Excuse me all to peices, I forgot to add:

Cue for Richard H Jacobson/akaRich..@.. to post with his usual stalking and
attacking me.
Just watch. Just like clockwork.
Sorry to belabor the obvious.

Somethings are so predictable

--------------------------------------------

-------------------------------------------

Best defense to logic is ignorance

So that is why it says the following right now:

The page cannot be displayed
The page you are looking for is currently unavailable. The Web site
might be experiencing technical difficulties, or you may need to
adjust your browser settings.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Please try the following:

Click the  Refresh button, or try again later.

If you typed the page address in the Address bar, make sure that it is
spelled correctly.

To check your connection settings, click the Tools menu, and then
click Internet Options. On the Connections tab, click Settings. The
settings should match those provided by your local area network (LAN)
administrator or Internet service provider (ISP).
See if your Internet connection settings are being detected. You can
set Microsoft Windows to examine your network and automatically
discover network connection settings (if your network administrator
has enabled this setting).
Click the Tools menu, and then click Internet Options.
On the Connections tab, click LAN Settings.
Select Automatically detect settings, and then click OK.
Some sites require 128-bit connection security. Click the Help menu
and then click About Internet Explorer to determine what strength
security you have installed.
If you are trying to reach a secure site, make sure your Security
settings can support it. Click the Tools menu, and then click Internet
Options. On the Advanced tab, scroll to the Security section and check
settings for SSL 2.0, SSL 3.0, TLS 1.0, PCT 1.0.
Click the  Back button to try another link.

Cannot find server or DNS Error
Internet Explorer  

So that is why a trace right now says:

NeoTrace Trace  Version 3.25  Results
Target: www.altcorp.com
Date: 3/09/2005 (Saturday), 9:22:53 PM
Nodes: 20

Node Data
Node Net Reg IP Address      Location            Node Name
  1   -   - 192.168.0.4     Sydney              peter
  2   1   - 192.168.0.1     Unknown            
  3   2   - 10.128.88.1     Unknown            
  4   3   - 61.9.207.131    Unknown            
  5   3   - 61.9.193.3      Unknown            
  6   4   1 139.130.0.49    Sydney
gigabitethernet3-5.pic2.sydney.telstra.net
  7   5   1 203.50.12.126   Sydney
gigabitethernet10-2.ken-core4.sydney.telstra.net
  8   5   1 203.50.6.86     Sydney
10gigabitethernet3-0.pad-core4.sydney.telstra.net
  9   5   2 203.50.13.42    Sydney
10gigabitethernet2-2.syd-core02.sydney.net.reach.com
 10   6   2 202.84.144.101  Los Angeles
i-0-0.wil-core02.net.reach.com
 11   6   2 202.84.251.170  Los Angeles i-3-2.wil03.net.reach.com
 12   7   3 63.114.60.61    Los Angeles 1-1.pos.gw2.lax15.alter.net
 13   8   3 152.63.117.86   Los Angeles
0.so-3-0-0.cl2.lax15.alter.net
 14   8   3 152.63.65.114   Indianapolis
0.so-3-0-0.cl2.ind6.alter.net
 15   8   3 152.63.68.165   Indianapolis
192.atm6-0.gw1.ind6.alter.net
 16   9   3 157.130.99.22   Indianapolis iglou3-gw.customer.alter.net
 17  10   4 204.255.231.38  Louisville lex1-s2-0.lex.iglou.com
 18  11   4 204.255.227.9   Lexington-Fayette   lex2.iglou.com
 19  12   4 204.255.231.50  Louisville mca.customer.02.iglou.com
 20  13   4 204.255.234.86  Lexington-Fayette mca22.mcaisdn.iglou.com

Packet Data
Node High Low  Avg  Tot  Lost
  1    0    0    0    1    0
  2    0    0    0    1    0
  3   10   10   10    1    0
  4   10   10   10    1    0
  5   13   13   13    1    0
  6    9    9    9    1    0
  7    9    9    9    1    0
  8    7    7    7    1    0
  9    9    9    9    1    0
 10  158  158  158    1    0
 11  157  157  157    1    0
 12  157  157  157    1    0
 13  159  159  159    1    0
 14  213  213  213    1    0
 15  215  215  215    1    0
 16  221  221  221    1    0
 17  224  224  224    1    0
 18  226  226  226    1    0
 19  227  227  227    1    0
 20 ---- ---- ----    2    2

