1-20 of 24 results for subject:Mercury
Librarians' tools
- Search time
- 0.242 seconds
- Solr query time
- 0.002 seconds
- Search query
- subject:Mercury
- We searched for
- subject_t:Mercury OR subject_ses:11617
Year
X
2003
Type
House
Session
Month
Department
Member
More
Primary member
Answering member
Legislative stage
Legislation
Subject
More
Publisher
Type
Select Committee reports; House of Commons papers;
Parliamentary committees
Committee
European Scrutiny Committee
Notes
Received 18.12.03
Subjects
Air pollution; EU countries; Finance; Environment protection; EU action; Indirect taxation; Economic cooperation; Measurement; Prices; Transport; Reform; Roads; Taxation; VAT; Tobacco; Tolls; Common agricultural policy; West Bank; Peace negotiations; EU aid; Gaza; Occupied territories; Trans-European networks; Mercury; Agricultural products; Nickel; Pollutants; Atmosphere; Arsenic
Date
3 December 2003
Reference
HC 42-i 2003/04
House
House of Commons
To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, whether fulminite of mercury was present in fuses on board the SS Montgomery; and if he will make a statement.
To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, whether fulminite of mercury was present in fuses on board the SS Montgomery; and if he will make a statement.
Asked by
Derek Wyatt
(Labour)
Answered by
David Jamieson
(Labour)
Answering body
Department for Transport
Type
Written questions
Status
Answered
Tabled on
26 November 2003
For answer on
1 December 2003
Answered on
1 December 2003
Mr. Wyatt: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether fulminite of mercury was present in fuses on board the SS Montgomery;
and if he will make a statement. [140708]
Mr. Jamieson: The cargo manifest of the `Richard Montgomery' does not specifically refer to fulminate of mercury, but does list
other types of fuses. However, fulminate of mercury was in use at the time so may be contained in some of the detonators and fuses.
Subjects
Explosives; Shipping; Wrecks; Mercury; SS Richard Montgomery
Date
1 December 2003
Reference
140708; 415 c7W
House
House of Commons
To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, what estimate she has made of the quantities of (a) synthetic chemicals, (b) mercury, (c) cadmium, (d) lead, (e) zinc, (f) nickel and (g) arsenic released into the Irish Sea from establishments in the United Kingdom in each...
To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, what estimate she has made of the quantities of (a) synthetic chemicals, (b) mercury, (c) cadmium, (d) lead, (e) zinc, (f) nickel and (g) arsenic released into the Irish Sea from establishments in the United Kingdom in each...
Asked by
Chris Ruane
(Labour)
Answered by
Elliot Morley
(Labour)
Answering body
Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
Type
Written questions
Status
Answered
Tabled on
18 November 2003
For answer on
20 November 2003
Answered on
20 November 2003
Chris Ruane: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) what estimate she has made of the quantities
of (a) synthetic chemicals, (b) mercury, (c) cadmium, (d) lead, (e) zinc, (f) nickel and (g) arsenic released into the Irish Sea
from establishments in the United Kingdom in each of the past 30 years; and if she will make a statement on the proposed reduction
targets in each case; [140399]
(2) what research her Department has evaluated regarding the effects of major inshore algal blooms on the distribution of pollutants
in coastal areas, with particular reference to the (a) metal absorbing capabilities and (b) bubble scavenging properties of algae.
[140401]
Mr. Morley: The information requested will take some time to collate and I will write to my hon. Friend in due course.
Subjects
Chemicals; Lead; Pollution; Mercury; Irish Sea; Zinc; Nickel; Cadmium; Arsenic
Date
20 November 2003
Reference
413 c1233-4W;413 c1230W; 140399;140401
House
House of Commons
To ask the Secretary of State for Health, if he will make a statement on the safety of (a) mercury and (b) silver fillings in dentistry; what research he has (a) commissioned and (b) received on risks associated with using (i) mercury and (ii) silver in tooth fillings; and if...
To ask the Secretary of State for Health, if he will make a statement on the safety of (a) mercury and (b) silver fillings in dentistry; what research he has (a) commissioned and (b) received on risks associated with using (i) mercury and (ii) silver in tooth fillings; and if...
