1-20 of 43 results for subject:Mercury
Librarians' tools
- Search time
- 0.301 seconds
- Solr query time
- 0.003 seconds
- Search query
- subject:Mercury
- We searched for
- subject_t:Mercury OR subject_ses:11617
Session
X
2006-07
Type
-
Early day motions (1)
+
Legislation (1)
+
Delegated legislation (1)
-
Statutory instruments (1)
+
Members' contributions (22)
-
Oral answers to questions (11)
-
Oral questions (11)
+
Parliamentary proceedings (1)
+
Statements (1)
-
Written statements (1)
+
Parliamentary questions (29)
-
Oral questions (11)
-
Written questions (18)
House
Session
More
2006-07 (43)
Year
Department
Member
More
Primary member
Answering member
Legislative stage
Legislation
Subject
More
Publisher
asked Her Majesty's Government:Who is currently responsible for ensuring the safe recycling of the mercury contained in low-energy light bulbs.
asked Her Majesty's Government:Who is currently responsible for ensuring the safe recycling of the mercury contained in low-energy light bulbs.
Asked by
Lord Lawson of Blaby
(Conservative)
Answered by
Lord Jones of Birmingham
(Other (affiliation))
Type
Written questions
Status
Answered
Answered on
17 October 2007
The Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment Regulations 2006 (WEEE) established a collection network allowing the final holders of low-energy light bulbs—referred to in the legislation as ““compact fluorescent lamps””—to return them and other electrical equipment free of charge to designated collection facilities (generally civic amenity sites for householders, with other facilities for business to business waste) at end of life.
Producer compliance schemes, (acting on behalf of those that originally placed the product on the market), must collect deposited bulbs from these facilities and ensure that they are treated and recycled to the treatment standards laid down in the regulations and guidance documents.
Subjects
Recycling; Lighting; Mercury
Date
17 October 2007
Reference
5396; 695 c59WA
House
House of Lords
asked Her Majesty's Government:What steps they have taken to inform the public of the need for the safe recycling of the mercury contained in low-energy light bulbs.
asked Her Majesty's Government:What steps they have taken to inform the public of the need for the safe recycling of the mercury contained in low-energy light bulbs.
Asked by
Lord Lawson of Blaby
(Conservative)
Answered by
Lord Jones of Birmingham
(Other (affiliation))
Type
Written questions
Status
Answered
Answered on
17 October 2007
Following the introduction of the Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment Regulations 2006 (WEEE), local authorities are working together with the retailers of electrical and electronic equipment in their local area to ensure that householders know where they can deposit old equipment (including low-energy light bulbs) for treatment and recycling.
These regulations require all distributors (retailers, mail-order companies and internet sellers) of low-energy light bulbs—referred to in the legislation as ““compact fluorescent lamps””—to provide information to consumers and other users on the requirement not to dispose of such bulbs as unsorted municipal waste; the return and collection systems available to them; their role in contributing to reuse, recovery and recycling; the potential effects on the environment and human health of any hazardous substances in this equipment; and the meaning of the wheeled bin symbol which is placed on products.
Subjects
Recycling; Lighting; Mercury
Date
17 October 2007
Reference
5395; 695 c58-9WA
House
House of Lords
asked Her Majesty's Government:What steps they have taken to publicise the threat to the environment from the mercury contained in low-energy light bulbs.
asked Her Majesty's Government:What steps they have taken to publicise the threat to the environment from the mercury contained in low-energy light bulbs.
Asked by
Lord Lawson of Blaby
(Conservative)
Answered by
Lord Jones of Birmingham
(Other (affiliation))
Type
Written questions
Status
Answered
Answered on
17 October 2007
Low-energy light bulbs contain a small dose of mercury and should be disposed of responsibly. Recent legislation which implements two EC directives on electrical and electronic equipment limits the amount of mercury which such bulbs may contain and sets up a framework for disposing of them in an environmentally safe manner.
The Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment Regulations 2006 (WEEE) require all distributors of low-energy light bulbs—referred to in the legislation as ““compact fluorescent lamps””—to provide information to consumers and other users on the requirement not to dispose of such bulbs and a wide range of other electrical and electronic equipment as unsorted municipal waste; the return and collection systems available to them; their role in contributing to reuse, recovery and recycling; the potential effects on the environment and human health of any hazardous substances in this equipment; and the meaning of the wheeled bin symbol which is placed on products.
