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.

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! =-----

Why not use salt water. Anything will work.

Loss resistance would not be too bad because skin depth increases with
conductor resistivity relative to copper.

Salt water is a better idea,
not near as harmful,
still a liquid,
easy to mix one up at Home
and extremely low cost, (at least the salt water)
more transparent


"Reg Edwards" wrote in message
...
Why not use salt water. Anything will work.

Loss resistance would not be too bad because skin depth increases with
conductor resistivity relative to copper.