 2008 at 1:30 p.m. (Suggest removal)
ceecee?! Wow that was harsh and to say it to another American! Hey, what is your back ground? Irish, Italian, German? Unless you say Native American you have no right to build a fence or boot anyone out of this country for using their first amendment right!
Mercury is bad…its bad in the water supply, it’s bad in our fish and it is really bad when you ingest it!
Just saying…….
Posted by dmwallac on July 2, 2008 at 1:34 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Posted by MindBath on July 2, 2008 at 1:26 p.m.
So BUILDING "clean" coal plants is part of a move AWAY from our dependence on coal???
YES!!!
And before you ask...
Yes. BUILDING the Toyota Prius is a move AWAY from our dependence on OIL.
Posted by JOANITO on July 2, 2008 at 1:39 p.m. (Suggest removal)
ceecee,
For once I got nothin'. Touché.
One question though: To whom would you award the contract to build said virtual fence? Will you outsource to the Indian sub-continent?
I like your Government Accounting Office style math. I am sure that I can apply the same precise techniques to convince myself that trillions in national debt are, in actuality, a whopping surplus.
Posted by ceecee on July 2, 2008 at 1:54 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Newt,
I am not sure that the first or any amendment has jurisdiction over the internet but I will need to ask Al Gore.
As for my background I am actually Native meximerican with Eskimo roots and as soon as I figure out a way to perfect my cyber fence your out too, your typing just sounds ethnic.
Anymore negative feedback from you and I will make sure you cannot get any scrubbers from Santee.
COAL! COAL! COAL! Coal = American. If you don’t like coal you are obviously not American.
Posted by Newt on July 2, 2008 at 2:12 p.m. (Suggest removal)
ceecee - white as the driven snow! And your racist bigoted comments only hurt your cause.
So, no one of color should be allowed in America? Is that what you are saying?
First Amendment pertains to all Medias.
COAL COAL COAL = short sightedness and who are you to say who's American?
Posted by ceecee on July 2, 2008 at 2:30 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Newt,
You must have Al Gore on speed dial. Are you trying to break my cyber heart or what?
Geeze! I feel bad enough being Native Meximerican (with Eskimo roots). Back off.
Joanito,
I think you and I might be able to sit and have a Pabst Blue Ribbon after all.
I would only give the contract for the cyber fence to someone that could efficiently emit mercury and build the fence simultaneously. I might even leave a little 5’2” space for you to sneak back into but Newt is out! Your right about my math style I can’t take credit for that. Our government deserves all the props for that. It helps me sleep at night when I think about our nation’s debt (and mine).
Posted by Newt on July 2, 2008 at 2:34 p.m. (Suggest removal)
BOO HOO you and Jane must be buds. He's a cry baby too!
Posted by ceecee on July 2, 2008 at 2:43 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Newt,
You mean to tell me you have been breaking more than one heart with your mental ninja skillz? You might want to tone down your wit a little before someone hurts themselves. Great now I have to try and find this jane character and make sure she isn't in some cyber asylum.
I hope your happy.
Posted by Newt on July 2, 2008 at 3:04 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Jane is a guy and he has little balls to play with....but don't take them away or say they aren't pretty or he will boohoo.
He says I'm mean.....now that hurts my feelings.
Posted by JOANITO on July 2, 2008 at 3:45 p.m. (Suggest removal)
dmwallace,
I don't quite agree with you on clean coal, but I have to admit your stance is more realistic than mine, unfortunatley for me. I have cut back considerably on the A.C. thank you very much. But when I go solar, it's on like donkey kong. I'm talkin meat locker.
Newt,
I didn't say anything about you being mean. However, I think your use of vulgarity and sexist inuendo is inappropriate for this venue.
ceecee, thanks for breaking a fairly normal conversation down to degenerate filth.
Joanito has left the building
Posted by Newt on July 2, 2008 at 4:04 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Joan - boo hoo - you are a cry baby as well!! I could care less if anyone is offended....some of the shicrap you people spew offends me every day!
I said JANE not YOU!