The Restriction of the Use of Certain Hazardous Substances in Electrical and Electronic Equipment Regulations 2006 (RoHS) prohibited the placing on the market of such bulbs that contain more than 5mg of mercury per bulb from 1 July 2006.
Subjects
Lighting; Waste disposal; Mercury
Date
17 October 2007
Reference
5393; 695 c57-8WA
House
House of Lords
To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment his Department has made of the potential effect on public health of mercury in (a) vaccinations, (b) dental amalgams and (c) low energy light bulbs.
To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment his Department has made of the potential effect on public health of mercury in (a) vaccinations, (b) dental amalgams and (c) low energy light bulbs.
Asked by
Tim Farron
(Liberal Democrat)
Answered by
Baroness Primarolo
(Labour)
Answering body
Department of Health
Type
Written questions
Status
Answered
Tabled on
5 October 2007
For answer on
10 October 2007
Answered on
10 October 2007
As with all medicinal products, vaccine safety is continually monitored by the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) with advice from the Commission on Human Medicines (CHM). The CHM has thoroughly reviewed the safety of vaccines containing mercury (thiomersal).Several large studies have found no evidence of a link between thiomersal-containing vaccines and neurodevelopmental disorders. MHRA and CHM advice, available on the MHRA website, is that there is no evidence of harm from the very small quantities of thiomersal contained in some vaccines, with the exception of possible allergic reactions such as skin rashes or local swelling at the site of injection. This view concurs with that of the World Health Organisation, the United States Institute of Medicine and the European Medicines Agency.The use of dental amalgam is declining in the United Kingdom as a result of increased application of alternatives, changes in the commissioning of primary dental care and a general improvement in dental health. We expect this decline to continue. However it remains an effective direct restorative option and there is no evidence to suggest that its use poses any significant health risk.No formal assessment has been made in respect of the potential effect on public health of mercury in low energy light bulbs.
Subjects
Health hazards; Mercury
Date
10 October 2007
Reference
156823; 464 c670-1W
House
House of Commons
asked Her Majesty's Government:How they were able to form a view on the justification for banning the manufacture of mercury barometers for domestic use if there is no estimate of the numbers of such barometers made.
asked Her Majesty's Government:How they were able to form a view on the justification for banning the manufacture of mercury barometers for domestic use if there is no estimate of the numbers of such barometers made.
Asked by
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
(Conservative)
Answered by
Lord Rooker
(Labour)
Type
Written questions
Status
Answered
Answered on
1 October 2007
We formed a view on banning the sale of new mercury barometers for domestic use in line with the principle that underlies the new EU chemicals policy set out in REACH. We cannot justify the continued use of a persistent, bio-accumulative, highly toxic material for a non-essential use, when fully acceptable alternatives are available.
Notes
Answer received between Friday 27 July and Monday 30 July 2007.
Subjects
EU law; Measuring instruments; Weather; Mercury
Date
1 October 2007
Reference
4992; 694 c134WA
House
House of Lords
asked Her Majesty's Government:Whether Parliament will be given an opportunity to vote on the proposed European Union regulation banning the sale of new mercury barometers and thermometers.
asked Her Majesty's Government:Whether Parliament will be given an opportunity to vote on the proposed European Union regulation banning the sale of new mercury barometers and thermometers.
Asked by
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
(Conservative)
Answered by
Lord Rooker
(Labour)
Type
Written questions
Status
Answered
Answered on
1 October 2007
During negotiations, the legislation was subjected to normal parliamentary scrutiny procedures, passing through the Lords Select Committee on the European Union in November 2006 and the European scrutiny committee in another place in October 2006.
The proposals were recently accepted by the Environment Council and MEPs in the European Parliament, voting in plenary. The dossier has now been finalised, and the text will shortly appear in the EU Official Journal. There will be no further opportunity for changes.
Notes
Answer received between Friday 27 July and Monday 30 July 2007.
Subjects
EU law; Parliamentary scrutiny; Measuring instruments; Weather; Mercury; Thermometers
Date
1 October 2007
Reference
4955; 694 c134WA
House
House of Lords
asked Her Majesty's Government:Further to the Answer by Lord Rooker on 16 July (Official Report, cols. 1-4), how and when the proposals to reduce the mercury in dental fillings were communicated to dentists and the Dental Practitioners Association.
asked Her Majesty's Government:Further to the Answer by Lord Rooker on 16 July (Official Report, cols. 1-4), how and when the proposals to reduce the mercury in dental fillings were communicated to dentists and the Dental Practitioners Association.
