Mercury Poisoning in Popular Culture

9 Replies

By: Philip Wolfe

In writing for this blog, I’ve been considering the role of communication and message-building in science and science policy. I’m often surprised about the extent of people’s scientific knowledge. Last year I was in a bar in Cambridge that was having a trivia contest, and 90% of the trivia teams there were able to correctly identify the isotope of cesium used to define the second as a unit of time measurement. Now, this was not a random sampling of the US population at large (it was a heavy MIT crowd), but I still think that’s pretty amazing.

Yet, while I’ve been prepping for these negotiations, I have been speaking with friends and colleagues and many of them have no idea about the problems mercury poses to the world. How can the same group of people, a group that clearly has a good science foundation, be so unaware of something that is such a significant policy issue?

I don’t have a great answer (and I would love to hear thoughts from other people), but I thought it might be fun to look at how mercury and mercury-related health impacts are portrayed in popular culture to perhaps gain some insight.

Spoiler Alert: It’s Not Mercury

Spoiler Alert: It’s Not Mercury

It turns out there may not be a whole lot of insight to gain. Over 177 episodes of House, not once was mercury the final diagnosis, and its not like the show shied away from outré solutions. Gold, cadmium, cobalt, lead and even selenium poisoning all make it on the final diagnosis tally sheet.

In fact, mercury poisoning is rarely mentioned as even a possibility for whatever pain or illness the primary patient may have. I’ll give the writers credit, when it comes up the details are pretty accurate. In “Son of a Coma Guy,” the team guesses that seizures and visual problems could be caused by mercury exposure at a luxury yacht factory. It’s a neat throwaway fact, as mercury was formerly used in mildew-resistant paints, but that practice has been discontinued in the US since the early 90’s.

One episode of the CBS Drama The 11th Hour, in which a brilliant biophysicist solves science crimes for the FBI and stops deadly experiments (yes, that really was the premise), did look at the long lasting and potentially devastating consequences of mercury releases to lakes and watersheds. I haven’t seen the episode, but judging by the fact that the series was cancelled after just 18 episodes, I think its fair to say it wasn’t part of the cultural zeitgeist.

In movies, mercury is not represented much more. While toxic chemicals have been covered in “based on true events” movies like A Civil Action (trichloroethylene) and Erin Brockovich (hexavalent chromium), Hollywood seems to be pretty silent on mercury. The glaring exception is a wonderfully bizarre environmental agitprop horror film from the 1970s called Prophecy. In it, mercury waste from a logging company creates violent raccoons, salmon large enough to eat a duck and, worst of all, a giant bear-monster that may also be a reincarnated, evil forest spirit. What it lacks in accuracy (and it lacks a lot in accuracy) it more than makes up for in terrible special effects.

Mercury’s absence in music is a bit more understandable. “Big Issue” songs, like Joni Mitchell calling for farmers to put away their DDT, have not been in vogue over the past few decades. The Dead Kennedy’s song “Kepone Factory,” about a chemical quite similar to DDT, references the Minamata disaster. In Minamata, Japan, over 2000 people have been diagnosed with a severe neurological impairments from mercury exposure. Japanese-American composer Toshiko Akiyoshi has written a jazz suite about the Minamata disaster, but unfortunately the LP with the most acclaimed recording of this piece has not been released in the US.

I’m not sure why mercury has not been more prevalent in popular culture. The potential dangers are chilling enough and the real-life tragedies (here for example) are certainly deserving of greater acknowledgement and provide compelling narratives for art. It certainly makes it harder for scientists and policymakers to enact real change, or for victims to be compensated for that matter, because there’s such a dearth of awareness of the underlying problem.

I wonder if some celebrity took up mercury as a personal cause if it could raise the public consciousness about the issue. There is evidence that it could. In late 2008, Jeremy Piven dropped out of the Broadway revival of Speed-the-Plow, citing hydrargaria from sushi consumption. When the news broke, Google searches for “mercury poisoning” nearly doubled.

Getting a high-profile public figure to support a global treaty on mercury could be one way to improve public awareness. As a scientist though, I fear the flip side of that coin. If mercury becomes a cause célèbre overnight, there may not be enough scientifically-sound publically-available literature to properly support any nascent movement. Ask a scientist studying vaccine safety how they feel about Jenny McCarthy for an idea of how scientists can quickly find themselves unable to control a scientific conversation.

