Crematoria warned over mercury
“By 2020, crematoria will be by far the biggest single contributor to mercury emissions in this country.”
BBC Monday, 23 November, 1998, – http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/220366.stm
“Amalgam waste is the biggest source of mercury in EU waste water and dental use also leads to the widespread dispersal of mercury into the atmosphere from cremation.”
The European Union pressed to ban mercury from mouths Saturday, July 28, 2007 – By Anna Stablum, LONDON, Reuters
A Japanese study estimated mercury emissions from a small crematorium as 26 grams per day.
Yoshida M; Kishimoto T; Yamamura Y; Tabuse M; Akama Y; Satoh H. Amount of mercury from dental amalgam filling released into the atmosphere by cremation. Nippon Koshu Eisei Zasshi 1994 Jul;41(7):618‑24.
A study in Sweden found significant occupational and environmental exposures at crematoria, and since the requirement to install selenium filters mercury emission levels in crematoria have been reduced 85% .
Reese Km. Mercury emissions from crematoria. Chem & Engin News, 12-7-98, p80-81; & Lancet 1998; 352, 1602.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4160895.stm
Strict rules for crematoria to limit mercury pollution caused when tooth fillings are vaporized have been announced by ministers. The industry has been told mercury filtering equipment must be fitted at crematoria by 2012 to halve emissions. Exposure to the metal is linked to damage to the brain, nervous system and fertility with crematoria responsible for 16% of the UK’s mercury pollution.
But the industry said it was an over-reaction and would lead to price rises. Duncan McCallum, secretary of the Federation of British Cremation Authorities, said: “I think the industry feels it is a bit like using a sledgehammer to crack a nut. We are disappointed. “We are not sure crematoria are such big contributors as the government says. “The problem is that not all crematoria will be able to fit the equipment. “The filters are quite large and some crematoria are in small buildings that are listed so it may not be possible to install them.” He also said the equipment, which costs £250,000, would be too expensive for some of the 650 crematoria in the UK. However, he allayed fears crematoria would be forced to close – originally it was thought one in four would not be able to cope once the new rules came into place.
More sloppy arguments to ignore the environment to maintain the profits.
Emissions
He said the industry was setting up a “trading scheme” which would allow crematoria without filters too buy credits off ones that do have them. As the equipment reduces mercury emissions by up to 99% and the rules stipulate emissions must be halved, crematoria with the equipment will be able to make up the shortfall for crematoria without the filters. And the National Association of Funeral Directors (NAFD) estimated it would add up to £100 to the price of cremation, which currently cost between £250 to £350. Alan Slater, chief executive of the NAFD, said: “What concerns us is that bereaved families will have to bear the cost of this. “Crematorium managers will pass the costs on but it is funeral directors who will have to address the issue with relatives.” However, the government defended the new rules, saying that unless action was taken mercury emissions would rise by two-thirds by 2020. The government is committed to reducing mercury pollution under the UN Heavy Metals Protocol. Restrictions on other industries have already helped reduce mercury emissions from 31.6 tonnes in 1990 to 8 tonnes in 2002.
Environment Minister Larry Whitty said: “By 2020, crematoria will be by far the biggest single contributor to mercury emissions in this country.” “Something must be done. Our decision – on which we consulted widely – strikes a balance between the concerns about cost to crematoria and the need to control emissions of a substance which can damage human health and the environment.”
“By 2020, crematoria will be by far the biggest single contributor to mercury emissions in this country” Larry Whitty
Adverse pregnancy outcomes around incinerators and crematoriums in Cumbria, north west England, 1956–93
T J B Dummer , H O Dickinson, L Parker J Epidemiol Community Health2003; 57 :456–461
Study objective:
To investigate the risk of stillbirth, neonatal death, and lethal congenital anomaly among babies of mothers living close to incinerators and crematoriums in Cumbria, north west England, 1956–93.
Design:
Retrospective cohort study. Logistic regression was used to investigate the risk of each outcome in relation to proximity at birth to incinerators and crematoriums, adjusting for social class, year of birth, birth order, and multiple births. Continuous odds ratios for trend with proximity to sites were estimated.
Setting:
All 3234 stillbirths, 2663 neonatal deaths, and 1569 lethal congenital anomalies among the 244 758 births to mothers living in Cumbria, 1956–1993.
Main results:
After adjustment for social class, year of birth, birth order, and multiple births, there was an increased risk of lethal congenital anomaly, in particular spina bifida (odds ratio 1.17, 95% CI:1.07 to 1.28) and heart defects (odds ratio 1.12, 95% CI: 1.03 to 1.22) around incinerators and an increased risk of stillbirth (odds ratio 1.04, 95% CI: 1.01 to 1.07) and anencephalus (odds ratio 1.05, 95% CI: 1.00 to 1.10) around crematoriums.
