[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Mercury scam?
> In Sweden.............................
There is an old IAEA TECDOC, unfortunately not possible to download
Mercury Contamination in Man and His Environment
Technical Reports Series No. 137, 1972
Recently
Clearing Up the Past, Protecting the Present,
http://www.iaea.org/NewsCenter/News/2003/11-167147.shtml
International Conference on Isotopic and Nuclear Analytical Techniques for Health and Environment
............................................................................
Using nuclear analysis as a tool to look at the past is just one of many items on the conference's agenda. A major focus of the conference is aimed at the present, particularly on how nuclear analysis can protect people's health and the environment.
Such was the case in a small fishing village in Minamata Bay, Japan. Analysis of villagers' hair using nuclear techniques revealed their diets were high in fish contaminated by mercury. Industrial dumping of the metal caused birth defects and up to 108 deaths in the village.
Intention 2004 the Publication of Proceedings - International Journal of Analytical and Bioanalytical Chemistry
........................................................................................
Jose Julio Rozental
joseroze@netvision.net.il
Israel
----- Original Message -----
From: "Franz Schoenhofer" <franz.schoenhofer@CHELLO.AT>
To: "jjcohen" <jjcohen@PRODIGY.NET>; <radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu>
Sent: Tuesday, April 06, 2004 2:33 AM
Subject: AW: Mercury scam?
> 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/
>
>