US Senate votes to ban mercury fever thermometers

REUTERS NEWS SERVICE ^ | September 9, 2002

[Korth]

WASHINGTON - The U.S. Senate voted to ban the sale of mercury fever thermometers in order to curb a source of environmental contamination.

On a voice vote and without dissent, the Senate sent The Mercury Reduction and Disposal Act to the U.S. House of Representatives for concurrence.

The Environmental Protection Agency estimates medical mercury thermometers contribute about 17 tons of mercury to solid waste per year, said Sen. Susan Collins, a Maine Republican and chief sponsor of the measure.

The bill calls for a nationwide ban on the sale of such thermometers as well as a grant program to help consumers exchange them for digital ones or other alternatives.

"Mercury fever thermometers are very easily broken. When this happens, the improper disposal of the mercury can have severe environmental and physical consequences," Collins said.

"One mercury thermometer contains about one gram of mercury," said Collins, "enough mercury to contaminate all the fish in a 20-acre (8 hectare) lake."

Her bill would also create an interagency task force, headed by the EPA, to address the problem of the global circulation of mercury and ways to reduce the mercury threat.

[johnny7]

Whassamatta? Don't you like being dumbed-down?!

Don't you like being told what's right and what is “unacceptable”?

Welcome to the new order comrade. Leave your wallet and your common sense in the tray by the door! :^()

[backhoe]

Good Lord, is there no end to their meddling?

I used to joke that Daylight Savings Time was the government's way of demostrating that even Time itself was not exempt from their command, but this is getting ridiculous...

[KyBushBabe]

I thought this was a joke when I read the headline.

During a time of war we have a Senate who has not submitted a budget and has not voted on the defense bill that President Bush keeps asking for...rather than voting on these they vote on banning mercury termometers?!!!

Unbelieveable. But why am I surprised - what should I expect from a Senate led by little Tommy Dashle.

[Just another Joe]

They were hoping no one would be able to do the math.
You know, todays public education system. /irony

[Redcloak]

This is all a bunch of hooey. The REAL reason they're doing this is because of "unsubstantiated" reports that Al Qaeda operatives are purchasing an unusual number of mercury thermometers. It may be part of a plot to poison fish ponds. But remember, this is base upon "unsubstantiated" intel; even though it's from a usually reliable source.

</tinfoil>

</sarcasm>

[dighton]

"One mercury thermometer contains about one gram of mercury," said Collins, "enough mercury to contaminate all the fish in a 20-acre (8 hectare) lake."

This sounds like nonsense, all the more so because the DEPTH of the lake is unstated.

[Tony Niar Brain]

Mercury came from the earth, and can safely return to the earth.
You're being silly. Shall I take a lump of uranium, atomize it, and spread it around the globe to return it to the earth, and do no harm? Mercury diffused through a lake is very dangerous.

Best not to pour it down the sink perhaps, but a drop of mercury in the yard won't hurt anything.
A DROP of mercury in one backyard will have a negligble effect, a whole nation dumping mercury in their backyards is a public health issue.

This is just another case of enviro-nuttyness.
Is that why there was zero dissent in the Senate on this vote?

[Brandon]

In case any of you didn't know, the newer digital thermometers and alcohol thermometers are not as accurate as mercury thermometers. They thus are denying us the most accurate, reliable way to take temperatures,

This is false. I offer the following in rebuttal (original source url: http://www.sustainablehospitals.org/HTMLSrc/IP_Merc_FTNonmerc.html):

 

Mercury Fact Sheets
 

• Amounts of Mercury in Hospital Equipment 
• Comparing Mercury and Aneroid Sphygmomanometers 
• Interpreting Analytical Results for Mercury and Other Substances 
• Is There Mercury In Your Coulter Counter? 
• Mercury in Gauges and Switches 
• Mercury Reduction at Home 
• Selecting Non-Mercury Thermometers 
• Tips for Procuring Aneroid Sphygmomanometers 
• Removing Mercury from Hospital Labs 
• Tips on Testing Reagents and Chemicals 

Selecting Non-Mercury Thermometers
 
 

Alternatives to glass/mercury thermometers are quite appealing as they are easier and faster to use and avoid the shortcomings of glass/mercury thermometers. The risks of broken glass and exposure to mercury are eliminated, as well as the cost of a clean-up and disposal of mercury from a broken thermometer. With the variety of alternatives available, it is essential that one make an educated choice, to ensure that the tool satisfies the task. Here are some points worth thinking about when you consider thermometers:

1. Acceptable standards of accuracy

Thermometers for medical use are typically tested to voluntary standards set by the American Society of Testing and Materials (ASTM)(See reference 1). The following table shows the maximum error allowed. One sees that glass/mercury and electronic thermometers have the same requirements over the range of 96.4 - 106 F. 