The Curious Life of a Mercury Atom

1 Reply

by Bethanie Edwards

Hi, a mercury atom here. I’m currently floating in a water bottle of a delegate at the INC5 mercury negotiations in Geneva. As you know, the global community is coming together this week to negotiate ways to prevent my release into the environment. How exactly do I and my fellow mercury atoms make it into the environment to begin with? Let me share my experience with you.

For much of my life I was just a mercury atom sharing electrons with my best friend, a sulfur atom, deep in the earth as cinnabar. My potential toxicity was masked by my rosy appearance. I was expecting to spend my entire life nestled away in the Earth’s crust. But suddenly, I was startled, a loud persistent thud getting closer and closer. It was 1500 AD, and Spanish miners had just dug me out of my lithospheric home in the mountain-sides of Almaden, Spain. That’s when I began my journey, contributing to the 350,000 metric tons of mercury that humans have released into the environment over the last 4000 years.

Illustration from Erker (1574)

Illustration from Erker (1574)

After traveling to a monastery, monks began heating me up. I could feel my bond with sulfur dissipating; I was entering the vapor phase. I was collected in a distillation bulb as I evaporated, separated from the cinnabar. Little did I know, I’d soon be forced into a new partnership (albeit a brief one).

Once condensed into my liquid state and mixed with sluice from gold panning, my affinity for binding with other metals led me to bind together with all of the gold in the river bed sluice, separating the gold from the rock. When the rock was discarded the monks begin heating me up again, ending my short amalgamation with gold. However, this time as I vaporized, I escaped into the atmosphere.

The vapor pressure of mercury is very high, so I floated all the way into the upper troposphere and caught a wind current to the North Pole. Along the way I met a few other mercury atoms. Most of them had found their way into the atmosphere after weathering into rivers and then evaporating, or after being emitted from the eruption of a volcano. I bummed around in the Arctic troposphere for about 6 months.  As I recall, there were quite a few bromine atoms around. I ran into one, lost a few electrons, and then stuck to it. Then we began falling through the atmosphere, luckily there was snow to break our fall. There I waited until summer, when the snow began to melt and I was washed into a fjord.

As the summer progressed in the fjord, phytoplankton bloomed and then died. The bacterial populations began to grow exponentially and, before I knew it, the bacteria had used up all the oxygen. When bacteria deplete all the oxygen gas in an environment, they move on to using other molecules to make a living. Once they started using sulfate (SO42-), my old friend sulfur re-entered the picture. I bound with it and, not too long afterward, one of those bacteria sucked me into her cell. I’m not sure if the bacterium was just interested in the sulfur that I was attached to, or if she found me to be too toxic, but—to my horror—the bacterium quickly tore away the sulfur and stuck me with a methyl group.

Now, I’m not trying to be prejudiced against carbon, but it’s really not a good influence on me. I have enough toxicity problems on my own. And when I’m bound to an organic carbon, I can’t resist diffusing into organisms, be it fish, shellfish, or humans.  That is exactly what happened. After the water that I was residing in was re-oxygenated, a fish came along and I entered its body through the gill tissue, and as I was a methylmercury molecule by then, I wasn’t the only one to do so.

Eventually my fishy friend’s luck ran out; a fisherman caught him and cooked him up for dinner. I stayed inside the fisherman until he lived out his days and was cremated, and I was released back into the atmosphere.

I felt bad for the poor fellow but I was perfectly happy to be back in the atmosphere. I was looking forward to seeing the Arctic again. But to my surprise, I started falling to the Earth very shortly after being emitted. It must have been all the soot that I was associated with. I was deposited on the forest floor. As the seasons turned and leaves fell and decayed, I became buried in the soil. The rains came and went, but I stayed in the forest getting buried millimeter by millimeter deeper into the soil with each passing year. Until the day the fires came, that is.

Sometimes forest fires burn so hot that they scorch the soil. When this occurs, volatile elements like me can be vaporized and released into the atmosphere. While I will admit I was sequestered in the soil for quite a while, I did not expect to see so many other mercury atoms when I returned to the atmosphere. I met mercury atoms that had found their way to the atmosphere after being in fillings in people’s mouths, atoms that used to reside in light bulbs, several atoms that were used recently in gold mining in the depths of the jungle, and of course the atoms that were released from coal.

This time when I met and bound with a bromine radical, I was in the atmosphere over the Swiss Alps. Since Switzerland is a temperate region, it took much longer to get deposited than it had when I was in the Arctic. However, I eventually landed in the waters of the Alps and ultimately made it into the water bottle of an INC5 delegate.