Posted by ForPnC on July 2, 2008 at 4:20 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Off topic, kind of. It does have to do with energy.
I got home and in my mailbox were two energy efficient light bulbs courtesy of Berkeley Electric Company. Is this what the raise in rates is for? To mail everyone friggin' lightbulbs?! Let them buy their own! I can buy them cheaper at Sam's Club!
btw - I already use these types of bulbs.
Posted by singleroni on July 2, 2008 at 4:37 p.m. (Suggest removal)
JOANITO IS AN IDIOT. DON'T SHE KNOW WE ARE ON A EARTHQUAKE FAULT ? THAT WOULD BE GOOD WITH NUCLEAR REACTOR.
Posted by Badgersouth on July 2, 2008 at 4:39 p.m. (Suggest removal)
The construction of a coal-fired power plant in Georgia was halted Monday when a judge ruled that the plant’s builders must first obtain a permit from state regulators that limits the amount of carbon dioxide emissions.
Chalk one up for humanity and future generations!
Posted by auger on July 2, 2008 at 5:12 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Mercury gets a bad rap. We use to buy vials of it at the local pharmacy when I was a kid and we would roll it from hand to hand (much like one would do with a slinky) and it never caused a single proll, probble, prell, pribblee, prolem, problm, problem for me!
Posted by ceecee on July 2, 2008 at 5:17 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Well done Newt. Now you are getting it.
Posted by ceecee on July 2, 2008 at 5:23 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I don’t know why but I get the feeling singleroni IS SCREAMING AT HIS COMPUTER! Easy big fella we wouldn't want an earthquake in your brain.
We might as well build a nuclear plant it has been so long since an earthquake it will probably separate us from the rest of the continent.
Posted by auger on July 2, 2008 at 5:32 p.m. (Suggest removal)
A single option will not solve our problems. We need to employ them all, we need to employ them NOW! The longer we put it off, the worse the shortages.
Ps. Spent 22 years riding nuclear submarines. Never ran short of power and never saw even a hint of danger from that power source. Most civilian plants employ ex-Navy nuke trained personnel. It IS the best answer in the long term.
Posted by zoomru on July 2, 2008 at 7:31 p.m. (Suggest removal)
AUGER..... I nominate you to the Chairman of the Board of Santee. These guys are looney..you mean we have fuel in Aiken and want to Rail in COAL? I know it may be a few years before the fuel facility is ready but I'm sure we can make do. Ok ...so we have a brown out in the dead of summer...maybe it will give a wake up call to us ALL ...just how valuable our COOPs are to US. I'll take a power brown out vs years of COAL spew.
PEE DEE ...Auger and I have your back!!
Posted by moonpie on July 2, 2008 at 8:02 p.m. (Suggest removal)
WE ARE ALL PRODUCTS OF OUR ENVIRONMENT. I'M NOT ONE OF THE "GREENIES" OUT THERE BUT WE WOULD HAVE TO ALL AGREE SOMETHING IS WRONG AND I THINK MAN HAS SOMETHING TO DO WITH IT. LOOK AT HOW MANY PEOPLE YOU KNOW THAT HAVE AUTO IMMUNE DISEASES, KIDS WITH AUTUSIM, ETC ,ETC. THIS IS JUST COMMON SENSE TO LOOK AT WHAT WE ARE DOING TO THE WORLD WE LIVE IN. DON'T KNOW IF THESE THINGS ARE COORELATED BUT MERCURY IS BAD STUFF. I HAVE TO ASK WHY DID BERKELY ELECTRIC COOP SEND ME 3 PACKS OF THE LITTLE MERCURY FILLED LIGHT BULBS IF I CAN'T DISPOSE OF THEM IN THE NORMAL WAY?? TWO WRONGS DON'T MAKE A RIGHT.
Posted by auger on July 2, 2008 at 8:18 p.m. (Suggest removal)
moonpie, All caps in a reply expend more resources than normal replies. That and the fact most folks ignore all CAP posts! I didn't read it, just reply when I see one.