Asked by
Iris Robinson
(Democratic Unionist Party)
Answered by
Baroness Winterton of Doncaster
(Labour)
Answering body
Department of Health
Type
Written questions
Status
Answered
Tabled on
12 November 2003
For answer on
18 November 2003
Answered on
18 November 2003
Mrs. Iris Robinson: To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he will make a statement on the safety of (a) mercury and (b)
silver fillings in dentistry; [138971]
(2) what research he has (a) commissioned and (b) received on risks associated with using (i) mercury and (ii) silver in tooth
fillings; and if he will make a statement. [138985]
Ms Rosie Winterton: Dental amalgam is a combination of alloy particles, mainly silver, and mercury. Dental amalgam is the most
frequently used material for restoring decayed teeth. Its main advantages include wide indications for use, ease of handling and
excellent physical properties. It has been used in dentistry with good results for more than a century.
The 1998 European Union expert report concluded that currently available data indicate that mercury from dental amalgam restorations
will not cause an unacceptable health risk to the general population. There is little evidence that an unacceptable health risk is
associated with occupational exposure of dental personnel providing due care is used in the preparation and handling of dental
amalgam. The same report also concluded that there is no scientific evidence that the use of dental amalgam is related to adverse
effects on pre- and post-natal health or fertility. There are therefore no plans to commission further research into amalgam safety.
However, it remains the Department's advice that dentists should continue to avoid or delay any dental intervention or medication
during pregnancy.
Subjects
Dental services; Health hazards; Medical treatments; Safety; Research; Mercury; Dental health; Silver
Date
18 November 2003
Reference
413 c850W; 138971;138985
House
House of Commons
To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, what estimate she has made of the effect upon the cost of a cremation arising from (a) the cost of installing gas cleaning filtration systems to remove mercury emissions and (b) the need to travel a greater distance...
To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, what estimate she has made of the effect upon the cost of a cremation arising from (a) the cost of installing gas cleaning filtration systems to remove mercury emissions and (b) the need to travel a greater distance...
Asked by
Janet Dean
(Labour)
Answered by
Ben Bradshaw
(Labour)
Answering body
Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
Type
Written questions
Status
Answered
Tabled on
6 November 2003
For answer on
17 November 2003
Answered on
17 November 2003
Mrs. Dean: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) what estimate she has made of the effect upon
the cost of a cremation arising from (a) the cost of installing gas cleaning filtration systems to remove mercury emissions and (b)
the need to travel a greater distance to the nearest crematorium if closures take place; [137918]
(2) what representations she has received about the review being undertaken by the Environment Agency's Local Authority Unit into
the Best Available Techniques Not Entailing Excessing Costs for crematoria; [137919]
(3) what estimate has been made of the cost of fitting gas cleaning filtration systems into crematoria; [138017]
(4) what estimate has been made of the number of crematoria which would be likely to close if there was a requirement to fit
cleaning and filtration systems; [138018]
(5) what plans she has to conduct (a) quantified and (b) qualified research into mercury emissions from crematoria prior to reaching
a decision on whether gas cleaning filtration systems should be fitted; [138019]
(6) what account she will take on any decision to enforce the fitting of filtration systems into United Kingdom crematoria of trends
on levels of mercury emissions; [138020]
(7) what assessment she has made of the content of the Local Authority Unit report Not Entailing Excessive Costs (BATNEEC) for
crematoria; and what representations she has received which disagree with the report's recommendations. [138563]
Mr. Bradshaw: Estimates of the impacts of controlling mercury from crematoria were contained in a consultation paper the Department
issued on 7 May 2003. A summary of the responses to the consultation has been placed on the Defra website at www.
defra.gov.uk/corporate/consult/crematoria
The main interim conclusions reached from this consultation exercise are as follows: reducing emissions of mercury from crematoria
should aim to be achieved without forcing any crematoria closures due to physical constraints such as insufficiency of space or
heritage considerations a requirement to remove teeth prior to cremation is not acceptable the next step should be to explore
developing a fair mechanism for reducing emissions from only a proportion of existing crematoria any improvements required for
existing crematoria should be spread over a number of years detailed proposals on the basis of the above will be subject to full
consultation in due course new crematoria should be required to install mercury abatement.
Subjects
Costs; Air pollution; Pollution control; Mercury; Crematoriums
Date
17 November 2003
Reference
413 c623-4W; 137918;137919;138017;138018;138019;138020;138563
House
House of Commons
To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, whether she has made an assessment of the health benefits of reducing mercury emission from crematoria, using the methodology developed for assessing the health benefits of the National Air Quality Strategy.
To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, whether she has made an assessment of the health benefits of reducing mercury emission from crematoria, using the methodology developed for assessing the health benefits of the National Air Quality Strategy.
