Environmental Reporting

I read today that USGS scientists have discovered abnormally high levels of methyl mercury in the Great Salt Lake and that they are worried. http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=1894&e=4&u=/ap/20050222/ap_on_sc/mercury_pollution

Interesting to note that the report indicates that there is no known affect of the 25 nanograms/L Me2Hg in the water. The brine shrimp are doing fine and there has been no waterfowl poisonings, no human or animal deaths or disease. The article has an abundance of "might's" and "worried" and other qualifiers. They do not opine as to where the mercury came from: is it naturally occurring or anthropogenic? And, by the way, you can eat the salt from this "poisoned water." The article makes the usual chemophobic splash without saying anything of consequence other than USGS scientists are surprised at the levels found. They don't even opine as to whether this is increasing over a period of years, or not. Maybe the Salt Lake Tribune should hire an environmental reporter who actually took a science class and knew some half-way intelligent questions to ask.