Mercury

[dairygirl4u2c]

[quote][url="http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gjEHXtGOtiZbKdW-N6hBmp5vCl9gD96CTD8O0"]http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/articl...5vCl9gD96CTD8O0[/url]

US calls for treaty on mercury reduction

By TOM MALITI – 3 days ago

NAIROBI, Kenya (AP) — The Obama administration reversed years of U.S. policy Monday by calling for a treaty to cut mercury pollution, which it described as the world's gravest chemical problem.

Some 6,000 tons of mercury enter the environment each year, about a third generated by power stations and coal fires. Much settles into the oceans where it enters the food chain and is concentrated in predatory fish like tuna.

Children and fetuses are particularly vulnerable to poisoning by the toxic metal, which can cause birth defects, brain damage and peeling skin.

Daniel Reifsnyder, the deputy assistant secretary of state for environment and sustainable development, told a global gathering of environmental ministers in Nairobi, Kenya, that the U.S wants negotiations on limiting mercury to begin this year and conclude within three.

"We're prepared to help lead in developing a globally legally binding instrument," he said. "It is clear mercury is the most important global chemical issue facing us today that calls for immediate action."

The statement represented a "180-degree turnaround" from policy under the Bush administration, said Michael Bender, co-coordinator of the Zero Mercury Working Group, a global coalition of 75 environmental organizations working to reduce mercury exposure.

"The change is like night and day. The Bush administration opposed any international legal agreements on mercury and President (Barack) Obama is in office less than one month and is already supporting a global agreement," he said.

Bender said his group has had more discussions over mercury control in the past two weeks than they have in the last eight years and that the U.S. government included many of their ideas in the proposal they are presented in Nairobi.

Mercury is also widely used in chemical production and small-scale mining. The toxin can travel thousands of miles through the air or water.

America's Food and Drug Administration advises expectant mothers to limit weekly consumption to six ounces of albacore tuna or 12 ounces of "light" tuna, the health effects of which are still being scientifically debated. California authorities have been locked in a five-year legal battle to force tuna companies to paste warning labels on their product about potentially harmful mercury levels.

Despite the warnings, there's often little public knowledge of the dangers of mercury in seafood. In the American state of Idaho, a food bank distributed as much as 96 ounces of fish in family food baskets last summer. That's 48 times more than a child weighing less than 30 pounds is advised to eat monthly, according to the Health and Welfare advisory.

There is even less awareness in developing countries, where small-scale miners use mercury to pan for gold and fishermen eat contaminated fish or sell it to chic sushi restaurants.

"Murky? Maki?" asked Peter Omoga, manager at a Japanese restaurant in the Kenyan capital, when asked about mercury levels by an Associated Press correspondent tucking into a sushi feast.

While substitutes exist for almost all industrial processes that require mercury, more than 50 percent of mercury emissions come from coal-fueled power plants, complicating efforts to regulate it in countries that rely on coal for power.

A U.S.-drafted proposal obtained by The Associated Press would form a negotiating committee in conjunction with the U.N. environment program to help countries reduce their mercury use, clean up contaminated sites and find environmentally sound ways to store mercury. The European Union has already banned mercury exports starting in 2011. The U.S. has a similar ban that will be effective 2013, legislation that was sponsored by Obama when he was a U.S. senator.

Advocacy groups that have been working on getting such a global pact passed welcomed the U.S. policy change, saying it could encourage other countries such as Canada to make a similar change. Bender said mercury levels in the world had increased two to three times over the past 200 years.

"Given that the United States has pushed the door of resistance in a sense, that will lead others to follow," said Susan Egan Keane of the Washington, D.C.-based Natural Resources Defense Council.

Associated Press Writer Katharine Houreld in Nairobi, Kenya, contributed to this report.[/quote]

so why don't you think folks here at phatmass rail against this sort of thing more?
is it simply cause this's generally a conservative board and doing so would make you look like a pinko? (essentially...

and, whatever the case, even per conservative sentimentalities, this is a harm to humans, not enviro for the sake of enviro etc, or humans against hte other.
and, it's not like this or many of these issues are things that put humans against the environment, such that it's an either or situation.
i mean, as even most even liberals would agree that humans come before the environment, it's not like the case you have to be one or the other one these issues.
the economy will fix itself within the limits/confine we set.
plus, these are generally the sentiments of the popes anyway, per hte environment and humans etc, anyway.

bush didn't do anything per these issues. the new administration is a '180 degree' change.
(i'll be the first to admit there's surely more facts to be analyzed. but, that there's more to be analzyed is often the case in most issues, and that doesn't stop most from ranting about X issue anyway, so why would it prevent them here?)
why isn't there more criticism from PM on these sorts of things?
(or at least the more conservative ones here?