Asked by
Helen Clark
(Labour)
Answered by
Ben Bradshaw
(Labour)
Answering body
Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
Type
Written questions
Status
Answered
Tabled on
18 September 2003
For answer on
14 October 2003
Answered on
14 October 2003
Mrs. Helen Clark: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs whether she has made an assessment of the
health benefits of reducing mercury emission from crematoria, using the methodology developed for assessing the health benefits of
the National Air Quality Strategy. [131760]
Mr. Bradshaw: The methodology for the Air Quality Strategy is aimed at assessing the health impacts for pollutants where inhalation
is the main route of exposure. It is not appropriate to use this methodology in this case because exposure through inhalation is
negligable.
Crematoria are a source of inorganic mercury. This is associated with tremors, gingivitis and/or minor psychological changes,
together with spontaneous abortion and congenital malformation.
Concern arises from the fact that this inorganic mercury can be transported over long distances and be transformed to methyl mercury
in the bottom sediments of aquatic ecosystems. Methyl mercury can cause damage to the brain, kidneys and the central nervous system;
as it readily crosses the placental barrier, foetal brain levels are approximately 5-7 times higher than in maternal blood. Foetal
and postnatal exposures have given rise to abortion, congenital malformation and development changes in young children, with toxic
effects in infants even when absent in the mother.
The UK's long-standing policy approach is therefore to minimise, wherever practicable, the amounts of mercury entering the
environment from all human activities. We have been discussing with the crematoria sector how they might mitigate any impacts.
Subjects
Air pollution; Health hazards; Pollution control; Mercury; Crematoriums
Date
14 October 2003
Reference
131760; 411 c99-100W;411 c139W
House
House of Commons
To ask the Secretary of State for Health, what assessment he has made of the levels of health risk associated with the use of (a) mercury free and (b) mercury based preservatives in vaccines for children. - Includes ref to: http://medicines.mhra.gov.uk. (Holding answer 30 June 2003).
To ask the Secretary of State for Health, what assessment he has made of the levels of health risk associated with the use of (a) mercury free and (b) mercury based preservatives in vaccines for children. - Includes ref to: http://medicines.mhra.gov.uk. (Holding answer 30 June 2003).
Asked by
Paul Burstow
(Liberal Democrat)
Answered by
Melanie Johnson
(Labour)
Answering body
Department of Health
Type
Written questions
Status
Answered
Tabled on
25 June 2003
For answer on
6 October 2003
Answered on
6 October 2003
Mr. Burstow: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the levels of health risk associated with the
use of (a) mercury free and (b) mercury based preservatives in vaccines for children. [122715]
Miss Melanie Johnson :[holding answer 30 June 2003]:
The vaccines used in the childhood immunisation programme have been thoroughly assessed for safety prior to being licensed. As with
all medicinal products, vaccine safety is continually monitored by the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA)
and the independent expert advisory Committee on Safety of Medicines (CSM).
No vaccine or medicinal product is without potential side effects and these are clearly listed in the product information that is
available to health professionals and patients. The CSM has reviewed the safety of vaccines containing the preservative thiomersal
(which contains ethyl mercury) on a number of occasions. In 2001, the CSM conducted a major review of the available evidence and has
considered new data as it has come to light in 2003. A statement was placed on the MHRA website at http://medicines.mhra.gov.uk in
February 2003, summarising the latest evidence on this issue.
The advice of the CSM remains that, with the exception of possible hypersensitivity reactions (that typically include skin rashes or
local swelling at the site of injection), there is no evidence of harm from thiomersal contained in vaccines and that the benefits
of immunisation with thiomersal-containing vaccines outweigh any potential risks of vaccination. This view concurs with that of the
World Health Organisation.
Subjects
Children; Health hazards; Vaccination; Mercury
Date
6 October 2003
Reference
122715; 410 c1355-6W
House
House of Commons
To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, what environmental assessment she has made of not requiring hazardous waste arising from the manufacture, formulation, supply and use of plastics to be treated before landfill from 16th July 2004; what environmental assessment she has made of not...
To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, what environmental assessment she has made of not requiring hazardous waste arising from the manufacture, formulation, supply and use of plastics to be treated before landfill from 16th July 2004; what environmental assessment she has made of not...
Asked by
Lord Whitehead
(Labour)
Answered by
Elliot Morley
(Labour)
Answering body
Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
Type
Written questions
Status
Answered
Tabled on
15 July 2003
For answer on
1 September 2003
Answered on
1 September 2003
Dr. Whitehead: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) what environmental assessment she has made
of not requiring hazardous waste arising from the manufacture, formulation, supply and use of plastics to be treated before landfill
from 16 July 2004; [126875]
(2) what environmental assessment she has made of not requiring hazardous waste containing (a) high levels of mercury, (b) high
levels of arsenic, (c) high levels of nickel and (d) icocynates to be treated before landfill from 16 July 2004. [126882]
Mr. Morley: Under the Landfill (England and Wales) Regulations 2002, that implemented the technical and regulatory components of the
Landfill Directive, all hazardous waste as defined in the Regulations will require treatment prior to landfill from July 2004.