Network Data
Network id#: 1

OrgName:    Internet Assigned Numbers Authority
OrgID:      IANA
Address:    4676 Admiralty Way, Suite 330
City:       Marina del Rey
StateProv:  CA
PostalCode: 90292-6695
Country:    US

Network id#: 2

OrgName:    Internet Assigned Numbers Authority
OrgID:      IANA
Address:    4676 Admiralty Way, Suite 330
City:       Marina del Rey
StateProv:  CA
PostalCode: 90292-6695
Country:    US

Network id#: 3
Telstra Internet
  Locked Bag 5744
  Canberra
  ACT 2601

Network id#: 4

OrgName:    Asia Pacific Network Information Centre
OrgID:      APNIC
Address:    PO Box 2131
City:       Milton
StateProv:  QLD
PostalCode: 4064
Country:    AU

Network id#: 5
Telstra Internet
  Locked Bag 5744
  Canberra
  ACT 2601

Network id#: 6
Telecom House
  3 Gloucester Rd.
  Wanchai, Hong Kong

Network id#: 7
Advanced Micro Computer UU-63-114-56 (NET-63-114-56-0-1)
                                 63.114.56.0 - 63.114.63.255
UUNET Technologies, Inc. UUNET63 (NET-63-64-0-0-1)
                                 63.64.0.0 - 63.127.255.255

Network id#: 8

OrgName:    UUNET Technologies, Inc.
OrgID:      UU
Address:    22001 Loudoun County Parkway
City:       Ashburn
StateProv:  VA
PostalCode: 20147
Country:    US

Network id#: 9

OrgName:    UUNET Technologies, Inc.
OrgID:      UU
Address:    22001 Loudoun County Parkway
City:       Ashburn
StateProv:  VA
PostalCode: 20147
Country:    US

Network id#: 10
UUNET Technologies, Inc. UUNETCBLK252 (NET-204-252-0-0-1)
                                 204.252.0.0 - 204.255.255.255
IgLou Internet Services IGLOU-NET224 (NET-204-255-224-0-1)
                                 204.255.224.0 - 204.255.239.255

Network id#: 11
UUNET Technologies, Inc. UUNETCBLK252 (NET-204-252-0-0-1)
                                 204.252.0.0 - 204.255.255.255
IgLou Internet Services IGLOU-NET224 (NET-204-255-224-0-1)
                                 204.255.224.0 - 204.255.239.255

Network id#: 12
UUNET Technologies, Inc. UUNETCBLK252 (NET-204-252-0-0-1)
                                 204.252.0.0 - 204.255.255.255
IgLou Internet Services IGLOU-NET224 (NET-204-255-224-0-1)
                                 204.255.224.0 - 204.255.239.255

Network id#: 13
UUNET Technologies, Inc. UUNETCBLK252 (NET-204-252-0-0-1)
                                 204.252.0.0 - 204.255.255.255
IgLou Internet Services IGLOU-NET224 (NET-204-255-224-0-1)
                                 204.255.224.0 - 204.255.239.255
MCA Inc IGLO-204255234064 (NET-204-255-234-64-1)
                                 204.255.234.64 - 204.255.234.127

Registrant Data
Registrant id#: 1
See Registrant Pane for registrant contact information.

Registrant id#: 2
Registrant:
Reach Global Services Ltd
  20th Floor, Telecom House
  3 Gloucester Road
  Wanchai, Hong Kong 00000
  CN

Registrant id#: 3
Registrant:
MCI, Inc
  22001 Loudoun County Parkway
  Ashburn, VA 20147
  US

Registrant id#: 4
Registrant:
IgLou Internet Services, Inc
  3315 Gilmore Industrial Blvd
  Louisville, KY 40213-2174
  US

_____
NeoTrace Copyright ©1997-2001 NeoWorx Inc

See how Node #30 is unreachable?