		Maximum Error over Temperature Range Shown
Thermometer Type	ASTM Procedure (see reference 1)	<96.4 F	96.4 < to 98 F	98.0 to 102 F	>102 to 106 F	>106 F
Mercury in Glass	E667-86 (reapproved 1991)1	±0.4	±0.3	±0.2	±0.3	±0.4
Electronic Thermometers	E1112-86 (reapproved 1991)1	±0.5	±0.3	±0.2	±0.3	±0.5

It is important to note that many thermometers read out to a smaller division than the accuracy of the thermometer itself. For example, digital thermometers which read to 0.1 degrees F may be accurate only to +/- 0.2 F or less. If the accuracy is +/- 0.2 degrees F, the true temperature of a thermometer reading 98.9 F is in the range of 98.7 - 99.1 degrees Fahrenheit. Therefore when selecting a thermometer, one must look closely at the accuracy, rather than the smallest increment reported.
 

2. Accuracy of glass/mercury thermometers

Inherent in any discussion of alternatives is the assumption that glass/mercury thermometers are accurate. Data suggests that our faith in glass/mercury thermometers may be misplaced.

Leick-Rude and Bloom (See reference 2) describe a study in which axillary temperature in neonates was taken with non-mercury thermometers and compared with a "standard" of glass/mercury thermometers. For the purpose of the study, the accuracy of each glass/mercury thermometer was tested as a condition of accepting it for the study. 25% of the glass/mercury thermometers tested differed from the reference thermometer by >0.2 degrees Centigrade and were deemed unacceptable for use in the study. The authors cite another study in which 28% of glass/mercury thermometers were discarded because they differed by more than 0.1 degree Centigrade from the reference thermometer. The authors raise concern as to the accuracy of glass/mercury thermometers for general use, when one out of four of those tested was not deemed accurate enough. (In fact, the ASTM standard for glass/mercury medical thermometers specifies a maximum allowable error of + 0.1 C in the cited range).
 

3. Favoring the old standard

Chamberlain and Terndrup (See reference 3) remind us that "Whenever a new clinical test is introduced, investigators measure its accuracy by comparing it to an accepted standard, termed the 'gold standard'. Because of this comparison to the old standard, initial testing will, by definition, favor the old method, even if the new clinical test is a better test".
 

4. Use of rectal, oral, or axillary readings as a reference for tympanic temperature

The publication The Clinical Utility of Ear Thermometers (See reference 4) describes different methods and their limitations for measuring body temperature. It cites that the medically accepted "gold standard" for core temperature is pulmonary artery blood temperature. However this is an invasive technique, so rectal, oral, or axillary readings are often used as a crude estimate of body core temperature. Each site is reflective of a different blood supply, with separate rates of change with a rising or falling body temperature. Additionally, each site has variables unique to that site that influence the body temperature measured. The publication concludes that since each site provides its own characteristic temperature properties, comparing a tympanic temperature directly with oral, axillary, or rectal temperatures is inherently flawed. 

The lesson here is that with an understanding of how tympanic thermometers work, they offer a safe, convenient alternative to oral, axillary, or rectal temperature measurement. Education is critical to satisfactory performance, and manufacturers are well prepared to advise and coach clinicians on the use of their products.
 

5. Customer Satisfaction

Numerous interviews with users of non-mercury thermometers provide convincing evidence that alternatives are viable and well-received in health care facilities. For more information on mercury and on product alternatives, check our Sustainable Hospitals web site at http://www.sustainablehospitals.org or feel free to contact us at SHP@uml.edu or (978) 934-3386.
 

References:

1) 1997 Annual Book of ASTM Standards, Roberta A. Storer, Editorial Services Director, American Society of Testing and Materials (ASTM), West Conshohocken, PA

2) MK Leick-Rude and Bloom LF, "A comparison of temperature-taking methods in neonates", Neonatal Network; August, 1998, Volume 17 No. 5, pp. 21-37

3) James M. Chamberlain, MD, and Thomas E. Terndrup, MD, "New light on ear thermometer readings" Contemporary Pediatrics; March, 1994.

4) The Clinical Utility of Ear Thermometers, Published by Braun Thermoscan, Pub. No. 0996-267P-R1097

Last Revised: March 31, 1999

---

Mercury Reduction

R E G I S T E R     G L O S S A R Y     F E E D B A C K     S I T E  M A P     H O M E
 

---

Copyright © 1998 Sustainable Hospitals / Lowell Center for Sustainable Production
All rights reserved.
Images copyright © 1998 PhotoDisc, Inc.
 

