So, I’m paging though Obama’s list of authored bills and I find the Mercury Market Minimization Act of 2007 which seeks, in Obama’s words:
To prohibit the sale, distribution, transfer, and export of elemental mercury, and for other purposes.
Jeeze Louise. Mercury is one of the most widely used elements. I can’t see how we can possibly get by without it. The major source of mercury contamination in fish, which the bill cites as the major harm, is the burning of coal. The idea that we can just do away with one of the periodic elements is just nuts. Hell, we use tons and tons of arsenic every year. The use of mercury is never going away.
And as a parting touch, Obama tosses in a little technological imperialism:
banning exports of mercury from the United States will have a notable affect on the market availability of mercury and switching to affordable mercury alternatives in the developing world.
In other words, if a Third World country cannot use cutting edge technology then they can just do without.
Humm, let’s review.
The US does not supply mercury to the world. The world needs mercury. Mercury is an element. Will another country step forward to supply the demand for mercury? Seems to me it would and in short order since a shortage of mercury would move the price up.
Count him clueless on chemistry and more clueless on economics.
the link to Obama’s bills doesn’t work.
try this link
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/?&Db=d110&querybd=@FIELD(FLD003+@4((@1(Sen+Obama++Barack))+01763))
“a notable affect on the market availability”?
Surely an editor of the Harvard Law Review knows it’s “effect,” not “affect.”
Barak *must* have voted against this years energy bill which mandated replacing mercury-free incandescent light bulbs with mercury-laced compact flurescent bulbs. To do anything else would be… blatent hypocrisy comes to mind.