Hacker News Reader

Comment by mirimir | Hacker News Reader

That's arguably overkill for domestic contamination by elemental and inorganic mercury. Even that family in that contaminated house was probably at far greater risk from methylmercury[0] in predatory fish. So cutting predatory fish from the diet would have arguably been more cost effective. But it's hard to say. CDC[1] is more nuanced on the topic than EPA[2]. And I do tend to trust CDC.

[0] http://toxics.usgs.gov/definitions/methylmercury.html

[1] http://www.cdc.gov/biomonitoring/pdf/Mercury_FactSheet.pdf

[2] http://www3.epa.gov/airtoxics/hlthef/mercury.html

View on HN

They have a 1.5 year-old that undoubtably puts everything in his/her mouth.

Even the CDC factsheet says the impact of low levels of exposure is unknown. And we're not talking about the milligrams in a CFL bulb, a speck of mercury. This was cups of mercury.

You can drink mercury and nothing bad will happen. It is the vapors that hurt you. A lot.

A toddler breathing mercury vapors is bad idea. Of course bucket of sulfur will go a long way towards cleaning this up.

I was thinking 'drop yellow sulfur over the floor' as I read the first paragraph and when the fire officers arrived. As I read the rest of the article and found the section that describes the source and progress of the spill, I realised that a more radical cleanup would be needed.

I'm in my late 50s and we used to use mercury liberally at school and after. I'm talking half a gallon of the stuff to demostrate the Toricelli vacuum, and later at University for floating bearings. Always dirty on surface, so low vapour. Bucket of sulfur in the lab. I'm not recommending a return to those days (benzene, carbon-tet, acetone on tap &c).

Impact unknown! Meanwhile many American dentists install mercury amalgam (about 50% Hg) in tooth cavities inches from the brain where it will sit for years on end. How can anyone support this with a straight face. The response is something like 'yes,we know mercury is a devastating neurotoxin but it's tightly bound in the amalgam and there is no proven statistical relationship to say it's dangerous'.

Haven't amalgam fillings been phased out yet? At least in the Netherlands most dentists now use composites to fill cavities.

Wikipedia seems to suggest that the performance of those is comparable to amalgam: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dental_composite

Cost also seems to be comparable, where composites may even be cheaper than amalgam, because of all the environmental issues surrounding the amalgam material.

In Poland you only get composite if you pay extra, National Health Fund (mandatory insurance) gives you the amalgam. And a month of waiting, where time is crucial. And no anastheatics for drilling. SLAVIC FUN!

Yeah, I believe it's the same in the UK. I don't think the month of waiting is too bad, cavities take a long time to develop. A checkup every 6 months should be enough to prevent them from developing too far.

In my experience NHS dentists in the UK will give you composites if the filling is in a visible area. Also, they do provide anaesthetic!

I pay for private treatment in the UK and recently had a new amalgam in a non-viewable area because I was told it was far better for the situation and would last longer. Otherwise I always have composites.

When I was a teenager, I accidentally swallowed a damaged mercury filling. Luckily I still seem to be alright :-)

I think it depends on the dentist. Mine uses amalgam--of which I already have lots (unfloridated water growing up, among other things probably). On the other hand, a friend of mine told me recently that her dentist wouldn't use an amalgam filling in spite of admitting that the composite wouldn't last as long. This is in US.

I do get that. Still, what I get from the article is that the owners were manipulated into throwing far too much money at the problem. We could have much the same discussion about asbestos, lead paint, etc. One key issue is removal vs encapsulation.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com