Asked by
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
(Conservative)
Answered by
Lord Darzi of Denham
(Labour)
Type
Written questions
Status
Answered
Answered on
26 July 2007
The composition of mercury amalgam in dental restorations has not changed but, as the table below indicates, the amount of mercury used in dentistry is declining as a result of improvements in the oral health of the population and the development of alternative restorative materials.
| Numbers of mercury amalgam restorations in England and Wales. | |
|---|---|
| 2002-03 | 8,024,760 |
| 2003-04 | 7,690,215 |
| 2004-05 | 6,557,319 |
Subjects
Dental services; Mercury
Date
26 July 2007
Reference
4956; 694 c119-20WA
House
House of Lords
asked Her Majesty's Government:How many new barometers containing mercury are made each year in the United Kingdom; how many of them are for (a) scientific and industrial use, and (b) domestic use; what is the quantity of mercury used in each case; and how much of that is from recycled...
asked Her Majesty's Government:How many new barometers containing mercury are made each year in the United Kingdom; how many of them are for (a) scientific and industrial use, and (b) domestic use; what is the quantity of mercury used in each case; and how much of that is from recycled...
Asked by
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
(Conservative)
Answered by
Lord Rooker
(Labour)
Type
Written questions
Status
Answered
Answered on
17 July 2007
It is estimated that some 30 kilograms of mercury are used each year in the manufacture of new barometers in the UK. As a typical barometer contains 100 to 600 grams of mercury, this equates to the production of 50 to 300 new instruments annually. No further breakdown of these figures is available.
The only mercury mine in Europe, at Almaden in Spain, ceased extraction of ore in June 2001 and production of mercury from stockpiled ore in July 2003. It is not known how much of the mercury directly produced at Almaden is still available but, increasingly, mercury for new barometers will be available only from recycled material or from mercury imported into the European Union.
Subjects
EU law; Measuring instruments; Weather; Mercury
Date
17 July 2007
Reference
4647; 694 c13-4WA
House
House of Lords
Further to the Written Answer by Lord Rooker on 25 June (WA 79), what process was followed and what parties were involved in the dialogue with the Government prior to the European Commission adopting its proposal for banning mercury barometers and thermometers.
Further to the Written Answer by Lord Rooker on 25 June (WA 79), what process was followed and what parties were involved in the dialogue with the Government prior to the European Commission adopting its proposal for banning mercury barometers and thermometers.
Asked by
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
(Conservative)
Answered by
Lord Rooker
(Labour)
Type
Written questions
Status
Answered
Answered on
17 July 2007
The Government sought dialogue with stakeholders in the usual ways. An explanatory memorandum on the European Commission’s proposals was prepared and went through scrutiny clearance in both Houses. A public consultation on the Commission’s proposals was conducted in 2006. Details of the consultation, including a list of consultees, consultation documents and a summary of responses, are available on the Defra website.
In addition, direct contact by telephone and/or e-mail was made with:
each of the three companies in the UK that manufacture new mercury barometers for sale to the public;
a fourth company that provides parts, tools and supplies to barometer repairers;
scientists at the National Physical Laboratory regarding the scientific use of mercury measuring instruments; and
medical experts, regarding the use of mercury in blood pressure monitoring devices (sphygmomano meters).
The proposal will not ban mercury barometers and thermometers but will prohibit the sale of new instruments to the general public. Existing domestic devices, especially antiques, will still be able to be used, repaired and traded.
Subjects
EU law; Public participation; Measuring instruments; Weather; Mercury; Thermometers
Date
17 July 2007
Reference
4649; 694 c14WA
House
House of Lords
asked Her Majesty's Government:Whether the mercury thermometers on Aga ovens will be banned by the proposed European Union regulations concerning mercury.
asked Her Majesty's Government:Whether the mercury thermometers on Aga ovens will be banned by the proposed European Union regulations concerning mercury.
Asked by
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
(Conservative)
Answered by
Lord Rooker
(Labour)
Type
Written questions
Status
Answered
Answered on
17 July 2007
The proposed restriction prohibits the placing on the market of measuring devices containing mercury for sale to the general public. It makes no distinction on whether the measuring device is marketed on its own or part of another product, so it would apply to the sale of new mercury thermometers on Aga ovens.