Edited February 20, 2009 by dairygirl4u2c

[goldenchild17]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='1785764' date='Feb 19 2009, 06:05 PM']so why don't you think folks here at phatmass rail against this sort of thing more?[/quote]

I don't rail against because, 1. this is the first time I heard of such an initiative and, 2. I do believe there is a mercury problem and that it can be hazardous to people's health. So I don't have a major problem with it, at first glance. I don't like the government getting into business that we should be able to take initiative on our own, but I think mercury is a problem and I won't complain if the govt wants to do something about it.

[cmotherofpirl]

Dairy, did it ever occur to you that we really don't spend our time searching the internet looking for more issues to deal with?
There are 50,000 coal plants worldwide which produces the electricity that runs the world. What appliances are you willing to give up to save the planet? Your cell phone charger, your computer, your furnace, your lights?

[Winchester]

The pope already said Mercury is going to Hell. We consider the matter resolved.

[dairygirl4u2c]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' post='1785849' date='Feb 19 2009, 09:20 PM']Dairy, did it ever occur to you that we really don't spend our time searching the internet looking for more issues to deal with?
There are 50,000 coal plants worldwide which produces the electricity that runs the world. What appliances are you willing to give up to save the planet? Your cell phone charger, your computer, your furnace, your lights?[/quote]

yet folks tend to find enough political issues, besides these sorts of things.

i'd give up something as long as others had to to, if me alone and folks like me weren't enough. but my personal ideas on this doesn't matter so much as that we're generally upset about mercury killing people. etc
i'd be willing to give up something proportional. if fewer batteries are made but it saves X lives then it's worth it. i don't know the numbers, it's coningent on how much is saved v. how much lost. it's a complicated issue. but as i said most things are and that doesn't stop folks from complaining about it.
if any thing, you're defensiveness shows more about your own person psychology and conservative defensiveness than an objective defense as to why there's no railing.
cause, in fact,there is no real excuse, but there you are trying to make one....

the cookie cutter conservatives out there (not that cmom is, she's not bad) have been r8ghtfully called out, and they know it.
there is no connection between abortion and mercury, welfare and mercury, human lives and mercury. etc. yet, they spend their time defending a whateveritis that today's political culture defines as conservatism, than things that are objectively right or wrong, or at least things that show they are capable of not being sheep...

it's actually amusing to watch the cookie cutter conservatives (and liberals..) who are in denial of it, cause it's so obviously true.

on thqt note though, golden's response wasn't too bad, and she's pretty conservativce. maybe not a cookie cutter. but, then again, she's like 'i won't be upset if the gov does something', instead of 'the gov should do something', it's a signifanct difference in what is and what ought to be said. so even her response, while good, wasn't really teh greatest.
is that all ya'll are capable off?

Edited February 20, 2009 by dairygirl4u2c

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='1786372' date='Feb 20 2009, 12:48 PM']yet folks tend to find enough political issues, besides these sorts of things.

i'd give up something as long as others had to to, if me alone and folks like me weren't enough. but my personal ideas on this doesn't matter so much as that we're generally upset about mercury killing people. etc
i'd be willing to give up something proportional. if fewer batteries are made but it saves X lives then it's worth it. i don't know the numbers, it's coningent on how much is saved v. how much lost. it's a complicated issue. but as i said most things are and that doesn't stop folks from complaining about it.
if any thing, you're defensiveness shows more about your own person psychology and conservative defensiveness than an objective defense as to why there's no railing.
cause, in fact,there is no real excuse, but there you are trying to make one....[/quote]

You are the one who started it as an attack thread:
"so why don't you think folks here at phatmass rail against this sort of thing more?
is it simply cause this's generally a conservative board and doing so would make you look like a pinko? (essentially..."

I was pointing out simple facts: the world is run on coal, AND I gave you a viable alternative that you could ACTUALLY do to remove mercury and other toxic chemicals from the environment. So of course, instead of responding to a real suggestion you attack me again.

Mercury is far more dangerous in landfills than in fish, because you don't have to eat fish. But you can keep the following items OUT OF LANDFILLS.

