1-6 of 6 results for subject:Mercury
Librarians' tools
- Search time
- 0.232 seconds
- Solr query time
- 0.001 seconds
- Search query
- subject:Mercury
- We searched for
- subject_t:Mercury OR subject_ses:11617
Year
X
2005
Type
House
Session
Month
Department
Member
Primary member
Answering member
Legislative stage
Legislation
Subject
More
Publisher
To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if the Government will provide the Crematorium Authority Mercury Abatement Organisation with powers enabling it to co-ordinate implementation measures with regards to the installation of mercury-abatement equipment and emissions burden-sharing in crematoria.
To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if the Government will provide the Crematorium Authority Mercury Abatement Organisation with powers enabling it to co-ordinate implementation measures with regards to the installation of mercury-abatement equipment and emissions burden-sharing in crematoria.
Asked by
Bill Olner
(Labour)
Answered by
Ben Bradshaw
(Labour)
Answering body
Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
Type
Written questions
Status
Answered
Tabled on
22 November 2005
For answer on
24 November 2005
Answered on
5 December 2005
We have made provision for the mercury reductions required from crematoria to be delivered through burden sharing, in response to concerns raised by some cremation organisations over alternative approaches, and have been pleased to assist the cremation sector to the extent possible in their development of suitable arrangements. This is a novel approach and is an alternative to the conventional method of identifying installations above a given size to take pollution control measures.It would not be appropriate for the Government to intervene in order to dictate that one particular burden sharing approach—such as that of the Crematorium Authority Mercury Abatement Organisation—be taken up by all crematoria. I have, however, extended the deadline until 1 June 2006 by when we wish to see evidence that the burden sharing approach will deliver the 50 per cent. reduction we have specified.
Subjects
Pollution control; Mercury; Crematoriums
Date
5 December 2005
Reference
440 c928-9W;440 c928-9W; 31843
House
House of Commons
Type
Impact assessments
Author
Food Standards Agency
Legislation
Contaminants in Food (England) Regulations 2005
Subjects
Additives; Contamination; Enforcement; Health hazards; EU law; Hazardous substances; Food; Fish; Lead; Monitoring; Metals; Regulation; Risk assessment; Mercury; Food composition; Cadmium; Carcinogens; Ochratoxin A; Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons; Benzopyrene; 3-MCPD
Commons Library location
RIA 05/158 (Partial RIAs as above, only)
Lords Library location
HINF 2005/1426
Date
29 July 2005
Reference
RIA 05/158 (Partial RIAs as above, only);HINF 2005/1426
Type
Impact assessments
Author
Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
Legislation
Special Waste Regulations 1996; List of Wastes (England) Regulations 2005; Hazardous Waste (England and Wales) Regulations 2005
Subjects
Agriculture; Costs; Chlorofluorocarbons; Finance; Fees and charges; Environment protection; EU law; Exemptions; Industry; Hydrofluorocarbons; Hazardous substances; Landfill; Environment Agency; Domestic waste; Hydrochlorofluorocarbons; Incinerators; Local government; Pollution control; Recycling; Monitoring; Lighting; Sewage; Transport; Regulation; Waste management; Waste disposal; Waste; Water treatment; Mercury; Television licences
Commons Library location
RIA 05/134
Lords Library location
HINF 2005/878
Date
13 April 2005
Reference
RIA 05/134;DEFRA
To ask the Secretary of State for Health, if he will remove (a) formaldehyde, (b) mercury, (c) foetal calf serum and (d) monkey kidney cells from UK childhood vaccines.
To ask the Secretary of State for Health, if he will remove (a) formaldehyde, (b) mercury, (c) foetal calf serum and (d) monkey kidney cells from UK childhood vaccines.
Asked by
Norman Baker
(Liberal Democrat)
Answered by
Melanie Johnson
(Labour)
Answering body
Department of Health
Type
Written questions
Status
Answered
Tabled on
18 January 2005
For answer on
10 February 2005
Answered on
10 February 2005
Norman Baker: To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will remove (a) formaldehyde, (b) mercury,
(c) foetal calf serum and (d) monkey kidney cells from UK childhood vaccines. [210276]
Miss Melanie Johnson: Formaldehyde is used as an inactivating agent to eliminate poliovirus infectivity. Also, it is used to
inactivate diphtheria and tetanus toxins. Gluteraldehyde, a closely related chemical, is used to inactivate acellular pertussis
toxins. The quantities present in the new vaccines are low, and less than 0.1 milligrams of formaldehyde and less than 0.02 mg
gluteraldehyde per 0.5 millilitre dose. Formaldehyde is present naturally in the human body at levels of about 2.5 micrograms per ml
of blood. For a two month old child, this is about 10 times as much as in the amount present in a single dose of vaccine. There is
no evidence that these quantities pose a risk to health and there are no plans to remove these substances from vaccines.