The only exception is waste for which such treatment does not contribute to the objectives of the Directive by reducing the quantity
or the hazards to human health or the environment.
Overall, the Government is committed to reducing the UK's reliance on landfill, which makes little practical use of waste and is a
missed opportunity to recover value from waste.
Subjects
Hazardous substances; Landfill; Plastics; Waste management; Waste disposal; Waste; Mercury; Nickel; Arsenic
Date
1 September 2003
Reference
409 c844W; 126875;126882
House
House of Commons
To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, if she will list the methods of treatment and their capacity that will be available from 16th July 2004 to treat hazardous waste containing (a) high levels of mercury, (b) high levels of arsenic, (c) high levels of...
To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, if she will list the methods of treatment and their capacity that will be available from 16th July 2004 to treat hazardous waste containing (a) high levels of mercury, (b) high levels of arsenic, (c) high levels of...
Asked by
Lord Whitehead
(Labour)
Answered by
Elliot Morley
(Labour)
Answering body
Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
Type
Written questions
Status
Answered
Tabled on
15 July 2003
For answer on
1 September 2003
Answered on
1 September 2003
Dr. Whitehead: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) if she will list the methods of treatment
and their capacity that will be available from 16 July 2004 to treat hazardous waste containing (a) high levels of mercury, (b) high
levels of arsenic, (c) high levels of nickel and (d) isocyanates before landfill; [126878]
(2) if she will list the methods of treatment, and their capacity, that will be available from 16 July 2004 to treat hazardous waste
arising from the manufacture, formulation, supply and use of plastics and organic waste from paints and inks before landfill.
[126883]
Mr. Morley: A range of possible treatment methods exist now and in the future to deal with hazardous waste. These range from high
temperature incineration and solidification to landfill. Treatment standards for wastes with high levels of mercury, arsenic and
nickel and containing isocyanate will form part of the waste acceptance criteria currently being developed and on which there will
be a Government consultation shortly.
Similarly, hazardous waste arising from the manufacture, formulation, supply and use of plastics and organic waste from paints and
inks will be subject to the requirements of the waste acceptance criteria before landfill. The nature and properties of the wastes
and the requirements to meet the waste acceptance criteria influence the most appropriate treatment technique.
Subjects
Hazardous substances; Landfill; Paint; Waste management; Waste disposal; Waste; Mercury; Nickel; Arsenic
Date
1 September 2003
Reference
409 c841-2W; 126878;126883
House
House of Commons
To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, to what standards she will require hazardous waste arising from the manufacture, formulation, supply and use of plastics to be treated before landfill from 16th July 2004; and on what basis these standards have been set; to what...
To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, to what standards she will require hazardous waste arising from the manufacture, formulation, supply and use of plastics to be treated before landfill from 16th July 2004; and on what basis these standards have been set; to what...
Asked by
Lord Whitehead
(Labour)
Answered by
Elliot Morley
(Labour)
Answering body
Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
Type
Written questions
Status
Answered
Tabled on
15 July 2003
For answer on
1 September 2003
Answered on
1 September 2003
Dr. Whitehead: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to (1) what standards she will require
hazardous waste arising from the manufacture, formulation, supply and use of plastics to be treated before landfill from 16 July
2004; and on what basis these standards have been set; [126872]
(2) fairs to what standards she will require organic based waste from paints and inks to be treated before landfill from July 2004;
and on what basis these standards have been set; [126873]
(3) to what standards she will require hazardous waste containing (a) high levels of mercury, (b) high levels of arsenic, (c) high
levels of nickel and (d) icocynates to be treated before landfill from 16 July 2004; and on what basis these standards have been
set. [126874]
Mr. Morley: Under the Landfill (England and Wales) Regulations 2002, waste can only be accepted at landfill if it does not result in
unacceptable emissions to groundwater, surface water, or the surrounding environment, jeopardise environment protection measures,
put at risk waste stabilisation measures at the landfill or endanger human health. As from July 2004, all hazardous waste as defined
in the Regulations will require treatment prior to landfill. This requirement will extend to non-hazardous waste on a date yet to be
specified.