Fluorescent lamps and tubes. Includes fluorescent tubes, compact fluorescent lamps, metal halide lamps, and sodium vapor lamps.
Batteries. Includes all batteries, AAA, AA, C, D, button cell, 9-volt, and all others, both rechargeable and single use. Also lead-acid batteries such as car batteries.
Computer and television monitors. Most monitors are currently considered hazardous waste when they have lived their life and are ready for recycling or disposal, including cathode ray tube (CRT), liquid crystal diode (LCD), and plasma monitors. Learn about the State program to offset the cost of proper television and monitor recycling...
Electronic devices. Includes computers, printers, VCRs, cell phones, telephones, radios, and microwave ovens. Refer to "How do I know if a particular electronic device can't be thrown in the trash?" for more information.
Mercury-Containing Items

Electrical switches and relays. These typically contain about 3.5 grams of mercury each. Mercury switches can be found in some chest freezers, pre-1972 washing machines, sump pumps, electric space heaters, clothes irons, silent light switches, automobile hood and trunk lights, and ABS brakes.
Thermostats that contain mercury. There is a mercury inside the sealed glass "tilt switch" of the old style thermostats (not the newer electronic kind).
Pilot light sensors. Mercury-containing switches are found in some gas appliances such as stoves, ovens, clothes dryers, water heaters, furnaces, and space heaters.
Mercury gauges. Some gauges, such as barometers, manometers, blood pressure, and vacuum gauges contain mercury.
Mercury thermometers. Mercury thermometers typically contain about a half gram of mercury. Many health clinics, pharmacies and doctor's offices have thermometer exchange programs that will give you a new mercury-free fever thermometer in exchange for your old one.
Mercury-added novelties. Examples include greeting cards that play music when opened; athletic shoes (made before 1997) with flashing lights in soles; and mercury maze games.
Household and Landscape Chemicals

Flammables and poisons. Includes solvent-based (oil) paints and reactive and explosive materials.
Acids, oxidizers, and bases. Includes some pool chemicals and cleaners.
Pesticides and herbicides. Many pesticides and herbicides cannot be disposed in the trash. Consult the product label or check with your local household hazardous waste agency.
Paints and Solvents

Latex paint.
Oil-based paint (also listed under flammables).
Nonempty aerosol paint or solvent cans (all nonempty aerosol cans are banned from the trash).
Solvents. Includes materials such as paint thinners, finger nail polish remover, etc.
Building Materials

Asbestos. Includes some older kinds of cement, roofing, flooring and siding. More information on asbestos in your home is available from the U.S. EPA.
Treated Wood. Includes wood that is treated with chromium copper arsenate (CCA).
Automobile-Related

Antifreeze.
Batteries.
Motor oil and filters.
Tires. (Note that tires are not considered hazardous, but automotive tires are banned from the trash for other reasons)
Other

Compressed gas cylinders. Includes propane tanks used for BBQ or plumbing.
Needles and sharps generated in home health care. Includes hypodermic needles, hypodermic needles with syringes, blades, needles with attached tubing, syringes contaminated with biohazardous waste, acupuncture needles, root canal files, broken glass items such as Pasteur pipettes, and blood vials.
PCB-containing materials. Includes paint and ballasts that contain polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB).
Photo waste (silver bearing).
Nonempty aerosol cans that contain hazardous materials. Many products in aerosol cans are toxic. And many aerosol cans contain flammables, like butane, as propellants for products like paint. If your aerosol can is labeled with words like TOXIC or FLAMMABLE don't put it in the trash unless it is completely empty.

[dairygirl4u2c]

"was pointing out simple facts: the world is run on coal, AND I gave you a viable alternative that you could ACTUALLY do to remove mercury and other toxic chemicals from the environment. So of course, instead of responding to a real suggestion you attack me again."

i responded to it, with my personal take on it, what should be done in response. just because i pointed out how my personal take on it is irrelevant to the larger issues, doesn't mean i didn't respond to it.

i may have misinterpreted you, read too much into it. i thought you were asking rhetorical questions, as if accusing me of not really wanting to get rid of mercury when i sit down and think about how much i'd have to give up. a valid point, but given you could just as easilly be arguing about we shouldn't just allow death from mercury so casually if it's not a major burden. but, that's assuming your point was rhetorical like that.
if it wasn't then my bad.
i assume it was though, rhetorical, cause you were like 'you're the one who started it'. but not necessarily.
per the reading into things, in case i'm wrong, i'll give ya the benefit of the doubt, and just stop while i'm ahead.