However, the proposed restriction does not apply to devices already in use or sold second-hand. Therefore, there is no requirement that thermometers already attached to Aga ovens in people's homes will have to be replaced with non-mercury versions.
The manufacturers of Aga ovens have confirmed that they are aware of the proposed restriction and are working with their suppliers to replace mercury thermometers with appropriate substitutes.
Subjects
EU law; Mercury; Furnaces; Thermometers
Date
17 July 2007
Reference
4648; 694 c13WA
House
House of Lords
My Lords, given that we have been talking about mercury in the mouth, would it be worth emphasising that it is quite safe to eat mercury? If, for instance, a barometer is broken in the mouth, there is no real danger from mercury poisoning. Of course, a rectal thermometer is dangerous, if broken.
My Lords, given that we have been talking about mercury in the mouth, would it be worth emphasising that it is quite safe to eat mercury? If, for instance, a barometer is broken in the mouth, there is no real danger from mercury poisoning. Of course, a rectal thermometer is dangerous, if broken.
Asked by
Lord McColl of Dulwich
(Conservative)
Oral questions - Supplementary
Status
Answered
Answered on
16 July 2007
My Lords, all the advice that I have received is that mercury is a highly toxic substance. It is persistent, and we do not want any new sources put into circulation. The four incidents to which I referred involved the need for furniture to be destroyed and hospitalisation. The whole point is that mercury is an unsafe chemical, but, where there is no exposure, there is no problem. Fire brigades support this view, because of the vaporisation of mercury in fires. This is a major safety issue. I am not arguing that this is the be-all and end-all. No one could do that, given the tonnes of mercury used in the European Union and the relatively small amount used in barometers.
Subjects
Health hazards; EU law; Measuring instruments; Weather; Mercury
Date
16 July 2007
Reference
694 c4
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
House
House of Lords
My Lords, I am one of the millions of people walking around with a mouthful of amalgam fillings, and I am a dentist who worked with amalgam in the days when we handled mercury with our bare hands, not with rubber gloves, as people do now. Does the Minister not think that there is too much stress on this issue? As I understand it, although the number of fillings has reduced, the amount of mercury used in amalgam fillings has not changed.
My Lords, I am one of the millions of people walking around with a mouthful of amalgam fillings, and I am a dentist who worked with amalgam in the days when we handled mercury with our bare hands, not with rubber gloves, as people do now. Does the Minister not think that there is too much stress on this issue? As I understand it, although the number of fillings has reduced, the amount of mercury used in amalgam fillings has not changed.
Asked by
Baroness Gardner of Parkes
(Conservative)
Oral questions - Supplementary
Status
Answered
Answered on
16 July 2007
My Lords, as I said, the attempt worldwide is to reduce and avoid the use of mercury where possible. It is not being mined any more, as far as I know. There are plenty of stocks, because of recycling. But the fact is that barometers in people’s homes are quite safe, unless, of course, there is an accident.
My Lords, no one is arguing that—they are quite safe. The industry has a two-year derogation. The use of scientific instruments, where mercury is vital because there is no alternative, will continue. The use of special switches on lifeboats, in which only mercury proved to be 100 per cent effective, will, as far as I am aware, continue. The restrictions will apply where there is a viable alternative—and there is a more accurate and viable alternative for barometers.
Subjects
Health hazards; EU law; Measuring instruments; Weather; Mercury
Date
16 July 2007
Reference
694 c3
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
House
House of Lords
No, my Lords, certainly not. Given the way in which the noble Lord asked that question, one would assume that nothing is being done about the two examples that he gave. That is not the case. For example, there are restrictions and proposals to reduce the amount of mercury in dental fillings, and there are proposals to restrict mercury emissions from new crematoria and to restrict by 50 per cent mercury emissions from existing crematoria. In the past three decades, UK emissions of mercury have declined from 63 tonnes to 7.6 tonnes, a reduction of 89 per cent, which is consistent with both the European and the global effort to reduce the use of mercury where there are viable alternatives.
