Playing with Quicksilver
Paul Craig Roberts has an article over at LewRockwell that sent my thoughts racing back to my childhood. In one scene that has replayed many a time, I remember my friends from across the street giving me a small sample of quicksilver left over from a broken thermometer. The method of transportation, my bare hand.
As a seven or eight year old, mercury was amazing stuff. I distinctly remember rolling it along my bedroom floor, watching beads split into smaller beads with each push of my hand. I also remember my mother's anger (the reason for the vivid memory, no doubt) when she found out. And I remember my subsequent clean up.
A dampened dust rag and some clumsy effort wiped most of the bigger beads from the floor. But the smaller beads and vapors only left with time.
In the Thursday edition of my local paper, there is a story about a small mercury spill in a thrift store that ended up closing the store for three weeks, costing $300,000 in cleanup and disposal costs.
The kicker: The article notes that anyone who bought clothes from the story is now safe since any mercury vapor in the clothes has long ago dissipated into the air. So, what was the point of the $300,000 loss?
Today, should I find one of my children excitedly playing with a small bead of quicksilver, I'm ruined -- that's if I admit to it, of course.
History is not always a line on the chart, upward and to the right.
Comments (29)
anon
Perhaps I'm too dense, but I can't grasp the point which you're trying to make here.
I remember the mercury beads. They were fun - but I'm glad that there are no longer on the shelves. Not everyone is aware of the healthy hazards involved.
As for the Clintonville thrift store, they don't even know the exact amount of mercury which was spilled - so to claim that the goods are "safe" is entirely arbitrary. Minute amounts of mercury is already dangerous enough, it's better to be safe than sorry when the health repercussions could be severe.
Now, had the Clintonville store not disposed of their goods (the extent of contamination being unknown) - but had they install a huge signboard at the front of the store informing its customers of the mercury spill, how many customers would have continued patronizing them?
Published: April 24, 2009 10:56 PM
anon
I believe that there should be some degree of regulation and licensing to ensure consumer trust - especially when we don't have all the time in the world to know about everything.
However, this kind of regulation need not be done by the government but by competing private regulatory agencies. This is the direction in which the debate should be shifted i.m.o. China is already trying a milder version of this idea with respect to their toy industry.
Published: April 24, 2009 11:00 PM
Jim Fedako
Anon --
I once served on the board of my local public school district (please forgive me). While I was on the board, a small thermometer broke in a science lab. The final cost to the taxpayers -- $200,000. That means, the cost allocated to each home was around $10 (if costs were actually allocated, that is). I would have cleaned the spill for less -- for nothing actually.
Wait until you are forced to use florescent lights and a bulb breaks. Will you clean it yourself? Or call hazmat?
Published: April 24, 2009 11:21 PM
anon
So we should all clean-up hazmats ourselves?
Published: April 25, 2009 12:27 AM
Inquisitor
No, I think his point is that the threat posed here is greatly exaggerated.
Published: April 25, 2009 1:26 AM
ethan
Let your voice be heard!! We're looking for honest opinons from
the people!!! http://obamasplanforeconomyandamerica.blogspot.com
Published: April 25, 2009 2:29 AM
anon
Inquisitor:
"No, I think his point is that the threat posed here is greatly exaggerated."
But how can he know that it is exaggerated - when the exact amount of mercury which was spilled cannot be determined, and that a little dose of mercury will be sufficiently fatal?
If a $300,000 kitchen inventory was contaminated with a little bit of cyanide - would you rather have everything thrown out, or continue consuming it and serving it to your family as well as customers?
To say that this move is greatly "exaggerated" is arbitrary - there is no objective, scientific grounds for such a claim.
But Jim is certainly free to redeem the $300,000 worth of goods that has been dumped.
Published: April 25, 2009 3:30 AM
anon
Also, I should also point out that breathing air contaminated with mercury vapor is dangerous - which is the main reason why quicksilver is now banned (skin contact isn't much of a problem in this case). Here's the Wikipedia reference:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercury_poisoning
But if you want your kids to be exposed to the joys of quicksilver ("man, state tyranny ruining their childhood!"), you can always try the blackmarket.
Published: April 25, 2009 3:36 AM
jeffrey
i see the point he is making. I can recall playing with mercury too. but this is one of a million different threats and safety issues that government has exaggerated and whipped up a frenzy about precisely to tighten its grip over our lives -- as if to say, we are here to protect you and without us you would be poisoned and probably dead! now, I find all this safety obsession stuff to be hyper-hypocritical considering that the US foreign policy machine is all about mass killing, the government thinks nothing of killing and maiming in the name of the drug war, and its roads slaughter thousands relentlessly. the state doesn't really care about our lives. It's a hoax to increase its power. The mercury mania is but one example.
