I had assumed that some things are beyond satire. James Barlow (via the comments to that post) illustrates that this is not the case. From his Cabinet Review June 2010 #2:
----------------------------
ABATEMENT OF MERCURY EMISSIONS FROM CREMATORIA
Notwithstanding all the previous reports about the absence of money, this report proposes to spend the best part of £2m on technology to reduce mercury emissions from Bristol’s crematoria by 50%. This is because:
“Government has set a target for Crematoriums [sic] to abate mercury emissions by 50% before 31 December 2012”
In this context, Government means the European Commission (see Directive 2008/1/EC for the rubber stamp from Parliament), rather than the toy parliament in Westminster. Rather oddly, throughout this document there is never any discussion of real physical quantities of mercury; just the same mantra of “a reduction of 50%”.
A typical stiff contain 0.9 grams of mercury (http://bit.ly/9ubWuc). 75% of stiffs in the UK are cremated (http://bit.ly/9DTtlo), and the UK’s crude death rate 10.02 deaths per thousand population (http://bit.ly/cWumOe). Thus Bristol, with a population of maybe 500,000 [including some Wiltshire and Somerset stiffs], probably produces something like 4kg of mercury a year. So £2m cuts that to maybe 2kg?
Decision: Cabinet is asked to instantly forget the previous three reports and approve nearly £2m for replacement of the existing cremators (2 wide and 1 standard) complete with mercury abatement equipment at South Bristol Crematorium, to abate about as [much] mercury annually as would fit in a sphere 14 inches in diameter (bit bigger than a standard football).*
Barlow’s view: Well if it was based on law out of Westminster, we might have some wiggle room. But since it’s European law, we’re stuffed.
----------------------------
* 4 kilos seems about right - 500,000 x 10/1,000 x 75% cremated x 0.9 grams = 3,375 grams (or 'grammes' or whatever they are called nowadays), so the saving would be half that, or 1,688 grams.
But mercury is 13.593 times heavier than water, which weighs 1 gram per cubic centimetre, so 1,688 grams of mercury takes up as much space as 124 grams of water, or 124 cubic centimetres = a cube with a side length of 5 cm.
Or, if we want to express that in terms of a sphere, using the formula V = 4/3 π r3, 124 cubic centimetres is a sphere with a radius of 3.1 centimetres = a diameter of 6.2 centimetres = slightly smaller than a tennis ball (to stay with the sporting theme).
Saturday, 14 August 2010
“Bring out your dead. And burn them sustainably.”
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
21 comments:
When the science labs at my school were renovated, they filled two Winchesters (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winchester_(bottle)) with the mercury they found under the floorboards. Is it really dangerous enough to warrant £2m being spent on it, or is this another case of "Well, if it saves one life....."
It would be a damn sight cheaper if the crematorium simply removed all the teeth beforehand. They could then defray the cost of the gas by selling the mercury and the gold. Or they could ask for the loved ones to arrive sans filled teeth.
BTW Mark, I don't think your calculations take into account the smallness of the proportion of the population who arrive at death's door still with their own teeth.
"Is it really dangerous enough to warrant £2m being spent on it, or is this another case of "Well, if it saves one life.....""
Sounds a lot like the hysteria over asbestos...
It is a known mutagen, though, and we probably can't afford to have even more shambling cretins than the NHS and school system already turn out.
In so far as this is an important protection of the environment (ie not much), why not just require all cremators sold after some future date (say 1 or 2 years hence) to do better on not venting so much mercury into the atmosphere.
[Aside: even if Mark is right on the quantity of mercury in cremated bodies, I bet the vast majority of it already does not go up the chimney but stays in the ashes.]
In that way, the only money wasted (if indeed it is wasted) is the additional cost of new cremators with 'mercury scrubbing' (over the cost of new cremators without 'mercury scrubbing').
With legally enforced relative levels on already purchased operational cremators, the money wasted includes the residual value in the existing (and not worn out) operational cremators, or a much more expensive in-situ upgrade.
Methinks this is rent-seeking on the part of cremator manufacturers. Can we, perchance, trace that back to the original proponents of the EU regulation?
Best regards
B, the liquid is harmless, it's the fumes that are bad for you. As to ripping out teeth, that was my first thought, a bit like they did at Auschwitz (awards self Godwin's Prize).
JM, it's exactly like hysteria over WHITE asbestos. All of this crap is EU driven, as Nigel S says.
NS, fair point on mercury staying in ashes.
James has been on my blogrolls for a long time - he comes up with some real snippets of great interest and they usually check out. His post which struck me most was on citizen juries and their composition.
