On Tue, 13 Apr 2004 02:03:02 +0000 (UTC),
wrote:
A lot of things are banned on subs because

Hi Jim,

I've been in charge of EVERY piece of electronic equipment located on
a Boomer or Fast Attack - Mercury is not a "lot of things."

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Richard Clark wrote:
On Tue, 13 Apr 2004 02:03:02 +0000 (UTC),
wrote:
A lot of things are banned on subs because

Hi Jim,

I've been in charge of EVERY piece of electronic equipment located on
a Boomer or Fast Attack - Mercury is not a "lot of things."

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Well, dooh...

So are you saying there are no restrictions on ANY materials used in or
brought aboard a sub other than those containing mercury?

--
Jim Pennino

Remove -spam-sux to reply.

Richard Clark wrote:
On Tue, 13 Apr 2004 01:52:22 +0000 (UTC),
wrote:
Utter nonsense.

Hi Jim,

I've performed work with Battelle Centers for Public Health Research &
Evaluation and this very matter has been studied to record and verify
every statement I've offered.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

You said:

"There is NO MINIMUM EXPOSURE LEVEL to Mercury. No matter how little,
it has some debilitating effect that is measurable."

What is the "debilitating effect that is measurable" of exposure to 1 atom
of mercury? How about 2 atoms of mercury? Three?

According to the the ATSDR:

"The EPA has set a limit of 2 parts of mercury per billion parts of drinking
water (2 ppb).

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has set a maximum permissible level
of 1 part of methylmercury in a million parts of seafood (1 ppm).

The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) has set limits of
0.1 milligram of organic mercury per cubic meter of workplace air (0.1 mg/m?)
and 0.05 mg/m? of metallic mercury vapor for 8-hour shifts and 40-hour work
weeks."

Looks to me like there are at least three entities other than Battelle
Centers for Public Health Research & Evaluation that found minimum levels.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove -spam-sux to reply.

Richard Clark wrote:

On Tue, 13 Apr 2004 01:52:22 +0000 (UTC),
wrote:

Utter nonsense.


Hi Jim,

I've performed work with Battelle Centers for Public Health Research &
Evaluation and this very matter has been studied to record and verify
every statement I've offered.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Well, I used to play with blobs of mercury a lot when I was a kid and it
has never eeefffffecttted (snort)mmmmeee a (slobber) biiiittt.

JJ wrote:
Well, I used to play with blobs of mercury a lot when I was a kid and it
has never eeefffffecttted (snort)mmmmeee a (slobber) biiiittt.

When I was a kid, my denist used to squeeze the mercury out of the
fillings with a cloth, and just let the liquid mercury fall all over
everything. He said it had been "passivated" or something like that
and thus rendered inert and harmless.
--
73, Cecil, W5DXP



-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

On Tue, 13 Apr 2004 03:24:58 +0000 (UTC),
wrote:
You said:

"There is NO MINIMUM EXPOSURE LEVEL to Mercury. No matter how little,
it has some debilitating effect that is measurable."

As the author of my own words, I am well aware of what I said.

What is the "debilitating effect that is measurable" of exposure to 1 atom
of mercury? How about 2 atoms of mercury? Three?

According to the the ATSDR:

"The EPA has set a limit of 2 parts of mercury per billion parts of drinking
water (2 ppb).

Do you limit your glass of water to 2 billion atoms of H2O? Asking
about atoms in the face of living a real life is absurd and mocks the
real dangers.

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has set a maximum permissible level
of 1 part of methylmercury in a million parts of seafood (1 ppm).

The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) has set limits of
0.1 milligram of organic mercury per cubic meter of workplace air (0.1 mg/m?)
and 0.05 mg/m? of metallic mercury vapor for 8-hour shifts and 40-hour work
weeks."

Looks to me like there are at least three entities other than Battelle
Centers for Public Health Research & Evaluation that found minimum levels.

The EPA has also allowed for risks that endanger life in Asbestos. It
is a ongoing tragedy in Idaho currently. Ask them if they believe in
the current administration's track record. Using watered down,
industry leveraged numbers to cross-correlate to safety is fine if you
want to die your life that way.

However, back to Mercury. The current science eclipses all these
"standards" you quote. It is a matter of degree. The standards offer
that your IQ may slip 10 points at their levels - the question is do
you shrug off better practices that merely reduce it 5 points, or is
below the "standard" threshold suddenly no loss whatever? Clue: it is
a continuum, there is no safe level of exposure. If you feel fine
shaving half a point, sobeit. If it amounts to 0.05 point, bake a
cake and have a party. Offer guarantees of no loss whatever below
current "standards" and you will buy the farm in liability.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

On Tue, 13 Apr 2004 03:08:27 +0000 (UTC),
wrote:

Well, dooh...

So are you saying there are no restrictions on ANY materials used in or
brought aboard a sub other than those containing mercury?

Hi Jim,

Name another. I can think of many, but they are trivial compared to
mercury which is toxic everywhere.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Richard Clark wrote:

SNIP

Another point of toxicity. Because the nuclear "Boomers" contained a
closed loop environmental system, ALL such batteries were banned from
the boat irrespective of their need in ANY equipment. We had to make
do with substitutes and jury rig our own holders or means to provide a
voltage for key equipment that would work fine on surface craft.


SNIP

As an Aerospace Design Engineer [1964 - 1986] and Major Military Systems
Chief Engineer [1986 - 1992], MERCURY was/is a prohibited material in
design. Any 'only solution' conditions had to be explicitly approved by
higher authority than the PCO [Program Contracting Officer]. This
generally was understood as SPO [Systems Program Officer ... Rank 2
stars or higher].

"Richard Clark" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 12 Apr 2004 20:52:56 GMT, Gary S. Idontwantspam@net wrote:
Think of how easily the antenna length could be adjusted.

Hi Gary,

I have four high accuracy laboratory thermometers one of which is 6"
from this keyboard (ambient 18.4° C) with a range of -1° to 51° C over
a length of roughly 16 inches. I've built precision heaters and
designed using TEMs; nothing is easy about controlling heat.

- It's a stupid idea -

True, but he didn't specify just how...You assumed... Maybe he ment by a
pump. That's what I thought of.

--
Steve N, K,9;d, c. i My email has no u's.

"Cecil Moore" wrote in message
...
Dave Shrader wrote:
Mercury is a metal, albeit a dangerous one. It has a resistivity about
55 times that of copper.

Why in Heaven would you or anyone want to do it? [I think there may be a
Troll here :-) ]

No troll, just a wild hair. I got to thinking of using mercury as the
conducting medium for an RF antenna switch and then wondered if mercury
could replace the upper part of a whip where there is low current and
high voltage. The mercury changing length in a thermometer triggered
these unthinkable thoughts. Imagine changing the current through a
resistor in order to tune an antenna by varying the mercury level.


No assumption here. I agree that this would be VERY difficult, although the
"upper part" sounds feasable. Just replace the screwdriver motor &
mechanism with a pump...


--
Steve N, K,9;d, c. i My email has no u's.
- 19 Different Servers! =-----