Currently in Indiana, there is discussion about what rule may be adopted to limit mercury emissions from power plants. Indiana is the fourth highest emitter of mercury in the country. Even though several other states are working towards a 90% reduction in mercury emissions, many in Indiana simply want to stay with the federal plan, which would reduce mercury only by 66%. It seems pretty much common knowledge that mercury is a toxin and that eating large amounts of fish containing it can cause health problems, such as decreased I.Q., particularly in children. In our generation of power using coal-fired power plants, have we forgotten that we are emitting tremendous amounts of this toxin that make our fish unsafe to eat? Mercury is known to deposit in waterways and travel up the food chain. Why is a less than 90% reduction acceptable to so many, knowing that this toxin can affect our children's mental development?

Mercury is an example of a very negative by-product of cheap coal power. Many modern pollution controls do little to control mercury emissions and as such, utilities cannot say that scrubbers make coal clean. If we are going to continue our use of coal, even in the short term, utilities should be forced to take measures to reduce mercury by 90%. Contrary to what some utilities represent, these reductions can be achieved with certain devices without a huge cost burden being passed onto the consumer. In my mind, resistance to the use of alternative energy should not mean that fossil fuels can be consumed as they have been in the past. In other words, even our rather archaic use of coal needs to be brought into the 21st century to limit the emissions and consequent health problems to the public.