Since I am one of 1.5×1015 mercury molecules in this water bottle alone, I sure do hope that they agree upon and sign a treaty with teeth!

 

What to Expect from INC5 Day 5 – Thursday, January 17

1 Reply

By: Amanda Giang

The agenda for Day 5.

The agenda for Day 5.

It’s Day 5 of the negotiations, and the atmosphere is getting tense. Chair Lugris is pushing for some serious progress, and is expecting contact groups to produce some text by the end of day, so that tomorrow can be devoted to fine-tuning. We’re not even going to have a swiss break! We expect that plenary will be suspended early while contact groups tackle the following:

 

  • A financial mechanism for the convention. The Chair has delayed this important discussion until now, but it’s time to finally iron out exactly how the activities described in the draft treaty are going to be paid for. Looking to be a late night for @alicealpert and @jvanderhoop, who will be covering this issue.
  • Linkages between this treaty and others, and how implementation and compliance will be operationalized, covered by @wolfeyp and @amandagiang.
  • Text for how to address health in the treaty, also covered by @amandagiang and @wolfepy.
  • Finalization of technical issues, like ASGM, supply and trade of mercury (including primary mining), followed by @markdstaples and @DanyaRumore.
  • Dental amalgam—which is a particularly contentious section of the text on mercury products and processes, covered by @Bea_Edwards and @lncz.
  • Draft text for emissions and releases, with fleshing out of Annexes specifying sources and limits, followed by @NoelleSelin, @BeckySaari and @leahstokes
  • If we’re lucky, pizza! We hear our generous Swiss hosts provided some late night study negotiation snacks yesterday. As graduate students, we know nothing fuels brainpower like greasy cheese and carbs.

Don’t forget to follow @MITmercury and #MITmercury to follow the action real-time!

Forms of Mercury: Beyond the Silver Liquid

Leave a reply

By: Noelle Selin

It seems a bit strange to hear delegates at an intergovernmental negotiation on mercury discussing how to define “mercury.” Doesn’t the periodic table define it? Not only is mercury an element, but it’s also the reason why we’re all here in Geneva to negotiate an agreement. But defining exactly what is being addressed by the treaty is a critical issue – especially since mercury exists in many different forms in the environment.

Mercury in its liquid form is most familiar.

Mercury in its liquid form is most familiar.

The chair’s draft treaty text defines mercury as “elemental mercury”. Elemental mercury is the liquid substance that many people recall when they think of mercury. In the atmosphere, most mercury is in elemental form, but it is a gas rather than a liquid. Elemental mercury is often abbreviated as Hg(0).

Another definition in the convention is “mercury compounds,” which addresses forms of mercury other than elemental mercury. What other forms of mercury are there?

Methylmercury is of particular concern, because it is the toxic form of mercury found in fish. Mercury is converted to methylmercury in aquatic systems by sulfate- and iron-reducing bacteria. For more on the health effects of methylmercury, see our earlier post.

In addition to elemental mercury, atmospheric mercury also exists as divalent mercury. Divalent mercury, also referred to as Hg(II), is formed when elemental mercury has undergone a chemical reaction of oxidation, losing electrons. In the atmosphere, Hg(II) can bind with other elements, but scientists don’t yet know exactly what these forms are. The chemical form of Hg(II) in the atmosphere could be HgCl2, HgBr2, Hg(OH)2, or HgO. The leading candidate is HgCl2, [give the name for this?], but this is a topic of current research. When Hg(II) is measured in the atmosphere, it is referred to as reactive gaseous mercury. Forms of mercury found in the ocean include both Hg(0) and Hg(II).

Emissions from different sources release different forms of mercury. Emissions from the surface ocean and land are in the form of elemental mercury. Anthropogenic sources, such as coal power plants, can release both Hg(0) and Hg(II). This is important because the two forms of mercury have different environmental behavior.

Hg(0) lasts for a long time in the atmosphere (6 months to a year), meaning that it circulates around the globe and can travel long distances. Hg(II) can easily rain or settle out after only a few days in the atmosphere, which means it is more likely to enter the environment nearby its source. Thus, reducing Hg(II) emissions will have important local benefits, compared with reducing Hg(0), which has important global benefits.

