Re: [Leica] Mercury Cell Ban & Fish

["Jeff S" <segawa@netone.com>]

Marc,
I was originally going to send this privately, as it seems to be diverging
from the subject of Leica, but felt that it really does affect us all, as
photo enthusiasts.

- -----Original Message-----
From: Marc James Small <msmall@roanoke.infi.net>

>There are, of course, a zillion other ways to control the "threat" from
>mercury cells other than an outright ban.  One suggestion was to have a
>deposit on the cells to encourage purchasers to return them to the store
>from which they bought the cell once it was dead.
>
Right you are; I'm thinking of human nature, which says that folks might
tend to fling the things into the trash out of laziness, unless there's a
really hefty deposit on the things. Check out the clipping at the bottom of
Forbes Magazine's website: http://207.87.27.10/forbes/97/0210/5903214a.htm

>The reality is that flourescent lightbulbs introduce into the environment
>well over 1000 times the mercury that the batteries did;  we all just toss
>the burned-out light tubes into the trash, and they break as soon as they
>are tossed into the landfill, if not before.
>
Mercury content's a problem, yet compact fluorescent bulbs are nevertheless
promoted as environmental (if imperfectly so) products, because they last
much longer--4+ years easily, and over this time, consume less than 25% of
the energy of a standard incandescent and in this way, can reduce the need
for more electrical generating capacity and hence, pollution. Utilities have
found that "negawatts" are good business for much the same reason! Check
out: http://www.rmi.org/hebs/heb1/heb1.html

>The mercury batteries have to
>rust before they release mercury, and that is a matter of many years.

Unfortunately, Marc, life's not so simple! You see, in an effort to conserve
precious landfill space, waste is often incinerated beforehand, and here,
heavy metals find their way into the air, though smokestack "scrubbers" can
do much to reduce emissions. The remaining ash is then typically taken to a
sanitary landfill, which has been lined with waterproof sheeting material,
much like a fish pond. Why? Because water percolating through the ash makes
for a toxic substance known as leachate, which, if allowed, can readily find
it's way into the water table, wetlands or streams. Can an multi-acre fish
pond be entirely leak-free indefinitely? You tell me.

>The issue is one more of inflammatory environmentalism gone a-gley than of
>a reasoned response to a huge threat.
>
>As to the situation with the eating of fish, I am not a large-scale
>consumer of our finny friends.  But I want to know just how these fish got
>mercury into their systems from camera batteries.  Am I missing something?
>Is there a piscine market for MR-4 meters and old Spotmatics?  Have I been
>neglecting a possible venue for camera shows I should be attending?
>
Rubbish: The Archaeology of Garbage, by Dr. William Rathje, would be a good
place to read up on what becomes of the stuff we throw out, and I've noticed
that Atlantic Monthly is offering reprints of an article on the subject:
http://www.theatlantic.com/atlantic/xchg/circ/trash.htm

As you reserach the topic, you'll find there's a lot more to this than some
great bureaucratic machine out to curtail your freedoms, or a bunch of
tree-hugging, socialist eco-fanatics with a case of really bad vibes!

Happy reading,

Jeff