Published: April 25, 2009 6:49 AM
anon
Are we reading the same article? Because the version I'm reading - there's no mention of government attempt to expand its power.
To bundle this issue together with the government's foreign policy is absurd.
The government does purport to care about our lives - except that it cares about the "life" of the "collective body", rather the life of individuals. But that's the principle under which socialism, communism, fascism, and all forms of collectivism labor.
Published: April 25, 2009 8:24 AM
Jim Fedako
Anon --
When the school district had its "spill," the only people concerned were the government agent and the cleanup folks (partnering with the agent in order to make some big bucks). No one else cared.
Keep in mind that just about every issue is a concern for some group of parents. Not in this case. So, your market test most likely would have failed. But, due to regulations, we will never know.
Three final points:
1. You keep saying that the size of the spill is not known, yet the article clearly refutes that claim.
2. No one got hurt. Not even the employees who dust mopped the floor.
3. Folks who bought clothes the day of the spill are unharmed. And their clothes are now OK. "People who bought items on April 1, the day of the spill, don't have to worry because any vapors would have dissipated long ago, he said."
Doesn't the $300K seem a little over the top?
Who wins in the end? I agree with Tucker, the winner is government (plus those that live off of the fears government creates).
Published: April 25, 2009 9:09 AM
anon
Jim,
"When the school district had its "spill," the only people concerned were the government agent and the cleanup folks (partnering with the agent in order to make some big bucks). No one else cared."
Just like no one cares to turn up for elections. Even in "direct democracy" Switzerland, voter turn-out for the average election is at 30+%.
"Not in this case."
Prove it.
"1. You keep saying that the size of the spill is not known, yet the article clearly refutes that claim."
The article says that it is not known, only an estimate is given. If you prefer to assume apriori that the spill is not harmful, well, that's your biased estimate. Any other individual has sufficient grounds to differ.
"2. No one got hurt. Not even the employees who dust mopped the floor. "
Try inhaling mercury vapour at extremely low concentrations every morning, for a year.
"3. Folks who bought clothes the day of the spill are unharmed. And their clothes are now OK."
Hiroshima and Nagasaki residents didn't develop cancer the day after the bombing too. Those who were alive were OK cancer-wise.
"People who bought items on April 1, the day of the spill, don't have to worry because any vapors would have dissipated long ago, he said."
Translation: "I don't know what are the effects of the mercury spill, be they long-term or short-term - but hey, I've got a business. My conscience is intact because I don't really know anything."
"Doesn't the $300K seem a little over the top? "
I can't judge the figure, because it's not clear how the figure was arrived at. If it's due to projected loss revenue, then it's bull. Remember that media has a penchant for sensational figures.
But human lives are worth infinitely more than $300K. Would you prefer to risk the lives of your kids, because the spill was "small" in amount and the "immense" costs involved?
"I agree with Tucker, the winner is government (plus those that live off of the fears government creates)."
I did a search and there were zero counts for "government" in that mercury spill report. I don't see any attempt by government to create fear through this attempt. If anything, it's you Jim who has drummed up your own fears, and now you're trying to justify that fear.
Who's the one being paranoid now?
If you're still unwilling to admit that this post is silly and that you have erred - here's my challenge to you, Jim:
1. If a $300,000 kitchen inventory was contaminated with a little bit of cyanide - would you rather have everything thrown out, or continue consuming it and serving it to your loved ones as well as customers?
This analogy is entirely equivalent.
2. Go and retrieve the goods that this thrift store has dumped. Don't be selfish and hoard the clothes yourselves, but have your wife, your parents, your kids, your cousins, your friends - have them wear them too.
3. Deliberately spill a "small" amount of mercury in your store. You can "clean it" - but do it yourself. Don't dump the inventory, don't incur cleaning and disposal costs.
Next, set up a HUGE signboard at the front of your store informing your potential customers what has occured, and the amateur-ish procedure by which it was dealt.
Count the number of people who set foot in your store, and compare your revenue takings with previous ones.
Published: April 25, 2009 10:06 AM
Jim Fedako
Anon --
Regarding ''Not in this case.' Prove it."
I was on the school board. I got calls on just about everything (including how the name of a new elementary was going to ruin the lives of the children assigned to the school -- I'm not making it up. A woman in my old church would no longer talk to me because of the suffering the school name -- Johnnycake Corners Elementary --was going to cause her child).
But I did not even get one call on the mercury issue, not one. Though I received many on a potential school site that is near powerlines.
What is ironic is that you claim to have played with mercury when you were younger. Yet it is now the same as cyanide. Hmmm.
The inventory sold the day of the spill is in homes throughout the area. And no one is concerned.
