While it does mention lamps, it looks like the main focus is dental amalgam -- including "abating" emissions from crematoria. It looks like the EU has already banned those for people under 15, but there are still a lot of people in the world walking around with amalgam fillings.
One presumes the abatement process would involve removing any mercury-based fillings from the deceased before cremation occurred, but they don't explicitly say this.
Aren't mercury-based amalgam teeth fillings more durable than other techniques because the metal is more plastic that other fillings which are more brittle?
Last time I read about that, the risks for mercury exposure was for dentists, not patients.
Amalgam fillings are more durable than composite fillings, but the latter are much cheaper and they can still have a lifetime of 20 years or more.
Ceramic facets or ceramic crowns are more durable than amalgam fillings, as long as they are not used in a way that could fracture them, e.g. by attempting to crush nuts or the like with the teeth.
There isn't one version/mix of composite/plastic. I know this because when I was younger, I got a filling and it got wrecked quite quickly. They then said they'd use a different mix but it was the last resort. I forgot the pros and cons. But I can say that approx 20 years later, my filling got replaced and the dentist (a different one, for sure) said 'this stuff breaks so quickly'.
Asking HN: Mercury Dental amalgam. Does any one know if and when they break, or even if they dont. Do they "leak" mercury into your body? How does the body reacts to tiny trace of substance of mercury? Does it stay inside our body forever?
And if your mercury Dental amalgam is still in perfect condition, should you replace it?
One-off ingestion of metallic mercury isn't a big deal, it basically comes out the other end. But mercury fillings continuously emit a tiny amount of mercury vapor which the person will inhale continuously. Very small amounts but measurable.
At the end of the day there's massive amounts of data since these fillings have been in use for over 100 years, and it's quite clear who has them and who doesn't. If they do have actual negative effects, they are small.
Definitely better than having cavities, but modern composite fillings are probably better still (though, being plastic, there's the endocrine disruptor question on those - and a much wider range of composite filling materials out there makes it harder to study).
It is unpredictable whether the long term exposure to minute quantities of mercury leached from your fillings will cause harm or not.
The safer choice is to replace all the amalgam fillings with composite fillings, unless you cannot afford that (but composite fillings are much cheaper than ceramic facets or crowns, which may be better choices when possible).
Anecdotally, I have replaced all my amalgam fillings more than 15 years ago and I have felt much better after that, because with the amalgam I had always felt an unpleasant metallic taste, while ceramic and composite resins do not have any taste.
For what claims? It is well documented to get metabolized, and used in the biochemistry of life. Its toxicity is a chimera of nebulous everchanging symptoms and unknown toxic doses.
Copper is the weirdest one, as its essentiality is widely accepted, autopsies show its reduced concentrations in dementia, yet it's regulated as a toxic metal anyway.
As a general philosophy, don't ban it, regulate the use of it. What if trace amount of mercury are needed for the next world changing technology? By precluding reasonable access you're ensuring that will be invented somewhere else.
..and yes, I realise "bans" are colloquisms for heavy regulation I tend to think of a ban as lazy regulation that only specifies the few small exceptions as opposed to detailed regulation that defines the areas where care needs to be exercised.
- "What if trace amount of mercury are needed for the next world changing technology?"
HgCdTe is a critical semiconductor for long-wavelength infrared detectors, and has no equivalent substitute [0]. It'd be in character for the EU to decide to offshore production of essential military hardware—for health and safety.