No, my Lords, certainly not. Given the way in which the noble Lord asked that question, one would assume that nothing is being done about the two examples that he gave. That is not the case. For example, there are restrictions and proposals to reduce the amount of mercury in dental fillings, and there are proposals to restrict mercury emissions from new crematoria and to restrict by 50 per cent mercury emissions from existing crematoria. In the past three decades, UK emissions of mercury have declined from 63 tonnes to 7.6 tonnes, a reduction of 89 per cent, which is consistent with both the European and the global effort to reduce the use of mercury where there are viable alternatives.
Answered by
Lord Rooker
(Labour)
Type
Oral answers to questions
Subjects
Health hazards; EU law; Measuring instruments; Weather; Mercury
Date
16 July 2007
Reference
694 c1-2
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
House
House of Lords
My Lords, I declare an interest. Is the Minister aware that mercury has been used throughout the clock-making and repairing businesses for centuries in connection with compensated pendulums? Will the European legislation affecting barometers also affect clock-making and repairing businesses where there is particular concern, as they have received no guidance on this matter from his department? Is he also aware that, unlike compact fluorescent light bulbs or CFLs, which contain mercury and cannot be disposed of as household waste, the mercury in a barometer or a pendulum bob is retained on the premises in the manufacturing and repairing businesses?
My Lords, I declare an interest. Is the Minister aware that mercury has been used throughout the clock-making and repairing businesses for centuries in connection with compensated pendulums? Will the European legislation affecting barometers also affect clock-making and repairing businesses where there is particular concern, as they have received no guidance on this matter from his department? Is he also aware that, unlike compact fluorescent light bulbs or CFLs, which contain mercury and cannot be disposed of as household waste, the mercury in a barometer or a pendulum bob is retained on the premises in the manufacturing and repairing businesses?
Asked by
Lord Tanlaw
(Crossbench)
Oral questions - Supplementary
Status
Answered
Answered on
16 July 2007
My Lords, I do not have a briefing on clock makers, and this is the first time in the past few months since this issue arose that it has been raised. I will take advice and contact the noble Lord. He also made a reference to the low energy light bulb. The average mercury barometer contains between 100 and 600 grammes of mercury. That is 25,000 to 150,000 times more than is contained in an energy saving light bulb. I am not arguing that; they will have a limited life in due course anyway, and there will be a proper way of disposing of them.
If anyone thinks that it does not matter; the mercury is persistent. It will remain in the atmosphere and it will vaporise. That is why in half the lakes in Sweden—that is 50,000 lakes—by and large the fish are contaminated, because the mercury will drift to the north part of the planet.
Subjects
Health hazards; EU law; Measuring instruments; Weather; Mercury
Date
16 July 2007
Reference
694 c2-3
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
House
House of Lords
My Lords, I am amazed that the Minister describes it as a proportionate response, given that new mercury barometers consume some 78 pounds of mercury, that the Government still intend that mercury can be used in dentistry for filling purposes and that, according to an Answer from the Minister, 0.8 tonnes of mercury go into the atmosphere as a result of cremations. Surely the Minister must recognise that this is a disproportionate response, which will destroy businesses making mercury barometers? Would he not like to reconsider the Government’s position?
My Lords, I am amazed that the Minister describes it as a proportionate response, given that new mercury barometers consume some 78 pounds of mercury, that the Government still intend that mercury can be used in dentistry for filling purposes and that, according to an Answer from the Minister, 0.8 tonnes of mercury go into the atmosphere as a result of cremations. Surely the Minister must recognise that this is a disproportionate response, which will destroy businesses making mercury barometers? Would he not like to reconsider the Government’s position?
Asked by
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
(Conservative)
Oral questions - 1st Supplementary
Status
Answered
Answered on
16 July 2007
No, my Lords, certainly not. Given the way in which the noble Lord asked that question, one would assume that nothing is being done about the two examples that he gave. That is not the case. For example, there are restrictions and proposals to reduce the amount of mercury in dental fillings, and there are proposals to restrict mercury emissions from new crematoria and to restrict by 50 per cent mercury emissions from existing crematoria. In the past three decades, UK emissions of mercury have declined from 63 tonnes to 7.6 tonnes, a reduction of 89 per cent, which is consistent with both the European and the global effort to reduce the use of mercury where there are viable alternatives.
Subjects
Health hazards; EU law; Measuring instruments; Weather; Mercury
Date
16 July 2007
Reference
694 c1-2
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
House
House of Lords
My Lords, since 2005, the chemical incidents surveillance system has reported four domestic incidents involving mercury spills from barometers. Five people were confirmed as having been exposed, of whom one exhibited symptoms. However, mercury released from barometers persists in the environment and, as such, can indirectly lead to risks to human health, such as children’s mental development. The proposed restrictions on the sale of new mercury instruments are a proportionate response to those concerns.