JH, on mine too, but he's set up some weird comment thing which is really difficult to register for.
"(awards self Godwin's Prize)"
:-)
"NS, fair point on mercury staying in ashes": no, probably not. I once worked in a lab where a madman decided to dissolve aluminium out of a steel piece of equipment by flooding the equipment in mercury and heating it all up in an oven for the weekend. The mercury evaporated, and condensed all over the walls, ceilings etc throughout the building. It cost a small fortune to decontaminate everything. And one of the lab techs had to be admitted to hospital.
D, neither of us know how much stays in ashes or is emitted in fumes, but we are talking maybe half a tennis ball's worth per year spread over a large area.
This is not quite the same as whatever the madman was up to in an enclosed space. What volume did he evaporate?
Order one litre, I'd think. The chance of the mercury staying in the ashes is slim - it's pretty volatile stuff. But no, the point is that mercury's danger is as a vapour, or in ingestible form such as methyl mercury (see Minimata disease, for example). My instinct is that to fuss about it for existing crematorium equipment is probably silly, thoough I'm open to persuasion otherwise. An even stronger instinct is that for the EU to fuss about mercury emissions from crematoria while lumbering us with its beloved "low energy" light bulbs is a prime example of the malevolent stupidity in which that organisation specialises.
D, that's what I thought. One litre = 13 kilos = about a hundred times as much as is emitted from Bristol crematoria each year, and having mercury vapour in an enclosed space is of course incredibly unhealthy.
PS, I'm a big fan of the low energy lightbulbs, I have used them almost exclusively for sixteen years and I'm not dead yet.
I've used a couple for about as long and neither am I. But when millions of people begin dumping them at the tips they'll be creating the sort of Pollution Horror Shock that the EU would otherwise insist must never be allowed.
I still think we are talking about considerably less than a tennis ball, due to the prevalence of false teeth amongst the elderly.
Don't know how I managed to bork the volume = mass / density calculation. Back to school for me.
I've adjusted my balls accordingly (i.e. football->tennis)
D, the scaremongers have already had that story on the back burner for a couple of years:
Toxicologist Dr David Ray, from the University of Nottingham, said about 6-8mg of mercury was present in a typical low-energy bulb, which he described as a "pretty small amount".
"Mercury accumulates in the body - especially the brain," he said. "The biggest danger is repeated exposure - a one off exposure is not as potentially dangerous compared to working in a light bulb factory.
"If you smash one bulb then that is not too much of a hazard. However, if you broke five bulbs in a small unventilated room then you might be in short term danger."
B, indeed. Large golf ball, small tennis ball, something like that.
The human body is approx 0.2% chlorine (a very dangerous element, especially to the Righteous). So a 100kg body must contain about 200 grams, surely a much greater worry than that 0.9 grams of mercury? I'm hopeful some RR (Righteous Retard) will read this and now start a campaign to capture that nasty poisonous chlorine.
I do wish they'd be rational...
Spending £2m to prevent a small amount of mercury getting into the atmosphere. Let's ask a few questions:
How many lives do they think are currently affected by the mercurial output of crematoria?
To what extent are they affected?
How many total healthy years are being lost by the total population of the uk due to this? (calculation based on the idea that a year a perfect health is 1, at significantly diminished health [requiring assistance on a daily basis] is 0.5, in constant pain and unable to do anything without assistance is 0.1, etc)
How many total healthy years could we "buy" if we invested an extra £2m in another area? - give list of different areas, healthy years for money invested.
Ideally, I'd like to see such a calculation carried out for any and all government health expenditure...
If the government will insist on spending our money, it'd be nice to know that at least it's being spent efficiently.
(cue cries of "you can't put a price on a human life" to which I respond "so given the choice of spening £x to save one life, or spending the same amount elsewhere to save two lives, you don't think it matters which we choose? The money that we have is limited - let's get the best use out of it that we can.")
Everybody who buys life insurance puts a price on a human life. And damn few put it as high as a million.
Ed P, see next post.
RA, exactly. Some lives can be 'saved' quite cheaply, let's 'save' those first and worry about the other ones later.
D, the state does put an official value on a human life, around £750,000 from memory, for these cost-benefit calculations.
The problem is, they then ignore the findings that show a large part of Elfin Safety is a complete waste of money.
I have chucked at least eight twirly light bulbs into the regular dustbin, each one still in the packaging in which it arrived, unrequested and unwanted, from our power company. I know of at least three neighbours who have done exactly the same thing as the twirly bulbs are useless.
Just from this one village in which I live there has been an awful lot of mercury vapour (the dangerous stuff) released.
Why no EUSSR Diktat to control this?
Post a Comment