Question to you: If someone breaks a mercury-filled thermometer in your house, what do you plan to do? I know what I did.
Final point: And, I will again bring up my now-distasteful school board service ... I suggest that you participate at some level in government. You will soon see it in a different light.
note: The rest of your arguments are filled with logical fallacies, such as equating the mercury you played with to cyanide. And this, "Try inhaling mercury vapour at extremely low concentrations every morning, for a year." Who's talking about that? If you mean the store employees, then what about you, me, and Jeffrey breathing the residual vapors in our bedrooms?
Published: April 25, 2009 10:32 AM
Jim Fedako
Anon --
Another reason for you to see how government actually works is this claim you made: "I did a search and there were zero counts for 'government' in that mercury spill report."
From the article: "Nobody has been sickened in connection with the spill, said Columbus Public Health spokesman Jose Rodriguez."
What is the health department if not government? Spend some time with these folks. It will be enlightening (my county health department wanted public school students to perform 5 minutes of callisthenics at their desks, on the hour, every hour).
Also, have you ever heard of OSHA?
Government exists in many forms, and it usually does not contain the word government in the title.
It should.
Published: April 25, 2009 10:51 AM
anon
You barely refuted any of my points - but do a blanket smear, claim that there are "logically fallible".
In the end I don't see government in the picture vis-a-vis the thrift store (and this is separate from your school district problem) - while you and Jeffrey are hollering about "government whipping up a frenzy about the mercury spill precisely to tighten its grip over our lives", "increasing its power". Both being totally irrelevant to the thrift store case.
The $300,000 cost involved (which might not be $300,000 at all, but a greatly inflated figure) is a decision made by a PRIVATE entity. This is an ETHICAL decision - their PREFERENCE which squares well with their CONSCIENCE.
And sorry, I'm more of a minarchist than an anarcho-capitalist. The reasoning you and Jeffrey employ is entirely devoid of logic - in fact, is entirely false and manipulative, so that you can promote your own agenda.
You're just doing what the government does, Jim. It's entirely hypocritical.
Published: April 25, 2009 11:20 AM
Jim Fedako
Anon --
Does OSHA regulate mercury in the workplace? Was the cleanup the action of the individual alone, or was it the result of the individual reacting to regulations? The answer is obvious. But, go ahead and do some research. And then get back to me.
note: You still haven't answered my question regarding the broken thermometer.
Published: April 25, 2009 11:27 AM
Yancey Ward
If it was $300,000 for the cleanup, then it was excessive.
I am a chemist, and I have worked with mercury in the open on more than a few occasions, and I know literally hundreds of people exposed to it on a regular and ongoing basis over a period of years, and I know of none of them dying of it.
How do I know this? I know this because I worked in decades old chemistry laboratories as a grad student, and if you pealed the tiles from the floors, you would almost always find tiny beads of mercury in the low spots that had their origins the breaking of thermometers and pressure measuring devices. This is probably going to be true of any older chemistry lab.
Spills should be cleaned up, and the area aired out, but I can't imagine any process of doing so being worth the expending of $300,000 unless the spill is on the tens of kilogram scale.
Published: April 25, 2009 12:27 PM
RWW
Count the number of people who set foot in your store, and compare your revenue takings with previous ones.
I know I, for one, would happily go into a large store knowing that a bit of mercury had been spilled. The store owners certainly wouldn't lose $300K in business. I have to believe that, even today, most people have a bit more common sense than you seem to be demonstrating, anon.
Published: April 25, 2009 12:39 PM
Bastiat79
Anon cannot think straight - he has been mercury poisoned in childhood.
$300k for clean-up, it can only be a monopoly gimmick created by government.
FYI, the vapor pressure of a gas-liquid equilibrium depends on the temperature, not on the amount of liquid. It won't change anything if you clean-up 99% or pay more to clean up 99.9999%.
Published: April 25, 2009 6:54 PM
damocles
My friends and I played with mercury in science lab quite a few times and somehow managed to avoid health problems, score highly on tests and SATs and go to famous colleges. The risk of these brief exposures has been grotesquely exaggerated by the pseudoscientific establishment,successfully augmenting its power over our lives.
Published: April 25, 2009 9:40 PM
anon
re: Yancey Ward
Thanks Yancey. It's not specified to how the $300,000 figure was arrived that though, besides $80,000 going to inventory losses.
RWW: "I know I, for one, would happily go into a large store knowing that a bit of mercury had been spilled. The store owners certainly wouldn't lose $300K in business. I have to believe that, even today, most people have a bit more common sense than you seem to be demonstrating, anon."
As I've said, as to what the $300K figure actually means is a mystery. You are certainly free to go into such a store, but other customers are free to choose otherwise. Consumers are entitled to exercise their "democratic power" in the marketplace under proper disclosure of information.