When the Council Decision on Waste Acceptance Criteria is implemented, for waste to be accepted in hazardous waste landfills,
separate cells in non hazardous waste landfills or in inert waste landfills, it must meet the criteria set out in the Decision.
These criteria include limit values for chemical and other contaminants and for organic content. These values were drawn up by an EU
Commission scientific modelling group, chaired by a scientist from the Environment Agency.
We will be consulting shortly on the implementing of the Council Decision on Waste Acceptance Criteria in England and Wales.
Overall, the Government is committed to reducing the UK's reliance on landfill, which makes little practical use of waste and is a
missed opportunity to recover value from waste.
Subjects
Hazardous substances; Landfill; Paint; Plastics; Standards; Waste management; Waste disposal; Waste; Mercury; Nickel; Arsenic
Date
1 September 2003
Reference
409 c843-4W; 126872;126873;126874
House
House of Commons
To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, what plans she has to assess the health impacts of mercury emissions into the environment (a) generally and (b) from crematoria; and if she will make a statement. - Inc ref to "Collation of toxicological data and intake...
To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, what plans she has to assess the health impacts of mercury emissions into the environment (a) generally and (b) from crematoria; and if she will make a statement. - Inc ref to "Collation of toxicological data and intake...
Asked by
Helen Clark
(Labour)
Answered by
Ben Bradshaw
(Labour)
Answering body
Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
Type
Written questions
Status
Answered
Tabled on
2 July 2003
For answer on
10 July 2003
Answered on
10 July 2003
Mrs. Helen Clark: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what plans she has to assess the health
impacts of mercury emissions into the environment (a) generally and (b) from crematoria; and if she will make a statement.
[124047]
Mr. Bradshaw: The information requested is as follows.
(a) The UK has already taken steps to assess the impacts of mercury in a range of environmental compartments. We contributed to the
production of WHO Air Quality Guidelines for Europe, and have adopted the same statutory limit for drinking water as the WHO
drinking water guideline value. The WHO drinking water guideline is currently being revised and we will consider what, if any,
reassessment would be required in light of changes made. An assessment of health impacts from mercury contaminated soils has been
undertaken and two reports "Collation of toxicological data and intake values for humans-- Mercury" and "Soil Guideline Values for
inorganic mercury contamination" were published last year. Both are available on the Defra website at www.defraweb/
environment/landliability/pubs.htm. Dietary exposure to mercury is mainly in the form of methylmercury in fish and is assessed
against international guidelines for methylmercury. The Food Standards Agency issues advice to consumers to limit consumption of
certain species offish, so that exposure is within these guidelines.
(b) My Department issued a consultation on an assessment by the Environment Agency's Local Authority Unit on mercury emissions from
crematoria on 7 May with comments requested by 7 August. A copy is available on the Defra website at www.defraweb/
corporate/consult/crematoria/consultation.pdf
Work is continuing in this area. A global assessment of mercury was published by the United Nations Environment Programme earlier
this year and an action plan is being developed. In addition, the European Commission propose to develop a Strategy on Mercury in
2004 to protect human health and the environment from the release of mercury. This work is expected to reassess the health impacts
of mercury and the UK will contribute to the development of this Strategy.
Subjects
Air pollution; Health hazards; Mercury; Crematoriums
Date
10 July 2003
Reference
124047; 408 c920-1W;408 c918-9W
House
House of Commons
To ask the Secretary of State for Health, what plans he has to phase out the use of mercury in vaccines given to babies.
To ask the Secretary of State for Health, what plans he has to phase out the use of mercury in vaccines given to babies.
Asked by
Tim Loughton
(Conservative)
Answered by
Hazel Blears
(Labour)
Answering body
Department of Health
Type
Written questions
Status
Answered
Tabled on
14 April 2003
For answer on
8 May 2003
Answered on
8 May 2003
Tim Loughton: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to phase out the use of mercury in vaccines given to
babies. [109929]
Ms Blears: The only vaccines used in the United Kingdom routine childhood immunisation programme that contain a mercury compound are
diphtheria, tetanus and whole cell pertussis and diphtheria and tetanus vaccines. The mercury is present as ethylmercury in the
excipient thiomersal.
While there is no evidence of harm caused by thiomersal in vaccines, the European Medicines Evaluation Agency recommended that it
would be prudent to promote the use of vaccines without thiomersal as a precautionary measure. The Committee on Safety of Medicines
has endorsed this recommendation and continues to do so. Manufacturers are actively developing research programmes to eliminate,
substitute or reduce thiomersal in vaccines following these recommendations. This may take time because manufacturers are required
to ensure that the reduction, replacement or elimination of thiomersal does not affect the safety, quality and efficacy of the final
vaccine.