My Lords, since 2005, the chemical incidents surveillance system has reported four domestic incidents involving mercury spills from barometers. Five people were confirmed as having been exposed, of whom one exhibited symptoms. However, mercury released from barometers persists in the environment and, as such, can indirectly lead to risks to human health, such as children’s mental development. The proposed restrictions on the sale of new mercury instruments are a proportionate response to those concerns.
Answered by
Lord Rooker
(Labour)
Asked by
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
(Conservative)
Type
Oral answers to questions
How many people have suffered harm as a result of contact with mercury barometers.
Subjects
Health hazards; EU law; Measuring instruments; Weather; Mercury
Date
16 July 2007
Reference
694 c1
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
House
House of Lords
My Lords, the effect on its insurance of any company using a chemical is a matter for that company and the insurance company. It has nothing to do with this regulation. This regulation does not make mercury less unsafe—it is unsafe anyway. The fact of the matter is that the European Parliament agreed by two fairly substantial votes at its plenary session on 9 and 12 July to what the Commission wanted anyway and adopted the common position. In due course, that will be the case. We have a two-year derogation for the antique barometer trade, in which adjustments can be made. Repair work on antique barometers will continue—there is a derogation in that respect. Other instruments, including aneroid barometers made by some manufacturers, are more accurate and can be just as important a furniture item. As far as we know, there are very few barometer manufacturers in Europe—there are only three small firms in this country and one in France.
My Lords, the effect on its insurance of any company using a chemical is a matter for that company and the insurance company. It has nothing to do with this regulation. This regulation does not make mercury less unsafe—it is unsafe anyway. The fact of the matter is that the European Parliament agreed by two fairly substantial votes at its plenary session on 9 and 12 July to what the Commission wanted anyway and adopted the common position. In due course, that will be the case. We have a two-year derogation for the antique barometer trade, in which adjustments can be made. Repair work on antique barometers will continue—there is a derogation in that respect. Other instruments, including aneroid barometers made by some manufacturers, are more accurate and can be just as important a furniture item. As far as we know, there are very few barometer manufacturers in Europe—there are only three small firms in this country and one in France.
Answered by
Lord Rooker
(Labour)
Asked by
Lord Cotter
(Liberal Democrat)
Type
Oral answers to questions
My Lords, I understand from previous answers that small firms will be able to carry on working on antique barometers. Given that regulations are slipped in some years ahead—certainly without much notice—as is often the case with Governments, can the Minister give an assurance that there will be no such regulations to stop small firms carrying on doing this work indefinitely? As the work is designated as allegedly dangerous, can I have an assurance that there will be no impact on small firms’ insurance premiums and the way that they conduct their business under the health and safety regulations?
Subjects
Health hazards; EU law; Measuring instruments; Weather; Mercury
Date
16 July 2007
Reference
694 c3
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
House
House of Lords
My Lords, all the advice that I have received is that mercury is a highly toxic substance. It is persistent, and we do not want any new sources put into circulation. The four incidents to which I referred involved the need for furniture to be destroyed and hospitalisation. The whole point is that mercury is an unsafe chemical, but, where there is no exposure, there is no problem. Fire brigades support this view, because of the vaporisation of mercury in fires. This is a major safety issue. I am not arguing that this is the be-all and end-all. No one could do that, given the tonnes of mercury used in the European Union and the relatively small amount used in barometers.
My Lords, all the advice that I have received is that mercury is a highly toxic substance. It is persistent, and we do not want any new sources put into circulation. The four incidents to which I referred involved the need for furniture to be destroyed and hospitalisation. The whole point is that mercury is an unsafe chemical, but, where there is no exposure, there is no problem. Fire brigades support this view, because of the vaporisation of mercury in fires. This is a major safety issue. I am not arguing that this is the be-all and end-all. No one could do that, given the tonnes of mercury used in the European Union and the relatively small amount used in barometers.
Answered by
Lord Rooker
(Labour)
Asked by
Lord McColl of Dulwich
(Conservative)
Type
Oral answers to questions
My Lords, given that we have been talking about mercury in the mouth, would it be worth emphasising that it is quite safe to eat mercury? If, for instance, a barometer is broken in the mouth, there is no real danger from mercury poisoning. Of course, a rectal thermometer is dangerous, if broken.