Jim: "You still haven't answered my question regarding the broken thermometer."
In which case you can make a living out of cleaning hazmats, with a specialisation in mercury. But why should I care to respond when you hardly answered any of mine.
Published: April 25, 2009 10:21 PM
anon
btw Jim - given the high $300K costs in this mercury clean-up, this seems to be an immensely profitable business. Show some entrepreneurship, dude.
Published: April 25, 2009 10:24 PM
newson
to anon:
perhaps if they doubled the fine again, it would bring out even more of this latent entrepreneurship for the greater good.
Published: April 25, 2009 11:17 PM
geoih
The toxicity of mercury is well researched. If you choose to expose yourself or your children or your property, that's your business. But if your neglect or complacence puts me, my family or my property at risk, then I would hold you fully responsible.
Right now, the responsibility is enforced through an arbitrary and inefficient mechanism (i.e., the government), but even if it was enforced through a more efficient market environment, I doubt the results would be much different. If you knowingly expose third parties to risks without their consent, you should expect to face the consequences. Or, you can prevent the consequences by making sure you clean up the mess before others are exposed.
As for the $300k, since we aren't allowed an unregulated market at this time, we'll never know if that was too much for the clean up.
As for the government agencies (e.g., OSHA), the standards they enforce are typically forty years out of date, because the regulatory process has been completely captured by the politically powerful. There are non-governmental standards available (look up "industrial hygiene").
Published: April 26, 2009 8:29 AM
Alvaro
If you carry on talking about this, the cost of the spill will be peanuts compared with the cost of following this thread.
I must endorse the recommendation to work inside government for a while (we all work _FOR_ the nasty parasite now, directly or indirectly). It will really change your view of it. I used to think it was inefficient, now I think it's a cross-breed of a racket and the mob growing in a cesspool of waste and incompetence.
But then, I too used to play with mercury when a thermometer broke at home. This happened several times during childhood, seriously impairing me. I am now 42 and (due to my brain damage) when to university and settled for software engineering. Take that into consideration when you ponder wether to spend 300k cleaning your house the next time a mercury spill occurs, be it a thermometer or a flourescent lamp.
Published: April 26, 2009 9:54 AM
Sven
One of the problems here is that people in general, and that includes the employees of OSHA and other agencies, seem to be very poor at judging the relative risks of various potential outcomes.
My guess would be that your potential risk from getting in your car every day is way higher than the risk of visiting a store a few times where a mercury spill has been inexpertly cleaned. Yet we (including regulators) get all bent out of shape over a mercury spill, but don't worry that much about the potential for harm in other areas.
Published: April 26, 2009 10:56 AM
Sven
@geoih: you say "If you knowingly expose third parties to risks without their consent, you should expect to face the consequences."
Did you seriously mean that as a basis for the legal system to operate by? You believe we should punish individuals for exposing others to the *potential* for harm, rather than wait until actual harm occurs?
It is easy to construct examples where most people would agree that prior intervention might be desirable -- when my neighbor is constructing a nuclear bomb in his basement, for example. But taken to a logical conclusion, would not this way of operating lead to a *very* constricted way of life? Can I have you arrested for getting in your car in less than optimal mental shape? Can I shut down any store selling the new CFL bulbs, and Al Gore for advocating their use? Can I punish parents for letting their kids play in the local municipal playground (where there is always *some* danger of harm)?
This seems to be a matter of some consequence for libertarian theory ...
Published: April 26, 2009 11:04 AM
geoih
Quote from Sven: "One of the problems here is that people in general, and that includes the employees of OSHA and other agencies, seem to be very poor at judging the relative risks of various potential outcomes."
The employees of OSHA are not concerned with risk. They are concerned with compliance with the regulations. Risk is a subjective measure. Compliance is typically very back and white (even if you don't agree with the standard being enforced).
Quote from Sven: "Did you seriously mean that as a basis for the legal system to operate by? You believe we should punish individuals for exposing others to the *potential* for harm, rather than wait until actual harm occurs?"
You've already cited an extreme example where it would be acceptable (i.e., a nuclear bomb in the basement). The neighbor with a nuclear bomb in the basement obviously thinks that is an acceptable risk, but you don't. Who decides which risks are acceptable and which aren't?
At some point opinions and culture enter the equation, no matter who is setting the standard (government or the market).
Published: April 26, 2009 5:13 PM
Michael A. Clem
I think you guys are being unnecessarily rough on Anon. Whatever the faults of his arguments, he did recommend private regulation (aka certification), and not government regulation. Surely this is not inconsistent with libertarianism.
Published: April 27, 2009 11:33 AM