The behavior of mercury in the environment, however, is complex. Thus, we need to use computer models [pdf] to determine how mercury changes form and travels after it is emitted. These models use the chemical and physical properties of mercury in its various forms to estimate where mercury will travel over time. Mercury deposited to the environment as Hg(II) can return to the atmosphere as Hg(0). Additionally, Hg(0) can react (oxidize) to form Hg(II) in the atmosphere, and Hg(II) can then reduce back to Hg(0). In other words, mercury can change its form. This can occur anywhere in the atmosphere, even when it is being released from power plant plumes [pdf]. Ultimately, all mercury released continues to cycle through the environment for centuries, contributing to the global mercury legacy.

Many of these reactions are not well understood by scientists, so the transport and fate of mercury in the environment is a topic of significant ongoing research.

Daily Roundup for INC5 Day 4—Wednesday, January 17

Leave a reply

by Mark Staples

Day 4 marked the beginning of the second half of INC5. A lot of work remains to be done before a global mercury treaty can be agreed to, and the delegates were eager to get down to work in their contact groups.

Supply and Trade, ASGM, & Waste

Work continued on Article 3 concerning supply and trade in the selected technical articles contact group, focusing specifically on the notification requirements for mercury export and import. Delegates debated the merits of a mechanism similar to prior informed consent from the Rotterdam Convention applied to the mercury trade.  While such a mechanism would give importing states more control over the mercury trade, some delegates argued that it would be too burdensome. There was also debate concerning whether or not the trade restrictions should apply to mercury compounds in addition to elemental mercury.

As the contact group worked late into the night, they were expecting to hear back from drafting groups on alternative and small-scale gold mining (ASGM) issues and primary mercury mining, and intended to finish their mandate before breaking for the night.

Products & Processes

Because they were occupied with supply and trade and ASGM issues, the contact group did not devote much time to the product and processes text. However, co-chair Abiola Olanipekun did introduce CRP 14 in the afternoon plenary, which despite many remaining brackets, will be sent to the legal group for polishing before reconsideration in the contact group.

Financial & Technical Assistance

Article 15 on financial assistance was discussed in morning plenary, with all countries agreeing that a special financial regime is needed to assist countries in implementing this convention. While finances have historically been considered a “developed vs. developing” country issue, Switzerland made the point that effective finance is in all parties’ interests. After only short discussion, Article 15 was sent to a contact group that will meet tomorrow.

After a day of small-group negotiations, a revised Article 16 on capacity building, technical assistance, and technology transfer was presented as a package to our contact group. With only a few hurdles, it was fully accepted and was presented in this afternoon’s plenary session. Chair Lugris thanked this contact group for setting the tone of progress as he sent the article off to the legal group.

Institutions & Implementation

In the morning, a separate contact group was convened to work on sections of the treaty text related to definitions, institutional linkages, and implementation—an ambitious set of topics. Before lunch, the group set to work on the definitions of mercury, mercury compounds, mercury-added products, and use allowed. While it might seem like these definitions should be fairly obvious, delegates were on the lookout for any technical or legal ambiguities that could leave the door open for loopholes or non-compliance. Definitions were agreed upon for most of these terms, with the exception of “use allowed.” In the evening, the group divided into even smaller working groups for informal negotiations on the question of implementation/compliance/implementation and compliance committees.

Emissions & Releases

Delegates working on emissions had a productive day, generating papers on what kinds of mercury emissions sources will be included in the treaty, and making progress on the issue of releases to land and water.

Annex F on the included emissions sources is now nearly complete. “Sources included” now refers specifically to point sources from major agreed-upon categories, with only two categories still up for debate: iron and steel (and secondary steel), and open burning. The group seemed to reach a consensus on control measures for new sources, and is currently discussing the complex issue of addressing existing sources.

The MIT team enjoys a Swiss Break with some new friends. Photo credit: Earth Negotiations Bulletin: http://www.iisd.ca/mercury/inc5/

The MIT team enjoys a Swiss Break with some new friends. Photo credit: Earth Negotiations Bulletin: http://www.iisd.ca/mercury/inc5/

At the Swiss break, chocolate incentives were offered to spur the delegates. In the emissions contact group, the chair brandished the reward, and good-naturedly warned the delegates that he would eat all the chocolate himself if they did not finish the draft text on emissions promptly.

Afternoon Plenary

In an address to the plenary, UNEP Executive Director Achim Steiner, along with Swiss Environment Minister Doris Luethard, urged delegates to forge ahead and to do their best to reach agreement on the treaty text by Friday. The Minister pledged 1 million Swiss Francs as an interim contribution to the future convention on behalf of the Swiss government, and the governments of Norway and Japan each matched the pledge.