None of the current vaccines used in the childhood immunisation programme contain mercury. Thiomersal, which releases ethylmercury,
has played an important role either as a preservative or in the initial stages of the manufacture of some vaccines for over 60
years. Thiomersal was contained in the diphtheria, tetanus and whole cell pertussis (DTwP) and diphtheria and tetanus vaccines.
However, with the introduction of the new vaccine Pediacel on 27 September 2004, the routine childhood immunisation programme
no longer includes mercury-containing vaccines.
Foetal bovine serum is an essential growth supplement for the cells used for the propagation of live viruses. The bovine serums used
have demonstrated compliance with European Union regulations for minimising the risk of transmitting animal spongiform
encephalopathy agents via human and veterinary medicines. The serum is used solely in the early stage of the manufacturing process
of the vaccine and is reduced to trace amounts during purification and dilution steps.
The monkey kidney cell line used for the production of inactivated poliovirus in the new vaccines has been extensively examined for
contaminating viruses. The cell line meets the requirements of the World Health Organisation and European Pharmacopoeia. To exclude
the risk of extraneous viral contamination each production lot is examined for contaminating viruses during the production process.
The viral inactivation process has been fully validated. No monkey kidney cells are present in the final vaccine.
Subjects
Children; Animal products; Safety; Vaccination; Mercury; Formaldehyde
Date
10 February 2005
Reference
210276; 430 c1686-7W
House
House of Commons
To ask the Secretary of State for Health, when mercury was removed from the diptheria, polio and tetanus (DPT) vaccine used in the UK; what assessment his Department has made of the effect of mercury in the diptheria, polio and tetanus (DPT) vaccine (a) on the immune system and (b)...
To ask the Secretary of State for Health, when mercury was removed from the diptheria, polio and tetanus (DPT) vaccine used in the UK; what assessment his Department has made of the effect of mercury in the diptheria, polio and tetanus (DPT) vaccine (a) on the immune system and (b)...
Asked by
Nick Gibb
(Conservative)
Answered by
Melanie Johnson
(Labour)
Answering body
Department of Health
Type
Written questions
Status
Answered
Tabled on
13 January 2005
For answer on
25 January 2005
Answered on
25 January 2005
Subjects
Safety; Vaccination; MMR vaccine; Thiomersal; Mercury; Tetanus; Polio; Diphtheria
Date
25 January 2005
Reference
430 c320-1W; 209390;209391
House
House of Commons
To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, how many tonnes of waste mercury were produced in (a) 1999-2000, (b) 2000-01, (c) 2001-02 and (d) 2002-03; and how much of this was recycled. - Inc table.
To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, how many tonnes of waste mercury were produced in (a) 1999-2000, (b) 2000-01, (c) 2001-02 and (d) 2002-03; and how much of this was recycled. - Inc table.
Asked by
Sue Doughty
(Liberal Democrat)
Answered by
Elliot Morley
(Labour)
Answering body
Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
Type
Written questions
Status
Answered
Tabled on
16 December 2004
For answer on
20 January 2005
Answered on
20 January 2005
Sue Doughty: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many tonnes of waste mercury were produced in
(a) 1999-2000, (b) 2000-01, (c) 2001-02 and (d) 2002-03; and how much of this was recycled. [206782]
Mr. Morley: A key source of mercury waste arises from the chlor-alkali industry. Annual figures for the three UK mercury cell
chlor-alkali plants for the years in question are set out in table 1. Large amounts of mercury will no longer be required when
mercury cell plants are decommissioned, although this mercury is pure enough to be re-used without further treatment. Mercury can be
present in waste arising from a range of other industries, including from power generation, and mining activities, although there
are no aggregated national figures available for these. Mercury is also present in used dental amalgam, some forms of lighting
equipment, certain thermometers, thermostats, manometers, some batteries, switches and relays, although the use in all these
applications is declining. Implementation of the WEEE Directive and the hazardous waste regulations should encourage the greater
recovery and recycling of mercury from these sources.
Table 1: Mercury disposal and emissions from UK chlor-alkali plant1
kilogrammes
_________________________________________________________________________________________________.
Mercury in safely deposited wastes
1999 4,109
2000 3,408
2001 3,252
2002 10,994
2003 21,484
_________________________________________________________________________________________________.
1 This includes all mercury-contaminated materials, such as cell components, process equipment, solid wastes from sumps, pits,
demercurisation units and the brine purification process, which have been sent to authorised and properly controlled waste disposal
sites.
Subjects
Hazardous substances; Waste disposal; Waste; Mercury
Date
20 January 2005
Reference
206782; 429 c1048-9W
House
House of Commons