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='1786388' date='Feb 20 2009, 01:13 PM']"was pointing out simple facts: the world is run on coal, AND I gave you a viable alternative that you could ACTUALLY do to remove mercury and other toxic chemicals from the environment. So of course, instead of responding to a real suggestion you attack me again."

i responded to it, with my personal take on it, what should be done in response. just because i pointed out how my personal take on it is irrelevant to the larger issues, doesn't mean i didn't respond to it.

i may have misinterpreted you, read too much into it. i thought you were asking rhetorical questions, as if accusing me of not really wanting to get rid of mercury when i sit down and think about how much i'd have to give up. a valid point, but given you could just as easilly be arguing about we shouldn't just allow death from mercury so casually if it's not a major burden. but, that's assuming your point was rhetorical like that.
if it wasn't then my bad.
i assume it was though, rhetorical, cause you were like 'you're the one who started it'. but not necessarily.
per the reading into things, in case i'm wrong, i'll give ya the benefit of the doubt, and just stop while i'm ahead.[/quote]

You are assuming because we are faithful catholics [ which doesn't equate to the political term conservative] that we are not concerned about the environment. You forget in Genesis God actually commanded us to take care of Creation. I can't do anything about coal-fired plants, because electricity is not exactly a luxury item. We use it to heat half our house, and power appliances. But I can be responsibile for the mercury coming from my household.
As it turns out I am an ardent [ my children say fanatic] recycler because of my concern about toxic chemicals entering the environment. I have a list like the one above that decides what get thrown where. At present the only thing that goes out in the trash is plastic because I can't get anyone to recycle it. .

[LouisvilleFan]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='1785764' date='Feb 19 2009, 08:05 PM']so why don't you think folks here at phatmass rail against this sort of thing more?
is it simply cause this's generally a conservative board and doing so would make you look like a pinko? (essentially...[/quote]

For future reference, name calling and labeling doesn't make anyone want to agree with you, nor does it show that you've put any real thought into your posts.

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='1785764' date='Feb 19 2009, 08:05 PM']and, whatever the case, even per conservative sentimentalities...[/quote]

Catholic morals are not conservative, liberal, Republican, Democrat, or anything else out there. They are Catholic.

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='1785764' date='Feb 19 2009, 08:05 PM']bush didn't do anything per these issues. the new administration is a '180 degree' change.
(i'll be the first to admit there's surely more facts to be analyzed. but, that there's more to be analzyed is often the case in most issues, and that doesn't stop most from ranting about X issue anyway, so why would it prevent them here?)
why isn't there more criticism from PM on these sorts of things?
(or at least the more conservative ones here?[/quote]

Maybe you should explain exactly what you expect us to criticize. Do you wish we would have criticized Bush's administration for not doing more to protect the environment? I assure you that I have. In fact, there are many things I didn't like about Bush, but I did support his courageous pro-life policies.

In that respect, I'm glad Obama is pushing for policies like this. It's not enough to outweigh his pro-choice policies, but I can only hope that somedway we have a presidential candidate who is wholly pro-life, from abortion to childcare, education, elderly care, and our environment. But, fact is, we live in an imperfect world which is passing away, so in everything we have to make the best and do what we can to convert souls and promote truth.

[dairygirl4u2c]

good points louisiville.

[goldenchild17]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='1786372' date='Feb 20 2009, 10:48 AM']on thqt note though, golden's response wasn't too bad, and she's pretty conservativce. maybe not a cookie cutter. but, then again, she's like 'i won't be upset if the gov does something', instead of 'the gov should do something', it's a signifanct difference in what is and what ought to be said. so even her response, while good, wasn't really teh greatest.
is that all ya'll are capable off?[/quote]

1.) I'm a dude

2.) I have my liberal tendencies, though this is mostly in the areas of art.

3.) I say I wouldn't really mind of the govt does something because I have been leaning towards more Libertarian ideals in politics lately. I think, under a non-Catholic government, that the people should be left alone in all areas that don't specifically impede on a person's well-being. That being the case, I don't like it when the government imposes legislation on things that we should be free to make our own choice on. That being said, I do believe mercury is a problem. I just wish the citizens would take it upon themselves to do something about it, and not let the government impose legislation forcing them to do someting.

[MithLuin]

I am a chemistry teacher. The problem of mercury poisoning in fish (and how it gets there) is a topic I cover in my classes. So, just because I'm not posting topics here on it doesn't mean I'm ignoring this issue.

I certainly agree that we need to make efforts to get mercury out of the environment (and the food chain), but there are a few problems here. One - it's an element. It's not like you can 'break it down' into something else. Two - people aren't going to stop burning coal over the mercury issue. Three - undoing the damage we've already done isn't straightforward or easy.

But also? Ummm, we [i]are[/i] doing something about this - a lot of something. In case you haven't noticed, we took mercury out of practically everything over the past 50 years! It used to be in all the thermometers, and kids would play with beads of mercury when the thermometers broke. Not so much any more. They used to use big vats of the stuff in hatmaking ('mad as a hatter,' anyone?) Only an idiot would use a mercury compound in a chemistry lab these days. The response might not have been as prompt or thorough as it was over CFCs, but then....it was a lot easier to find alternatives for those.