To date, a number of UK licensed vaccines have had levels of thiomersal reduced or removed completely from the manufacture of the
component antigens or from the final vaccine. These developments are regularly reviewed and on 1 April 2003, a letter was sent from
the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency to UK vaccine marketing authorisation holders, asking for an update on
progress in reducing or removing thiomersal from vaccines.
Subjects
Children; Health hazards; Vaccination; Mercury; Committee on Safety of Medicines
Date
8 May 2003
Reference
109929; 404 c866W;404 c862W
House
House of Commons
To ask the Secretary of State for Health, what assessment he has made of the link between mercury in vaccines given to babies and (a) autism and (b) heart disease.
To ask the Secretary of State for Health, what assessment he has made of the link between mercury in vaccines given to babies and (a) autism and (b) heart disease.
Asked by
Tim Loughton
(Conservative)
Answered by
Hazel Blears
(Labour)
Answering body
Department of Health
Type
Written questions
Status
Answered
Tabled on
14 April 2003
For answer on
8 May 2003
Answered on
8 May 2003
Tim Loughton: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the link between mercury in vaccines given to
babies and (a) autism and (b) heart disease. [109928]
Ms Blears: Thiomersal is an ethylmercury-containing compound that has played an important role either as a preservative or in the
initial stages of the manufacture of some vaccines for over 60 years. As with all medicinal products, the Medicines and Healthcare
Products RegulatoryAgency (MHRA) and the Committee on Safety of Medicines (CSM) keep the safety of thiomersal-containing vaccines
under continual review. The CSM has reviewed the safety, including postulated neurological adverse effects, of thiomersal-containing
vaccines on a number of occasions.
CSM has recently reviewed two UK-based epidemiological studies that have provided reassuring results regarding the safety of
thiomersal in vaccines, in relation to neurodevelopmental disorders. One of these studies, which used the United Kingdom's general
practice research database (GPRD), specifically investigated whether there is any link between early thiomersal exposure through
immunisation and autism. This study concluded that administration of thiomersal through childhood immunisation in the UK was not
associated with an increased risk of developing a neurological developmental disability, including autism.
The CSM has carefully considered the results of a recent study, by Geier and Geier, that suggests an association between thiomersal
exposure through the United States childhood immunisation schedule and the development of autism and heart disease. CSM advised that
the methodology in this publication had been inadequately described and that the authors conclusions regarding the association
between thiomersal in vaccines and autism, speech disorders and heart disease are not justified. The CSM has advised that, with the
exception of allergic reactions such as redness and swelling at the injection site, there is no evidence of harm from thiomersal
contained in vaccines. The CSM has advised that the benefits of immunisation with thiomersal-containing vaccines outweigh any
potential risks of vaccination.
Subjects
Children; Health hazards; Vaccination; Thiomersal; Mercury; Committee on Safety of Medicines
Date
8 May 2003
Reference
109928; 404 c865-6W;404 c861-2W
House
House of Commons
Deposited by
Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
Type
Deposited papers
Author
Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
Committed on
1 April 2003
Originated on
31 March 2003
Received on
1 April 2003
Subjects
Hazardous substances; Pollution; Water; Mercury
Commons Library location
DEP 03/975
Lords Library location
HINF 2003/833
Date
1 April 2003
Reference
DEP 03/975
House
House of Commons
To ask the Secretary of State for Health, when retrograde amalgam fillings for teeth were first introduced in England and Wales. - Records indicate the treatment has been used since at least 1948.
To ask the Secretary of State for Health, when retrograde amalgam fillings for teeth were first introduced in England and Wales. - Records indicate the treatment has been used since at least 1948.
Asked by
John Barrett
(Liberal Democrat)
Answered by
David Lammy
(Labour)
Answering body
Department of Health
Type
Written questions
Status
Answered
Tabled on
12 February 2003
For answer on
13 March 2003
Answered on
13 March 2003
John Barrett: To ask the Secretary of State for Health when retrograde amalgam fillings for teeth were first introduced in England
and Wales. [98352]
Mr. Lammy: As far as records indicate, the treatment has been used since at least the inception of the national health service in
1948.
Subjects
Dental services; Dentistry; Health hazards; Patients; Mercury
Date
13 March 2003
Reference
98352; 401 c416W
House
House of Commons
To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, what her assessment is of the effectiveness of emissions scrubbers in removing mercury pollutants from power station emissions. - Inc figures.
