On Saturday the New York Times editorialized on the issue of mercury emissions from America’s coal-fired power plants in the wake of a decision by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to begin a rulemaking that could result in reducing emissions from coal-fired power plants by 90%.

At first blush a fairly innocuous topic that most readers support but the Times choose to once again toe the activist line when it comes to mercury and fish when it wrote: “Mercury is a toxin that has been found in increasingly high concentrations in fish and poses human health risks, including neurological disorders in children.”

Two problems here: first, it fails to make a distinction between fresh water fish and seafood. That’s important, as we’ve pointed out time and again, because fish from lakes and inland waterways are indeed affected by industrial emissions of mercury. However, as we’ve also pointed out, the vast majority of the trace amounts of mercury found in seafood is naturally-occurring and is the result of underwater volcanic activity. And despite what ever-vigilant Times-worshiping eco-extremists will tell you that isn’t just a line dreamt up by the seafood community, it’s also a contention that a California appeals court agreed with when it ruled earlier this year that tuna sold in the state didn’t need to carry a warning label.

Secondly, because the paper mentions how exposure to mercury can cause neurological disorders in children right after the reference to fish, it’s almost as if the editorial is designed to conflate one issue with another, even though there’s never been a documented case of mercury poisoning from the normal consumption of commercial seafood in the U.S. I guess we shouldn’t be surprised considering the track record of errors the newspaper has piled up on this issue, but after a while, you’d think they’d bother to get the facts right, or at least not endeavor to confuse, rather than clarify the issueeven in an editorial.

Perhaps the Old Gray Ladys low omega-3 intake is affecting her memory.