Conclusions:
The authors cannot infer a causal effect from the statistical associations reported in this study. However, as there are few published studies with which to compare our results, the risk of spina bifida, heart defects, stillbirth, and anencephalus in relation to proximity to incinerators and crematoriums should be investigated further, in particular because of the increased use of incineration as amethod of waste disposal.
http://www.metroactive.com/papers/metro/06.08.00/cremations-0023.html
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Pulling Teeth
In mercury-laden Silicon Valley, environmentalists say extreme toxicity calls for extreme measures–even if it means making crematories remove the filled teeth of the dead.
By Mary Spicuzza
Dealing with the remains of dearly departed loved ones is never easy. Bereavement aside, decisions loom about whether to opt for open or closed casket and burial or cremation, and what to do with the ashes. Now local environmentalists argue that those opting for cremation need to start asking yet another question: What should be done with the teeth of the deceased?
Conservationists working to reduce mercury contamination in the Bay Area say that mercury-laden dental fillings, which go up in smoke during cremation, are creeping into the environment at alarming levels. “There are a lot of questions about air emissions from crematoria, but we definitely believe that it’s a significant source of mercury contamination,” says Cori Traub, project director for San Francisco-based Clean Water Action. “It’s a gruesome thing to think about, but it’s something we should control, and can control.”
Traub and other ecologically minded members of the pollution prevention workgroup of the Mercury Council, which includes representatives of the Silicon Valley Toxics Coalition, want to take action to reduce all emissions of mercury, whether through air or water or from old thermometers. Working with the San Francisco Regional Water Quality Control Board, they also hope to reduce the amount of mercury that ultimately washes into the bay, from streams, runoff and even from particles in the air which enter the water supply via acid rain. Only preliminary studies have been completed, with more to follow over the next few months, but the environmental community believes the crematories are the third highest contributor to modern air emissions of mercury in the region, according to a 1999 Public Works Department memorandum.
The proposed solution favored by activists is to pull the teeth of the deceased before cremation.
But Randy Krassow, president of Santa Cruz Memorial Park, says that while some see pulling teeth as a quick fix, it would be far more complicated in practice.
And again the costs are just too high! Forget the environment that we all livie in, when it is going to cost a lot more and there is only anecdotal B.S. to go with. “I can’t imagine how it would be easy. I’ve had teeth pulled before and it wasn’t easy,” Krassow says. “But it would be time-consuming and expensive to start drilling mercury out of teeth. And I’d be thinking about how the families would feel about this.”
Krassow says that few dentists are trained in forensic dentistry, and adds that most bodies treated by his Santa Cruz crematorium already have dentures anyway.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Neptune’s Kingdom
THE COURTYARD of the downtown San Jose office for the Neptune Society of Central California office breathes serenity. Cars frantically speed past its Second Street facade, but a meditative calm rules inside Neptune’s massive iron gates. Tile-lined fountains trickle into a koi pond dotted with lily pads, where vibrant orange fish nibble algae from the bottom.
But fish, symbols of life for some, are also living reminders of potentially deadly mercury levels that remain in the watershed of the Santa Clara Valley. Mercury tailings left over from quicksilver mining conducted here for 150 years remain in stream beds and lakes and parts of southern San Francisco Bay, where fish still consume it. Santa Clara County is home to the watershed suffering from the most severe mercury problems in the nation–the Guadalupe River basin. Here, the mercury levels in fish are so high that people are warned not to consume those caught in the Guadalupe River or in the bay.
Members of the Mercury Council acknowledge the importance of cleaning up old mercury and stress that, because of the high toxic levels already here, it is all the more important to eliminate new sources. Yet there are an estimated 365 kilograms pumped into the air each year, according to the work group’s draft reports.
Cement manufacturing plants–such as Hanson Cement Corporation (formerly Kaiser) on Stevens Creek Boulevard–as well as Tosco Corporation refineries top the list of those emitting mercury into the air. But the third-largest source seems to be rooted to peaceful spots like the Neptune Society–and any other company that sends bodies into crematories with fillings intact.
“Air release of mercury must be eliminated,” Michael Stanley-Jones, senior researcher for Silicon Valley Toxics Coalition, writes in the spring 2000 issue of the group’s newsletter. “Crematoriums will have to cease incinerating dental amalgam.” Dental amalgam, the stuff used to fill cavities in teeth, is 56 percent mercury.
Like Traub, Stanley-Jones is a member of the pollution prevention workgroup. Last August the group released a draft study of mercury sources indicating that crematories contribute more than 14 percent of airborne mercury in the region, based on public works statistics.
“There are lots of different options for reducing emissions, but for crematoriums it’s just don’t burn the fillings. It’s an obvious target,” Clean Water Action’s Traub says.