The objective is to have the draft text complete by today, Thursday, at lunch in order to complete the treaty by 6pm on Friday. Will they make it? Stay tuned to find out! We’ll be eagerly following the proceedings on Twitter (@MITMercury) and here on our blog.

Issue Overview: Mercury Supply and Trade

Leave a reply

by Mark Staples and Danya Rumore

Mark and Danya here. During the INC5 negotiations, we’re covering issues related to mercury waste, supply and trade, and artisanal and small scale-gold mining (ASGM). Here, in our second installment, we provide an overview of mercury supply and trade, discuss what is already included in the draft treaty text about this issue, and explain what is now being discussed and will hopefully be decided in the days ahead.

All mercury used in products and processes originates from deposits in the earth’s crust. Deposits are distributed around the world, with a large concentration in western Asia and China. Mines in Spain, Italy, and Slovenia were historically the main global sources of the metal, but most mercury mining today occurs in Kyrgyzstan and China.

Once extracted, mercury is traded as a global commodity. Annual international movements of mercury have historically been on the order of 1000–2000 tonnes per year. Nations that have existing mines aren’t the only exporters of mercury; a number of developed nations have existing stocks of mercury available for export, or they act as brokers between primary sources and importing nations.

On the issue of supply, the proposed treaty text bans new primary mercury mining and the export, sale, or distribution of existing mercury (except for the uses listed in Annex D II). While Annex D has been drafted, the specifics of the Annex are still being discussed, as is the question of whether any restrictions will be placed on existing mercury-mining operations.

The proposed treaty text also requires that parties identify all mercury stocks within their territory. However, the threshold size of these stocks is not yet stipulated. We expect that this will be a subject of debate during the remaining days of the negotiations.

In terms of trade, the proposed text mandates that mercury can only be exported for allowable uses, as described by the treaty, or for environmentally sound disposal. It also requires that exporting countries obtain written consent from the recipient country. This section of the text reflects the integration of the Basel Convention, which concerns the global transboundary movement of hazardous wastes, into the mercury treaty. Of particular importance, the proposed treaty text also invokes the principle of “prior informed consent” from the Rotterdam Convention. The specific responsibilities of exporting and importing countries, as well as the extent of guidance that the Conference of the Parties is expected to provide on this front, is and will likely continue to be the source of some interesting discussion among involved parties.

The mercury supply and trade issue is now being discussed in a focused “technical articles” contact group. We hope that delegates are able to make significant progress on this front in the hours ahead so that we can move onto addressing artisanal and small-scale mining, discussing waste and storage, and—ultimately—reaching agreement on an effective global mercury treaty.

Follow us on twitter @markdstaples and @DanyaRumore as we post live updates on the negotiations!

Mercury in Unexpected Products

2 Replies

by Hannah Horowitz

Written by Hannah Horowitz from Harvard University, this is the second in our series of Guest Scientist Blogs. Hannah is a graduate student in Earth and Planetary Sciences at Harvard University and a member of the Atmospheric Chemistry Modeling Group. Her research focuses on the environmental fate of mercury used in products and processes, and modeling the terrestrial mercury cycle.    Email: hmhorow@fas.harvard.edu        Website: http://people.fas.harvard.edu/~hmhorow/

When I first began my research on mercury used in products and processes, I was taken aback to learn that there were over 3000 known applications of the heavy metal [1]. What’s more interesting than the sheer number are some specific products containing mercury that are particularly surprising and unexpected. The vast variety of applications of mercury in the past and present are a result of its many unique chemical and physical properties. Its toxicity makes the disposal of mercury-containing products – some of which we may not realize are in our homes, schools, and businesses – challenging.

Some gym floors can release a lot of mercury.

Some gym floors can release a lot of mercury.

Polyurethane flooring used in school gymnasiums and indoor and outdoor tracks from the 1960s-1985 in the United States contain mercury used as a chemical catalyst [2]. One gym floor in Minnesota released mercury equivalent to breaking 280 compact fluorescent light bulbs per day, even 24 years after its installation [3]. However, measured concentrations and calculated total exposure in gyms tested in Ohio, Michigan, and Minnesota did not exceed levels that would result in health impacts [2, 4] from chronic (long-term) or acute (short-term) mercury exposure: 750 ng/m3 during 16 – 40 hours per week over a year, and 1800 ng/m3 for one hour, respectively [5]. Proper ventilation was key to reducing mercury levels [4]. However, average concentrations in Minnesota gyms were still around 200 times higher than typical outdoor background concentrations of 1.5 ng/m3 [6].

