New mercury rules would ban thermometers, batteries

[Urbane]

I think it is ridiculous to ban more mercury filled products while at the same time forcing people to use mercury filled lightbulbs. And how politicians can defend doing so while keeping a straight face absolutely amazes me.

I believe forcing people to switch to mercury filled lightbulbs is more about someone making money manufacturing and selling these particular lightbulbs, than it is about the environment. There's lots of evidence to suggest that the negative aspects of these bulbs cancels out the positive aspects, yet the government is still plowing ahead with the change. And to heck with the opinions of all the thousands of folk who disagree! After all, why should they listen to us? All we do is pay their wages!!!!!!!

Absolutely. And you'd better not break one of the CFL bulbs:

http://www.epa.gov/cfl/cflcleanup.html

[gardengirl]

Composite fillings are plastic. There has not been any longterm studies on the health effects of that.
Silver amalgam fillings have been around for over a hundred years.

http://www.deltadentalins.com/oral_health/amalgam.html

Point being? This topic is in regards to the gov't wanting to place MORE regulations to help curb the spread of mercury.

mercury amalgum - deemed safe enough for humans - CONTAIN mercury (thus increasing the chances of more mercury in the environment - gov't says OK)

composite fillings (resin) - deemed safe enough for humans - contains NO MERCURY

Why does the gov't who is cracking down on mercury not concern themselves on the biggest environmental introduction of mercury?

53% of TOTAL mercury emmisions are from dental usage so why is the gov't going after thermometers and batteries yet completely ignoring the main culprit - (personal cost has never been of great concern to the gov't when they are looking out for our safety so i am sure keeping a cheaper dental alternative is not the reasoning)

Why - after making CFL mandatory (which will potentially increase the mercury into the environment by improper disposal) are they going after batteries and thermometers?

Is there ANY sense to be made of this?

Where do you get your statistics from? I find it extremely hard to believe that dentistry uses more mercury than any other profession or industry in the world. As far as using the word "emissions", please define that as related to dentistry.

[Corneliousrooster]

Where do you get your statistics from? I find it extremely hard to believe that dentistry uses more mercury than any other profession or industry in the world. As far as using the word "emissions", please define that as related to dentistry.

The World Health Organization - http://www.who.int/water_sanitation_hea ... lpaper.pdf

All the answers to your above questions should be answered here.

[gardengirl]

Nope.

Nowhere does it say that Dentistry is responsible for 53% of worldwide mercury use.

It also does not address what happens to the mercury vapour once the mercury is mixed with the metals and it has set.
As for disposal, dental offices have a trap which catches the removed filling materials so they can be placed into a special container. These containers are taken to or picked up by companies for appropriate disposal.

The fillings do not do into the drain or the landfill.

[Corneliousrooster]

Nowhere does it say that Dentistry is responsible for 53% of worldwide mercury use.

Chapter 2

"Together, mercury contained in dental amalgum and in laboratory and medical devices, account for about 53% of the total mercury emissions."

The fillings do not do into the drain or the landfill.

Yes, they get vaporized in your mouth by a drill when they remove them - bon apetite

[gardengirl]

Nowhere does it say that Dentistry is responsible for 53% of worldwide mercury use.

Chapter 2

"Together, mercury contained in dental amalgum and in laboratory and medical devices, account for about 53% of the total mercury emissions."

The fillings do not do into the drain or the landfill.

Yes, they get vaporized in your mouth by a drill when they remove them - bon apetite

They are not vapourized. Where are you getting this BS?
Most dentists use a rubber dam which prevents any particulate from being aspirated. The drill sprays water, hence no mercury vapour, while the dentist is drilling into the amalgam, the assistant uses a high volume suction to pick up what is removed. Most times, once the filling is drilled into, it releases from the tooth and comes out in a larger piece.
IT IS NOT VAPOURIZED.

The suction trap catches the filling pieces as I explained earlier.

The article lumps in dentistry with laboratory and medical devices. That is a pretty vague statement. It does not specify that they are Medical labs and it does not specify what type of devices it refers to. Given that statement, the actual percentage contributed by dentistry may be quite small.