To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, what her assessment is of the effectiveness of emissions scrubbers in removing mercury pollutants from power station emissions. - Inc figures.
Asked by
Nigel Evans
(Conservative)
Answered by
Brian Wilson
(Labour)
Answering body
Department of Trade and Industry
Type
Written questions
Status
Answered
Tabled on
7 February 2003
For answer on
24 February 2003
Answered on
24 February 2003
Mr. Evans: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what her assessment is of the effectiveness of emissions scrubbers
in removing mercury pollutants from power station emissions. [97522]
Mr. Wilson: There are a number of factors which affect the effectiveness of scrubbers removing mercury emissions. Around 40-60 per
cent. of the mercury produced during coal combustion is in the elemental vapour form and the type of wet scrubbers used on coal-
fired plant (eg flue gas desulphurisation (FGD) used for sulphur dioxide control) are not effective in removing this form of mercury
from the flue gas. Of the remaining mercury, which is in an oxidised form, wet emissions scrubbers have been shown to be effective.
In summary, it is estimated that about 50 per cent. of mercury produced is removed by wet scrubbers. There is no information on dry
scrubbers although there is research being carried out on this.
A study on the monitoring and control of trace elements from coal-fired power generation is about to be let within the DTI's Cleaner
Coal Technology Programme and this will include mercury emissions, their measurement, and their effects, and will cover the emerging
legislative and policy issues.
Subjects
Exhaust emissions; Power stations; Pollution control; Standards; Mercury
Date
24 February 2003
Reference
97522; 400 c69W;400 c69-70W
House
House of Commons
To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, what the accepted maximum levels of mercury in the environment are. - Inc figures.
To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, what the accepted maximum levels of mercury in the environment are. - Inc figures.
Asked by
Nigel Evans
(Conservative)
Answered by
Alun Michael
(Labour; Co-operative Party)
Answering body
Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
Type
Written questions
Status
Answered
Tabled on
7 February 2003
For answer on
12 February 2003
Answered on
12 February 2003
Mr. Evans: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the accepted maximum levels of mercury in the
environment are. [97520]
Alun Michael: There is no acceptable maximum level of mercury in the environment. To protect against direct human inhalation, the
World Health Organisation (WHO), recommends a guideline level of 1 microgramme per cubic metre for inorganic mercury vapour in air.
However due to the fact that mercury has been shown to bioaccumulate in its toxic, methylated form in the environment, particularly
in the aquatic food chain, the WHO recommends that ambient levels of mercury in air should be kept as low as possible.
Environmental quality standards (EQSs) for mercury in the aquatic environment are set out in List I of the Dangerous Substances
Directive (DSD) (76/464/EEC) and the Surface Water (Dangerous Substances) (Classification) Regulations (1989) as 1 nanogramme per
litre for freshwater and 0.3 nanogrammes per litre for saltwater. Mercury discharges are also covered by daughter directives of the
DSD (82/176/EEC and 84/156/EEC).
Subjects
Air pollution; Pollution; Pollution control; Standards; Water; Mercury
Date
12 February 2003
Reference
97520; 399 c851W;399 c849W
House
House of Commons
To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, what estimate she has made of the environmental impact of mercury emissions from UK power stations. - Inc figures.
To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, what estimate she has made of the environmental impact of mercury emissions from UK power stations. - Inc figures.
Asked by
Nigel Evans
(Conservative)
Answered by
Alun Michael
(Labour; Co-operative Party)
Answering body
Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
Type
Written questions
Status
Answered
Tabled on
7 February 2003
For answer on
12 February 2003
Answered on
12 February 2003
Mr. Evans: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what estimate she has made of the environmental
impact of mercury emissions from UK power stations. [97519]
Alun Michael: Mercury emissions from UK power stations have fallen by some 80 per cent. (from 8.36 tonnes/annum to 1.65
tonnes/annum) since 1990.
The Environment Agency carried out dispersion modelling of the impact of mercury emissions from UK power stations in 1996. The
impact as a result of the concentrations attributed to the power stations was found to be insignificant. The Environment Agency will
however keep the question of emissions under review as alternative fuel sources became available/viable.
Subjects
Air pollution; Environmental impact assessment; Pollution; Power stations; Mercury
Date
12 February 2003
Reference
97519; 399 c851W;399 c847-8W
House
House of Commons
To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, if she will make a statement on mercury emissions from UK power stations. - Inc table.
To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, if she will make a statement on mercury emissions from UK power stations. - Inc table.