If a gym floor is believed to contain mercury, floor and air mercury concentrations should be measured, with help from the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR). If recommended exposures are exceeded, time spent in the gym should be limited, ventilation should be increased, and the floor may need to be removed (see [5]). Removal should be done carefully, as disturbing the floor may release more mercury than normal use [4]. Depending on its mercury content, the floor should be treated as hazardous waste or disposed in a lined landfill with leachate collection to prevent environmental releases [4].

Fishing lures

Fish lures can contain mercury.

Fish lures were once made using mercury.

Between the 1920s and the 1950s, fishing lures were made with visible liquid mercury inside to create motion and a shiny appearance to better attract fish [7]. Perhaps these mercury-containing fishing lures helped fishermen become exposed to methylmercury through the fish they successfully caught!

Now, care should be taken to avoid breakage and mercury release from the antique, fragile lures. For proper disposal, they should be brought to a hazardous waste collection program (varying state-by-state in the US) so the mercury can be removed and recycled [7].

Expected use in unexpected places

You can clearly see the mercury in this switch.

You can clearly see the mercury in this switch.

Some of the more typical uses of mercury – electrical switches and relays, lighting, and batteries – are widespread in many products that may be surprising. Mercury switches and relays help ovens and irons (pre-1990) shut off automatically [8, 9], thereby helping to prevent house fires. Similar switches and relays in cars brake with anti-lock brake systems (pre-2004) [10]  help prevent car crashes. However, these mercury-containing products may lead to environmental mercury contamination if their disposal is not handled properly. Electric lighting using mercury is ubiquitous – for example, LCD displays in cameras and sewing machines, UV lamps in printers, or fluorescent lamps in scanners and portable DVD players [8] to name a few. Button cell batteries present in children’s toys, calculators, and watches can also contain mercury [8, 11] and may be imported from other countries with less stringent mercury regulations [11].

The consumer should remove batteries from smaller products and contact their local municipality to find out about household hazardous waste collection services before throwing the object away [7, 12], so that they will not end up landfilled or incinerated along with general waste [13]. Electronics and larger appliances should also be collected if possible, and may be accepted by the original retailer depending on where you live (these services may or may not be free) [7, 12]. In the US, some automobile collection companies partner with End of Life Vehicle Solutions (or are mandated to do so by state law) to remove mercury-containing switches prior to turning the car into scrap metal, in order to prevent mercury emissions [10].

For more information, see the New England Waste Management Association’s mercury legacy products website.

References

  1. Nriagu, J. O. (1979), The biogeochemistry of mercury in the environment, Elsevier/North-Holland Biomedial Press, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
  2. http://www.newmoa.org/prevention/mercury/projects/legacy/schools.cfm#gf
  3. http://www.newmoa.org/prevention/mercury/conferences/sciandpolicy/presentations/Herbrandson-Bush_Session3B.pdf
  4. http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/HAC/pha/MercuryVaporReleaseAthleticPolymerFloors/MercuryVaporRelease-FloorsHC092806.pdf
  5. http://www.health.state.mn.us/divs/eh/hazardous/topics/mercury/hgflooringprofguide.pdf
  6. Slemr, F., E. G. Brunke, R. Ebinghaus, and J. Kuss (2011), Worldwide trend of atmospheric mercury since 1995, Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics, 11(10), 4779-4787.
  7. http://www.newmoa.org/prevention/mercury/projects/legacy/sport.cfm#fl
  8. https://imerc.newmoa.org/publicsearch/NEWMOA_IMERC.aspx#/CustomizedSearch
  9. http://www.newmoa.org/prevention/mercury/projects/legacy/appliances.cfm#ci
  10. http://www.newmoa.org/prevention/mercury/projects/legacy/automobiles.cfm#abs
  11. http://www.chem.unep.ch/mercury/GC-23-responses/GOV/Denmark-attachment-mercuryreport2004.pdf
  12. http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/business/topics/waste/32096.aspx
  13. http://ec.europa.eu/environment/chemicals/mercury/pdf/study_report2008.pdf

 

ASGM and the Illicit Mercury Trade

1 Reply

By: Mark Staples

Artisanal and small-scale gold mining (ASGM) is a source of income for around 15 million miners in the developing world. Mercury is often used to separate and purify the gold from the soil and other sediments in the whole ore, and to pick up small amounts of gold.

