AW: Mercury scam?

["Franz Schoenhofer" <franz.schoenhofer@CHELLO.AT>]

Dear JJ -Wasn't it Jerry?



Your contribution is on one side far off topic, on the other side it might

serve as a very good example for heavy metal poisoning, which is of much

importance compared with the impact of uranium on humans. It still seems not

to be known widely, that the chemotoxic effects of uranium (whatever isotope

composition!) are far more severe than the radiotoxic ones. (I exclude HEU.)



Regarding mercury I admit that my knowledge is restricted partly to long ago

reports that certain fish species (like tuna) accumulate heavy metals. The

terrible and unexcusable consequences of the Minamata-releases should be

known. To my knowledge not only mercury, but mostly cadmium was the culprit.



Mercury itself in a metallic state is not poisonous, because it is inert.

Its soluble compounds are poisonous. The same seem to be true for the usual

compounds of uranium - carbides, oxides etc. are practically not soluble.

The production of mercury per year worldwide cannot be correlated to a world

wide contamination.



In Sweden, I suppose also in the other northern European countries, a ban on

mercury releases to the hydrosphere was posed during the last decades.

Mercury compounds were used to prevent growth of fungi etc. in the pulp in

pulp and paper factories. Inshore lakes were actually heavily poisoned by

mercury and to my knowledge restricions on consumption of fish from such

lakes still apply. This has also to be seen in the context of acid rain.



So why should similar strict regulations should not be applied for

uranium???



Best regards,



Franz







-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----

Von: owner-radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu

[mailto:owner-radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu]Im Auftrag von jjcohen

Gesendet: Montag, 05. April 2004 17:35

An: radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu

Betreff: Mercury scam?





      Radsafers,

      There is an alarming story in today's newspaper about increasing

levels

  of mercury pollution in seafood causing many assorted ills including

autism

  in children. This prompted me to do a quick and dirty calculation which

  indicates that any increased mercury levels in seawater  have not resulted

  from human activities and may, in fact,  not have occurred at all..

  I would appreciate if someone would check out my logic and calculation to

  see if it is correct

  (it may be hard to believe, but I've been known to make mistakes).

      During the last few years the estimated worldwide production of

Mercury

  has been  about 1000 tons/a. Conservatively assuming that this rate of

  production had been going on for the last 1000 years, mankind has produced

  a total of about one million tons. Assuming that if instead of using this

  mercury for anything practical, it were all committed to waste and dumped

  into the ocean, it would only account for ~ 0.3 of 1.0% of current oceanic

  mercury levels.

  (The typical concentration of Hg in seawater is 0.0003ppm ( 0.3 mg/ton/).

  The total mass  of seawater is ~1.0 E 18 tons. Therefore, the total mass

of

  oceanic mercury would be ~ 300 million tons).

      If this assessment is anywhere near accurate it would mean that: (1)

The

  anthropic contribution to oceanic mercury levels is trivial, (2) whatever

  effect is being caused by oceanic mercury has been going on for centuries,

  and (3) the current hysteria has no logical basis.

  Is it possible that EPA is pulling another scam on the public  similar

that

  with low-dose radiation????





************************************************************************

You are currently subscribed to the Radsafe mailing list. To

unsubscribe, send an e-mail to Majordomo@list.vanderbilt.edu  Put the

text "unsubscribe radsafe" (no quote marks) in the body of the e-mail,

with no subject line. You can view the Radsafe archives at

http://www.vanderbilt.edu/radsafe/