Asked by
Nigel Evans
(Conservative)
Answered by
Alun Michael
(Labour; Co-operative Party)
Answering body
Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
Type
Written questions
Status
Answered
Tabled on
7 February 2003
For answer on
12 February 2003
Answered on
12 February 2003
Mr. Evans: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on mercury emissions
from UK power stations. [97518]
Alun Michael: The following table shows total estimated UK emissions of mercury from all sources up to 2001 (the latest date for
which figures are available). The estimated emission of mercury to air from UK power generation in 2001 was 1.65 tonnes,
representing 19 per cent. of total UK mercury emissions. Total emissions have fallen by 72 per cent. (from 31.6 tonnes to 8.8
tonnes) since 1990. Mercury emissions from power stations have fallen by 80 per cent. (from 8.36 tonnes to 1.65 tonnes), over the
same period.
UK emissions of mercury by UN/ECE Category (tonnes)
_________________________________________________________________________________________________.
1970 1980 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2001 %
Comb. in energy prod
Public power 7.47 8.10 8.36 8.26 7.93 4.98 4.88 4.47 2.91 2.98 2.72 1.68 1.61 1.65 19%
Petroleum 0.09 0.09 0.06 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.06 0.05 0.05 1%
refining
Other comb 0.49 0.17 0.03 0.03 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0%
and trans.
Comb. in comm/inst/res
Comm/inst 2.28 0.90 0.95 0.94 0.81 0.43 0.36 0.26 0.28 0.31 0.19 0.17 0.14 0.15 2%
Residential 3.93 1.93 1.04 1.16 1.00 1.15 1.01 0.75 0.77 0.66 0.60 0.60 0.53 0.59 7%
plant
Agriculture/ 0.06 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0%
forestry/aqu
aculture
Combustion in industry
Iron and 1.09 0.46 0.58 0.54 0.55 0.54 0.55 0.56 0.58 0.58 0.58 0.56 0.52 0.49 6%
steel comb
Industry- 4.02 2.47 2.88 2.98 2.94 3.12 2.92 2.92 2.30 1.95 1.37 0.32 0.78 0.74 8%
non-ferrous
metals
Other ind. 5.64 2.34 2.17 2.20 2.45 2.31 2.25 2.11 1.90 1.82 1.70 1.40 0.99 1.30 15%
comb
Production processes
Iron and 0.56 0.30 0.44 0.41 0.41 0.41 0.42 0.44 0.44 0.45 0.42 0.44 0.51 0.28 3%
steel
Non ferrous 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0%
metals
Processes in 11.27 10.24 8.09 8.89 7.43 3.29 3.60 4.21 2.40 1.14 1.31 1.50 1.44 1.48 17%
industry
Road 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0%
transport
Other 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0%
trans/mach
Waste
Waste- 7.36 7.58 6.41 6.38 6.21 3.16 2.94 2.82 2.39 1.77 1.81 1.84 1.82 1.68 19%
incineration
Landfill 0.59 0.59 0.59 0.56 0.52 0.48 0.45 0.41 0.41 0.41 0.40 0.40 0.39 0.39 4%
Total 44.90 35.20 31.60 32.40 30.30 20.00 19.50 19.00 14.50 12.20 11.20 9.00 8.80 8.80 100%
_________________________________________________________________________________________________.
Source:
National Atmospheric Emissions Inventor
Subjects
Air pollution; Pollution; Power stations; Pollution control; Mercury
Date
12 February 2003
Reference
97518; 399 c850W;399 c848W
House
House of Commons
To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, which UK rivers or lakes are tested for contamination with mercury; and what the results of these surveys were in the last year for which information is available. (Info in library Dep 03/975).
To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, which UK rivers or lakes are tested for contamination with mercury; and what the results of these surveys were in the last year for which information is available. (Info in library Dep 03/975).
Asked by
Nigel Evans
(Conservative)
Answered by
Elliot Morley
(Labour)
Answering body
Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
Type
Written questions
Status
Answered
Tabled on
7 February 2003
For answer on
12 February 2003
Answered on
12 February 2003
Mr. Evans: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs which UK rivers or lakes are tested for
contamination with mercury; and what the results of these surveys were in the last year for which information is available.
[97521]
Mr. Morley: This information is not held centrally and will have to be collated by the Environment Agency. The Agency has advised
that it should be able to provide a comprehensive answer during March. I will arrange for the information to be placed in the
Library of the House, and will notify the hon. Member when it is available.
Subjects
Contamination; Pollution; Water; Testing; Rivers; Mercury; Lakes
Date
12 February 2003
Reference
97521; 399 c851W;399 c849W
House
House of Commons