Despite the environmental damage and health costs mercury causes, when it is boiled off from the gold-mercury amalgam, this practice is still widespread. Globally, over 700 tonnes of mercury are emitted to the atmosphere from ASGM each year, with over 800 tonnes released to land and water. These local releases can create significant health impacts in nearby communities.

In most developed nations, the use of mercury in industrial processes has tapered off as public awareness of its toxicity has grown. However, high gold prices continue to incentivize ASGM operations. As a result, mercury prices are correlated with gold prices.

This figure is taken from a study by Sippl & Selin, 2012.

This figure is taken from a study by Sippl & Selin, 2012.

Mercury mines are still open, primarily in China, and these sources provide a steady supply of mercury for ASGM operations in the developing world. In fact, a significant proportion of the mercury that is imported to ASGM countries and their neighbors is either mined in, or transported via, developed nations. This study provides some interesting insight into the global flows of primary mercury to ASGM practicing nations.

One of the greatest challenges for understanding the contribution of ASGM to anthropogenic releases of mercury to the environment is a lack of transparency and completeness of data. For example, the United Nations Commodity Trade Statistics Database (COMTRADE), used in a number of analyses of the global flow of commodities like mercury, is voluntary and incomplete. Further, mercury is almost never officially traded for the stated purpose of gold amalgamation, making it harder to track.

While many countries, including China, Brazil, French Guiana and Indonesia, have laws in place to monitor or limit the use of ASGM operations, large volumes of mercury are still imported for gold mining. Mercury is often imported for ostensibly legal use in dental amalgams, but is then made available to miners in chemical or dental shops once inside the country. The ease with which miners can obtain this neurotoxin is alarming.

At the negotiations, delegates focused heavily on ASGM on January 14 at INC5. The proposed text, Article 9, addresses ASGM; parties are debating whether continued use of mercury should be permitted or whether it should be phased out. Brazil, Mali and the Alliance for Responsible Mining (an industry group), all voiced support for the continued, legal international trade of mercury for ASGM. These delegations argued that ASGM is going to happen regardless of the outcome of these negotiations because it occurs in the informal sector. Banning mercury trade would only criminalize an important economic activity in developing nations. Instead of effectively discouraging the international trade of mercury, a phase out of the permissible import of mercury for ASGM might simply force the trade underground.

I’m not so näive as to believe that including a phase-out date for the legal trade of ASGM-destined mercury in the treaty would be entirely effective. In all likelihood, the illicit trade in mercury that already exists will simply grow to fill that gap. However, I do believe that better monitoring and reporting on ASGM-destined mercury, in preparation for a legally binding phase-out, could only aid in getting a handle on this harmful trade and on the extent of ASGM as an informal practice. It would also allow miners and developing nations to transition to alternative ASGM techniques, such as gravity concentration, sluice boxes or cyanidation.

There is clearly some cognitive dissonance in the way in which mercury is traded and used by importing and exporting nations. It seems to me that this is an issue that needs to be resolved to help stem the flow of mercury that is harmful to both human health and the environment. I’m excited to see the progress that will be made on this issue this week.

For more information about ASGM, you can check out the NGO Artisanal Gold Council’s site and the recent report from Human Rights Watch. Here is a short video which explains how ASGM with mercury works:

Forty Years of International Mercury Policy: the 2000s and beyond (Part 3 of 3)

Leave a reply

By: Noelle Selin

In previous posts, we looked at the evolution of international mercury policy in the 1970s and 1980s-1990s. By the 2000s, countries began to realize that addressing the mercury problem would require global-scale action.

From the UNEP "Time to Act "report
Timeline of global mercury events from the UNEP “Time to Act” report

The process towards a global treaty began with a scientific assessment report, the 2002 Global Mercury Assessment. A main conclusion of that assessment was that there was sufficient evidence of significant global adverse impacts to warrant international action to reduce the risks to human health and/or the environment arising from the release of mercury into the environment. In 2003, in response to this report, the UNEP Governing Council launched a voluntary programme to address mercury. Between 2003 and 2009, this programme organized a series of awareness-raising workshops, developed guidance and training materials, and established a clearinghouse for mercury-related information. Much of this work was conducted under the auspices of mercury partnerships, which began in 2005 (see our blog post on that topic).

