When I was a dumb kid in the 50s we used to go into the garbage of those
hard of hearing and get their discarded hearing aid batteries to salvage the
mercury. We got quite a bit and used it to make dimes real shiny and let
the little balls roll around in our palms.. Several years ago I started to
wonder what this might have done to me and I did some checking. Several
dentists and a PhD metallurgist all said that the metal mercury is not toxic
and is not absorbed but the salts of it are. In dental fillings it's
amalgamated with silver. Just think how many kids played witth the stuff
and how may dentists have handled and spilled it. When it is improperly
disposed it can react with other chemicals and result in toxic compounds or
salts and when these get into the water system fish apparently eat whatever
feeds on the salts and concentrate it.
From the antenna standpoint I can envision a tall thin tube where mercury is
pushed up to the right level for resonance but it looks like I squared R
losses will be counterproductive.
73
Hank WD5JFR
"Cecil Moore" wrote in message
...
Forget about the feasibility of this question for the moment.
Could a column of mercury inside a tube of glass be used as an
antenna?
--
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! =-----

my teeth hurt, what about florescent lights?, they all have a little of
mercury in them, they just get thrown in the dump. I won't bring up the 10
pounds of lead in the monitor you're looking at that lowers the amount of
x-rays produced, and the first color TVs produced were xray hazards at 15
feet, now I'm getting a headache.

"Henry Kolesnik" wrote in message
om...
When I was a dumb kid in the 50s we used to go into the garbage of those
hard of hearing and get their discarded hearing aid batteries to salvage
the
mercury. We got quite a bit and used it to make dimes real shiny and let
the little balls roll around in our palms.. Several years ago I started
to
wonder what this might have done to me and I did some checking. Several
dentists and a PhD metallurgist all said that the metal mercury is not
toxic
and is not absorbed but the salts of it are. In dental fillings it's
amalgamated with silver. Just think how many kids played witth the stuff
and how may dentists have handled and spilled it. When it is improperly
disposed it can react with other chemicals and result in toxic compounds
or
salts and when these get into the water system fish apparently eat
whatever
feeds on the salts and concentrate it.
From the antenna standpoint I can envision a tall thin tube where mercury
is
pushed up to the right level for resonance but it looks like I squared R
losses will be counterproductive.
73
Hank WD5JFR
"Cecil Moore" wrote in message
...
Forget about the feasibility of this question for the moment.
Could a column of mercury inside a tube of glass be used as an
antenna?
--
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! =-----

"John Smith" wrote in message
...
my teeth hurt, what about florescent lights?, they all have a little of
mercury in them, they just get thrown in the dump.

If the guy sees them around here, you get it back. Some areas are
already savvy.


I won't bring up the 10
pounds of lead in the monitor you're looking at

There is a major push to eliminate lead in electronics. The solder
is 20-30 degrees hotter.



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

On Mon, 12 Apr 2004 21:47:52 GMT, "Henry Kolesnik"
wrote:
Several
dentists and a PhD metallurgist all said that the metal mercury is not toxic
and is not absorbed but the salts of it are.

Hi Henry,

You may as well had said several fools - especially the metallurgist
passing as a toxicologist. The Dental practice is one of the single
highest pollution hot spots of industry and acids in saliva are known
to leach Mercury.

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

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Richard Clark wrote:
On Mon, 12 Apr 2004 21:47:52 GMT, "Henry Kolesnik"
wrote:
Several
dentists and a PhD metallurgist all said that the metal mercury is not toxic
and is not absorbed but the salts of it are.

Hi Henry,

You may as well had said several fools - especially the metallurgist
passing as a toxicologist. The Dental practice is one of the single
highest pollution hot spots of industry and acids in saliva are known
to leach Mercury.

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

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Utter nonsense.

Ever hear "The poison is in the dose"?

There is some amount of every element in your body, including mercury,
plutonium, arsenic and anything else you care to name.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove -spam-sux to reply.

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

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.

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

[snip]


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

Mercury is used in several drugs and biologic products, including over the
counter nasal sprays.

http://www.fda.gov/cder/fdama/mercury300.htm

Frank Dresser

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.