<A) The following is a worthwhile debunking of a myth


>
>And there's no evidence at all that mercury in dental fillings is harmful.

how a sentence like that is debunking a myth ? there is also no evidence
that grains are harmfull  ( peoples don't die from eating them )

jean-claude
>



>So what's Brodsky's mercury bill all about? He's doing the bidding of
extreme environmental activists - for whom mercury is another evil element,
like chlorine or lead, that must be banned from the periodic table.
>
>The last wave of this ridiculous campaign was a drive to limit mercury
emissions from electric power plants. Gov. Pataki blocked these efforts for
good reason: Not only are health effects from mercury in U.S. fish
questionable, but no one knows how much mercury in fish comes from power
plants. The uncertainty surrounding the mercury controversy is so great that
Congress barred EPA from regulating mercury from power plants until the NAS
reported on mercury, which it did last July.
>
>As noted above, the NAS reported no compelling reason to clamp down on
mercury sources. But science doesn't matter to enviro extremists or the
politicians who pander to them: They just went looking for a new line of
attack. Hence Brodsky's plan to force your dentist to terrorize you about
your mouth being a toxic waste site.
>
>Steven Milloy is publisher of Junkscience.com and an adjunct scholar with
the Cato Institute.

(from http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/opedcolumnists/22495.htm )