The UNEP Governing Council in 2009 established a mandate to begin negotiations for a global, legally-binding mercury treaty [pdf]. An ad-hoc open-ended working group met to prepare for the beginning of negotiations in 2009 in Bangkok. The Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee process began with a first meeting in Stockholm in June 2010. A second meeting was held in Chiba, Japan in January 2011, a third in Nairobi in November 2011, and a fourth in Punta del Este, Uruguay in July 2012. We are now in Geneva for the fifth and (hopefully) final session, before a treaty is expected be signed in Minamata, Japan in October 2013. More information about the negotiating process to date is available from the Earth Negotiations Bulletin.

Daily Roundup for INC5 Day 3—Tuesday, January 16

Leave a reply

by Alice Alpert

Day 3 began with snow falling, turning Geneva into a winter wonderland.

IMG_1678_vdh

Everyone eagerly anticipated the first of the Swiss breaks, to be held in the evening. However, we are no longer “early” in the negotiations, so parties were eager make some progress before the Swiss break festivities began.

Here’s a recap of progress made on different topics.

Products and Processes

The technical articles contact group made progress on setting the mercury concentrations that different types of lightbulbs can contain, although the phase-out dates remain undecided. A breakout group, facilitated by one of the co-chairs, was started to address the controversial dental amalgam issue.

The group is in the midst of working through the annex regarding products and processes that will be exempt from regulation: antiques were removed because they are not being currently manufactured; there will be exceptions for some research and calibration standards (although there is no consensus yet exists on the details); thiomerisol will be allowed as a preservative in vaccines; polyurethane, vinyl chloride monomer, and sodium methylate are still under review. The group discussed the idea of discouraging distribution in commerce as a process provision rather than an outcome provision.

Emissions and Releases

In the morning, a technical group of about 30 attendees was tasked with discussing possible options for characterizing the nature of emissions and releases regulations. The group agreed that it would be useful to narrow the scope of the treaty to major sources, but there was no consensus around the several threshold types discussed (e.g., do you regulate based upon capacity, intensity, or aggregate emissions?).  In the afternoon and evening, the full emissions contact group reconvened and agreed to eliminate certain small-source categories. Into the evening, they were discussing releases, looking to start forming some draft text. Memorably, in response to one delegate’s suggestion that a ton of mercury was a small amount of emissions,  another party replied: “No single raindrop feels responsible for the flood.”

Institutions and Implementation

The treaty objective and definitions were discussed in morning plenary, focusing on whether a dedicated, stand-alone article on health impacts was required or even warranted. The plenary was divided on the issue: one side was of the opinion that a separate health article duplicates other sections of the text and/or impinges upon the effort of the World Health Organization, while the other side sees a stand-alone article as paramount to reaffirming the objective of the treaty. Many NGOs submitted interventions supporting the health article.

Also in plenary, parties showed no movement on how to ensure domestic implementation, with many developing nations saying that a uniform requirement for submitting a plan to meet treaty obligations did not take into account differing national socio-economic conditions. In the evening, a contact group on the implementation and health issues met. Gridlock continued, and a small group decided to work through the night to submit a suitable proposal in the morning.

Financial and Technical Assistance

Much of the work in this area occurred in a small contact group of “friends of the co-chairs”, which continues to discuss Articles 16 and 16bis regarding technical assistance and technology transfer. Article 17—which concerns whether to establish a committee for implementation or for compliance (or both)—was up for discussion in the afternoon plenary session. Several countries voiced the opinion that they would like the membership of and mechanism for decision-making by this group to be specified in the treaty,  rather than by the conference of parties. These specifics will be considered in a contact group set to convene on Day 4.

Supply and Trade, AGSM, and Waste

Work in this area began at 11pm in the technical articles contact group, with a discussion of Article 3 on supply and trade. One of the biggest struggles involved whether existing primary mining should be banned; this decision is still in a deadlock. The group didn’t break until after 1am, and we can expect more work on Day 4.

Highlight of the day

After the second plenary session, the loudspeakers came to life with the song “Under Pressure,” (featuring Freddie Mercury)—just to drive the point home. Then the Swiss break began, providing delicious food, wine, and opportunities for delegates to work out compromises in informal consultations.

IMG_1681_vdh

The Swiss break also notably featured video footage of traditional Swiss culture, including whipcracking and running around in leaf costumes, in addition to skiing and yodeling. While the Swiss music was questionable, the event did not disappoint. We look forward to our second Swiss break this evening, and hope that the negotiations make significant progress in the meantime.