Reports may be preliminary, but environmentalists are already looking at crematoriums to pull teeth before burning bodies. Traub says matter-of-factly, “It’s a low-hanging fruit in immediately reducing mercury air emissions.”
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Mad Hatters Valley
THE TROUBLE WITH mercury, besides being a potent neurotoxin, is the way it bioaccumulates, building up in dangerous ways for both fish and humans. More than 1 million pounds of mercury lines Santa Clara County’s rivers and streams. Contaminated fish eaten by humans can have toxic effects, especially in young children and pregnant mothers. This month, Clean Water Action released a study called In Harm’s Way, detailing the effects of exposure to mercury, which attacks the nervous system and has been linked to developmental disabilities. The group also suggests mercury may be responsible for some cases of attention deficit disorder.
The concern about crematories comes at a time when environmentalists are already frustrated with California’s water pollution and mercury management policies. On May 30, Waterkeepers Northern California and other bay advocacy groups filed a lawsuit charging that the state’s new regulations governing pollution of lakes and rivers are much too lax. The suit, filed last Tuesday with the state Supreme Court, argues that the rules will “perpetuate the contamination of California’s rivers, lakes, bays and estuaries” with substances like mercury and dioxin. Then, at a May 26 pollution prevention meeting, held to discuss the Regional Water Quality Control Board’s management of mercury in San Francisco Bay, members concluded that sources of airborne mercury should be specifically addressed, according to meeting minutes.
The connection between Silicon Valley crematories and the San Francisco Bay may seem convoluted, but once a toxin like mercury is released in the air it can return in the form of acid rain and eventually run off into waterways. It’s not always easy to trace the mechanics of airborne mercury contamination, which water board members believe is responsible for 10 percent of the mercury found in the bay.
“There’s a big difference between air emissions and deposition,” Lisa Vasano of the Environmental Protection Agency says. “Not all emissions are deposited to the bay. Some end up on the land, and only a portion makes it into the bay. The big concern is mercury getting into the water system.”
Officials from the Bay Area Air Quality Control Board acknowledge that crematories release mercury into the environment. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Ashes to Ashes
LOOKING OUT OVER the beautiful Oak Hill grounds reveals why air emissions from crematories is such a sensitive subject. Dotted with colourful flowers and beautiful statues, Oak Hill creates a sacred space for families to come and pay homage to the deceased. Most environmental activists aren’t known as shrinking violets, but those interviewed shyly mention that they haven’t spoken directly with crematories about the problem–much less made suggestions like removing teeth before incineration, which is bound to be touchy.
Larry Kolb, acting executive director of San Francisco’s Regional Water Quality Control Board, says, “It is something all of us shrink from. All of us are concerned about the sensitivity of this issue, but we do known that mercury in tooth fillings easily volatizes during the cremation process.”
Kolb says the issue will be discussed during a June board meeting, and it will send a report to the EPA. He is quick to add that any decisions would not have any direct regulatory effect for at least a year.
But activists say that the problem really lies in lack of comprehensive data about how much mercury is going up in smoke at local crematories, and they hope for greater collaboration between air- and water-quality agencies.
“There’s a real information gap about air sources,” Traub says. “But crematories seem to be a measurable source. “How hard would it be to remove teeth from bodies before they are burned? Much easier than retooling an industrial plant.”
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/12/30/mercury_emissions_fuel_cremation_fight/
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Mercury emissions fuel cremation fight
Health concerns emerge regarding dental fillings
By DeeDee Correll Los Angeles Times /December 30, 2007
FORT COLLINS, Colo. – Rick Allnutt has closed all but one section of his funeral home on the north end of town.
The chapel is dark and quiet, the reception hall bare. But in the bay out back, two side-by-side ovens rumble as the 1,650-degree heat blasts two corpses into bone and ash.
Allnutt has moved the rest of the business to another location and wants to move his crematory to a site near a cemetery in Larimer County, but he’s reached a stalemate with health officials there. They are concerned about what they see as a potential health risk to the living – mercury being released into the atmosphere from dental fillings of the cremated.
They want him to do something that may be unprecedented in the United States: install a filter on his crematory’s smokestack or extract teeth of the deceased before cremation.
Allnutt refuses to do either, calling the first option too expensive and the second ghoulish.
“I’m not going to be the only one in the world who says I’ll pull teeth from dead bodies,” he said.
Across the United States, the issue is cropping up: Do mercury emissions from dental fillings of corpses incinerated in crematories pose a threat? And if so, how should it be handled?
In Colorado, it’s something that health officials are only now examining, said Mark McMillan, manager of the Department of Public Health and Environment’s mercury program.
“We’re on the cusp of starting to understand it,” he said.
The cremation industry, on the other hand, insists there’s no evidence of danger and calls Allnutt’s situation “a dangerous precedent.”