[TC Rider]

If you fully realized the health dangers of mercury, you wouldn't be so willing to make this some lame states-rights issue. A small quanity of mercury, say a thermometer-full, can contaminate a LARGE area, especially if it makes its way to the groundwater.

Just what is so bad about mercury?

As a child, we played with it, coating pennys so they would like dimes. We let it roll around in our hands, arms, etc.

We never ingested any, but had plenty of contact with it.

I turned 50 today and as far as I know, I've suffered no ill effects.

I'm not too concerned. My Dad tells us how as a child in Louisville, KY, he and his buds would wait for dry spells. Then they would slip into the storm sewers with a empty coke bottle and a big spoon.

They would navigate the dry storm sewers, looking for the shiny puddles of mercury. They would scoop it up with the spoon and pour it into the empty coke bottle.

Once they had retrieved enough mercury, they would go back above ground and present the now full coke bottle to their Moms. Mom would keep the mercury under her sink ready to use again, as a drain cleaner.

Dad is 83 now and still going strong.

I'm sure mercury is toxic in some circumstances, inhaling the heated vapors for example. But, I'm not convinced that it's the toxic killer it has been made out to be.

[Tony Niar Brain]

Yes, something would have to eat the mercury, OR, something would have to eat someting else that is already contaminated with mercury. This is where the "food chain" that we all learned about in grade school comes into play. Mercury gets into plankton, which gets eaten by bugs or small fish, which get eaten by bigger fish, which get eaten by humans. Plus, you could have contamination of ground water, which would affect much more than fish in a lake.

[general_re]

[lormand]

Monumental Statesmen!

[steve-b]

Let me guess -- you're using the junk science assumption that mercury spreads evenly over a large area rather than the real world assumption that it stays in a few large droplets.

[noexcuses]

I turned 50 today

HAPPY BIRTHDAY!!

[general_re]

I'm sure mercury is toxic in some circumstances, inhaling the heated vapors for example.

Inhaling the vapors of elemental mercury is not a good idea, as you've noted, but the real problem is that when it gets into the groundwater and into lakes and streams, bacteria convert the elemental mercury into organic mercury compounds like dimethyl mercury, which is highly, highly toxic. And the problem is animals, particularly fish and shellfish, build up levels of organic mercury within their tissues over their lifetimes - it gets concentrated in their bodies. So when people eat the fish or shellfish, it's potentially bad news over a lifetime of exposure, or especially for children.

Mercury's just bad news, all around. Perfectly acceptable substitutes exist for thermometers, so using them really makes sense, IMO...

[WindMinstrel]

wahoo! Thank God they're doing their job and regulating interstate commerce. Bastards.

[general_re]

Let me guess -- you're using the junk science assumption that mercury spreads evenly over a large area rather than the real world assumption that it stays in a few large droplets.

Both methyl mercury and dimethyl mercury are fairly readily water-soluble, about 1 gram per liter for dimethyl mercury, IIRC. It will disperse, and it will contaminate fish and other animals.

[ConservativeNewsNetwork]

A DROP of mercury in one backyard will have a negligble effect, a whole nation dumping mercury in their backyards is a public health issue.

Yeah. And bathtubs are lethal if you put your head underwater and don't pull out for 20 minutes. Quick, ban the bathtubs! We need the government to tell us how to not be dumb!

You'll have an argument when all Americans take to dumping out mercury. How often do thermometers actually get thrown out or broken? I don't think I've ever had to throw one out or have broken one. I can see how hospitals would have a problem with this, but I can't remember the last time I was given an old fashioned thermometer at the hospital. Most people don't go out and buy a new mercury thermometer very often.

As another person with sense pointed out, the sensationalized "contaminate xxx hectare lake" garbage is useless because we don't know the volume of the lake - just the surface area. My guess is for their figures they used a depth of 1cm or something like that for maximum shock effect.

[Tony Niar Brain]

Well, don't take my word for it. Here's a snippet from Los Alamos on the dangers of mercury...

Mercury is a virulent poison and is readily absorbed through the respiratory tract, the gastrointestinal tract, or through unbroken skin. It acts as a cumulative poison and dangerous levels are readily attained in air. Air saturated with mercury vapor at 20C contains a concentration that exceeds the toxic limit many times. The danger increases at higher temperatures. It is therefore important that mercury be handled with care.

I'm sure you and your dad are doing fine despite your experience with mercury. What I am saying is that if mercury is allowed to seep into water or whatnot and be atomized, it will spread and will find its way into the human blood system.

[ConservativeNewsNetwork]

Here's a snippet from Los Alamos on the dangers of mercury...

What's this prove? No one is disputing that cracking open a thermometer and drinking pure mercury (or saturating the air with it then deeply inhaling) isn't a very bright thing to do.