Perhaps next time you go to the Dentist, you should avoid the Nitrous Oxide and Ativan and actually pay attention to what is going on.

[Corneliousrooster]

Nowhere does it say that Dentistry is responsible for 53% of worldwide mercury use.

Chapter 2

"Together, mercury contained in dental amalgum and in laboratory and medical devices, account for about 53% of the total mercury emissions."

The fillings do not do into the drain or the landfill.

Yes, they get vaporized in your mouth by a drill when they remove them - bon apetite

They are not vapourized. Where are you getting this BS?
Most dentists use a rubber dam which prevents any particulate from being aspirated. The drill sprays water, hence no mercury vapour, while the dentist is drilling into the amalgam, the assistant uses a high volume suction to pick up what is removed. Most times, once the filling is drilled into, it releases from the tooth and comes out in a larger piece.
IT IS NOT VAPOURIZED.

The suction trap catches the filling pieces as I explained earlier.

The article lumps in dentistry with laboratory and medical devices. That is a pretty vague statement. It does not specify that they are Medical labs and it does not specify what type of devices it refers to. Given that statement, the actual percentage contributed by dentistry may be quite small.

Perhaps next time you go to the Dentist, you should avoid the Nitrous Oxide and Ativan and actually pay attention to what is going on.

Perhaps the relevance is that 53% of mercury contamination comes from dentistry/medical sources.
Iif you think that all the mercury gets suctioned and the rubber dam is protecting you 100% and a neat little filling that holds all the original mercury falls into the dentists hands than perhaps you should lay of the nitrous oxide and Ativan.

So for the benefit of GG - If we KNOW that 53% of mercury emissions comes from MEDICAL/dental sources - why is the gov't choosing to go after the thermometers and batteries as a means to make an impact on mercury emissions? Especially after making mandatory (with no disposal plan) CFL's?

[SpaceAddict]

Especially after making mandatory (with no disposal plan) CFL's?

No there is a plan. If you use CF bulbs please bring the dead ones back to where you purchased them. Even the home Depo takes them back.

I wish they would have had vision and banned both filament and CFL's at the same time. That would have pushed development of LED and OLEDs and we would not be in the current mess. LED's are getting close to better then both now and if they would have banned both of those older types the cost would be right now comparable to what we are presently paying for CFL's. The LED types that we are getting right now are a few years old and are not quite bright enough yet for direct replacement in most cases if you need a lot of light. Some places they work just fine though.

It would have pushed the state of the art of such tech if the government had the vision to push it. It would have been the correct course of action.

This new law is just lip service to the mercury problem. Use over the next few years will actually increase thanks to CFL's and will be spread into every single home nation wide. It's one of those looks good on paper plans. Does nothing but looks good on paper.

[Corneliousrooster]

No there is a plan. If you use CF bulbs please bring the dead ones back to where you purchased them. Even the home Depo takes them back.

Having a place to drop them off and having a recycling plan are 2 different things - and not everywhere that sells them takes them back. This is hardly convenient as I went to the BC hydro site to find the locations where they accept the bulbs. I would wager about 5% will come back for recycling in towns where there is somewhere to drop them off and the rest will be in the garbage (right beside the household batteries that they have also made so easily recyclable/disposed of - sarcasm)


Here are the locations if anyone is interested
http://productcare.org/BC-lights-depots

[oneh2obabe]

Hate the CFL lights but do have 3 recycling depots within 5 miles of my house. And if I can't get to the store, one of the girls down the street from me works at one and said she'd take them up for me.

[Glacier]

I wish they would have had vision and banned both filament and CFL's at the same time. That would have pushed development of LED and OLEDs and we would not be in the current mess. LED's are getting close to better then both now and if they would have banned both of those older types the cost would be right now comparable to what we are presently paying for CFL's. The LED types that we are getting right now are a few years old and are not quite bright enough yet for direct replacement in most cases if you need a lot of light. Some places they work just fine though.

A ban on both incandescents and CFLs would be disastrous. Try finding an LED light to replace standard office light fixture. Plus, in order to try and get the costs somewhat comparable, LED lights often cheap out on the associated equipment leaving them more apt to break.