At issue are amalgam dental fillings. Amalgam – an alloy of mercury with another metal such as silver, copper, or tin – is commonly used to fill cavities.
When a body is burned, mercury from such fillings vaporizes. Once released into the atmosphere, mercury returns to earth in rain or snow, ending up in lakes and other bodies of water, where it can lead to elevated levels of mercury in fish. In humans, mercury damages the nervous system and can harm childhood development. Power plants, especially those that burn coal, are by far the largest source of preventable mercury releases; Environmental Protection Agency regulations have been adopted to reduce those emissions. As cremation continues to gain popularity in the United States, the issue may gain more traction.
According to the Cremation Association of North America, a 2005 survey found 46 percent of Americans planned to choose cremation, compared with 31 percent in 1990. Its use varies widely by region: In Nevada and Hawaii, two-thirds of bodies were cremated in 2005; in a number of Southern states, a tenth were.
The EPA does not regulate emissions from crematories, spokeswoman Margot Perez-Sullivan said. It estimates that about 600 pounds of mercury, less than 1 percent of all mercury emissions, come from crematories in the United States every year. (By contrast, the British government requires new crematories to install filters to cut mercury emissions, according to the British Broadcasting Corp. It estimates that fillings account for 16 percent of mercury emissions in the United Kingdom, where the cremation rate is greater than 70 percent.)
In recent years, several states have taken on the issue.
In Minnesota, state Senator John Marty repeatedly has sought – and failed – to pass a law requiring crematory operators to remove teeth or install filters.
He said crematories in Minnesota emit an estimated 68 pounds of mercury every year – 3 percent to 5 percent of mercury emissions in the state. Though coal-fired power plants constitute the greatest problem, Marty said, “we have to go after every source. But it’s not easy politically because people are really squeamish about talking about corpses.”
In 2005, Maine lawmakers considered, but defeated, a similar bill.
Colorado does not regulate crematories’ mercury emissions, which state health officials estimate at about 110 pounds per year.
But the state health department last year began examining the issue. Funded by the EPA, the effort seeks to reduce the amount of mercury emitted through voluntary partnerships with crematory operators, said McMillan, the program’s manager.
So far, collaboration appears unlikely to succeed.
“Their assumptions are all incorrect,” said Mark Matthews, a director for the Cremation Association of North America. “There’s a battle over something that doesn’t exist. The data doesn’t add up, and the science isn’t there.”
He said no studies had found higher concentrations of mercury near crematories, and he pointed out that the EPA does not regulate them.
Even if there were a problem, Matthews said, the proposed solution is “unworkable.” For one, he said, families often have viewings before a cremation; removing the teeth probably would mean disfiguring the face. And the idea is upsetting to grieving relatives, he said. “To suggest that we ought to remove the teeth is completely insensitive to the families we serve.”
In Larimer County, the issue came to a head this year when Allnutt applied for a special-use permit to relocate his crematory, which conducts 450 cremations per year. Neighbors immediately seized on the mercury issue.
At a planning commission meeting in November, Allnutt made his stand, and the county planning commission, an advisory board, voted against granting him a permit.
Allnutt hasn’t decided whether to pursue a hearing before the Board of Commissioners.
The county was unfair, he said, in asking him to do something none of his competitors must do. Installing a smokestack filter at $500,000 would put him at an automatic disadvantage, he said.
But he also said he’ll never pull teeth – even if it means getting out of the cremation business. “I won’t do that,” Allnutt said. “It’s a moral issue.”
Other References
- Situation and Characteristics of Air Pollutants Emission from Crematories in Beijing, China. Xue YF, et al Huan Jing Ke Xue (2015 Jun) 36(6):1959-65
- Toxic emissions from crematories: a review. Mari M, Domingo JL Environ Int (2010 Jan) 36(1):131-137
- Mercury emission from crematoria. Santarsiero A, et al Ann Ist Super Sanita (2006) 42(3):369-73
- Mercury emission measurements in a crematorium. The dentistry aspects. Matter-Grütter C, et al Schweiz Monatsschr Zahnmed (1995) 105(8):1023-8
- Amount of mercury from dental amalgam filling released into the atmosphere by cremation. Yoshida M et al Nihon Koshu Eisei Zasshi (1994 Jul) 41(7):618-24
- Mercury in the hair of crematoria workers. Maloney SR, Lancet (1998 Nov 14) 352(9140):1602
- Effects of mercury release from amalgam dental restorations during cremation on soil mercury levels of three New Zealand crematoria. Nieschmidt AK, Kim ND Bull Environ Contam Toxicol (1997 May) 58(5):744-51
- Mercury and crematorium chimneys. Mills A Nature (1990 Aug 16) 346(6285):615