Subjects
Health hazards; EU law; Measuring instruments; Weather; Mercury
Date
16 July 2007
Reference
694 c4
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
House
House of Lords
My Lords, I do not have a briefing on clock makers, and this is the first time in the past few months since this issue arose that it has been raised. I will take advice and contact the noble Lord. He also made a reference to the low energy light bulb. The average mercury barometer contains between 100 and 600 grammes of mercury. That is 25,000 to 150,000 times more than is contained in an energy saving light bulb. I am not arguing that; they will have a limited life in due course anyway, and there will be a proper way of disposing of them.
If anyone thinks that it does not matter; the mercury is persistent. It will remain in the atmosphere and it will vaporise. That is why in half the lakes in Sweden—that is 50,000 lakes—by and large the fish are contaminated, because the mercury will drift to the north part of the planet.
My Lords, I do not have a briefing on clock makers, and this is the first time in the past few months since this issue arose that it has been raised. I will take advice and contact the noble Lord. He also made a reference to the low energy light bulb. The average mercury barometer contains between 100 and 600 grammes of mercury. That is 25,000 to 150,000 times more than is contained in an energy saving light bulb. I am not arguing that; they will have a limited life in due course anyway, and there will be a proper way of disposing of them.
If anyone thinks that it does not matter; the mercury is persistent. It will remain in the atmosphere and it will vaporise. That is why in half the lakes in Sweden—that is 50,000 lakes—by and large the fish are contaminated, because the mercury will drift to the north part of the planet.
Answered by
Lord Rooker
(Labour)
Asked by
Lord Tanlaw
(Crossbench)
Type
Oral answers to questions
My Lords, I declare an interest. Is the Minister aware that mercury has been used throughout the clock-making and repairing businesses for centuries in connection with compensated pendulums? Will the European legislation affecting barometers also affect clock-making and repairing businesses where there is particular concern, as they have received no guidance on this matter from his department? Is he also aware that, unlike compact fluorescent light bulbs or CFLs, which contain mercury and cannot be disposed of as household waste, the mercury in a barometer or a pendulum bob is retained on the premises in the manufacturing and repairing businesses?
Subjects
Health hazards; EU law; Measuring instruments; Weather; Mercury
Date
16 July 2007
Reference
694 c2-3
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
House
House of Lords
My Lords, as I said, the attempt worldwide is to reduce and avoid the use of mercury where possible. It is not being mined any more, as far as I know. There are plenty of stocks, because of recycling. But the fact is that barometers in people’s homes are quite safe, unless, of course, there is an accident.
My Lords, no one is arguing that—they are quite safe. The industry has a two-year derogation. The use of scientific instruments, where mercury is vital because there is no alternative, will continue. The use of special switches on lifeboats, in which only mercury proved to be 100 per cent effective, will, as far as I am aware, continue. The restrictions will apply where there is a viable alternative—and there is a more accurate and viable alternative for barometers.
My Lords, as I said, the attempt worldwide is to reduce and avoid the use of mercury where possible. It is not being mined any more, as far as I know. There are plenty of stocks, because of recycling. But the fact is that barometers in people’s homes are quite safe, unless, of course, there is an accident.
My Lords, no one is arguing that—they are quite safe. The industry has a two-year derogation. The use of scientific instruments, where mercury is vital because there is no alternative, will continue. The use of special switches on lifeboats, in which only mercury proved to be 100 per cent effective, will, as far as I am aware, continue. The restrictions will apply where there is a viable alternative—and there is a more accurate and viable alternative for barometers.
Answered by
Lord Rooker
(Labour)
Asked by
Baroness Gardner of Parkes
(Conservative)
Type
Oral answers to questions
My Lords, I am one of the millions of people walking around with a mouthful of amalgam fillings, and I am a dentist who worked with amalgam in the days when we handled mercury with our bare hands, not with rubber gloves, as people do now. Does the Minister not think that there is too much stress on this issue? As I understand it, although the number of fillings has reduced, the amount of mercury used in amalgam fillings has not changed.
Subjects
Health hazards; EU law; Measuring instruments; Weather; Mercury
Date
16 July 2007
Reference
694 c3
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
House
House of Lords