Cannot find server or DNS Error
Internet Explorer

Cannot find server or DNS Error
Internet Explorer

Cannot find server or DNS Error
Internet Explorer

Cannot find server or DNS Error
Internet Explorer

Cannot find server or DNS Error
Internet Explorer

I can assure you that if I can't find something in ACT! it isn't
there.

Do you have "Close Haley's web site" in your diary? Please try to read
for comprehension. Why would I look in a diary at Illuminati HQ to
find Haley's web site.

They ALL work, Peter on Outlook!

You're welcome.

While the debate over whether mercury fillings pose a health risk remains
unresolved, there is more widespread worry about harm to the environment
when mercury from old fillings reaches the waste stream.

"The only real issue in dental offices with regard to mercury is when we
remove a silver filling, we grind out an old silver filling, the amalgam is
sucked down into the waste water system and there is some evidence that the
mercury is released in the ground water,'' said Methuen dentist Dr. Thomas
Torrisi.

According to Mark E. Stone, researcher at the Naval Dental Research
Institute in Great Lakes, Ill., elemental mercury in amalgams can become
methylmercury, or a more dangerous form, when it is surrounded by bacteria,
especially from sediment in the ground water.

Methylmercury is known to accumulate in fish and move up the biodiversity
chain. People in the Merrimack Valley have already been warned against
eating fish caught in local waterways, since many of those tested exhibited
high levels of mercury.

In a report out this month, Health Care Without Harm and other groups
charges that dentists are the third largest users of mercury in the country
and the single largest polluter of mercury to the nation's waste water
treatment plants.

In the process of restoring teeth, dentists use approximately 40 metric tons
of mercury each year, most of which is released directly into the
environment, said Bill Ravenisi of Health Care Without Harm.

"While many other industries, including hospitals, are phasing out the use
of mercury products, dentists continue to use large amounts of mercury and
dispose of it improperly. We call on American Dental Association and on
dentists everywhere to pledge to stop polluting our environment and
endangering our health,'' he said.

The Massachusetts Water Resources Authority is working with the
Massachusetts Dental Society to find appropriate machinery for all 4,400
dentists in Massachusetts to use to separate amalgams from the waste stream
before it goes into the water supply.

"We're not taking a position on whether mercury in amalgams is safe or not.
Our concern is just what happens when it gets into the environment and
keeping it out of the environment,'' said Peter Nugent of the Massachusetts
Department of Environmental Protection.

In New Hampshire earlier this month, Gov. Jeanne Shaheen signed into law a
bill that will require dentists in the state starting Jan. 1 to separate
mercury from their waste flow as well as provide their patients information
about the debate over the safety of dental amalgams containing mercury.

(that one has several,  here is just one)

Washington, DC - The Association of Metropolitan Sewerage Agencies (AMSA)
reports that mercury levels in household wastewater are sufficiently high to
pose Clean Water Act compliance problems for the nation's wastewater
treatment plants. The findings of the AMSA study underscore the need for a
comprehensive, priority-based, cost-effective national strategy to reduce
mercury in the environment. The complete report, "Evaluation of Domestic
Sources of Mercury," is available on AMSA's web site.

Mercury contamination is the leading cause of fish advisories in the
country. Because mercury "bioaccumulates" in the fatty tissues of fish and
wildlife as it passes up the food chain, the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) is expected to recommend significantly stricter national water
quality criteria for mercury later this year - at or near the level of 1
part per trillion, which is already in place in the Great Lakes.

Mercury from domestic wastewater and municipal treatment plants accounts for
less than 1 percent of mercury entering the environment. Still many
wastewater treatment agencies are concerned that compliance will require the
application of advanced treatment at their publicly owned treatment works
(POTWs) that have been shown to cost $10 million - $100 million for every
pound of mercury removed. In addition, such advanced treatment may not have
much impact on resolving water quality issues as long as mercury continues
to enter the environment from other sources such as air pollution or
abandoned mines. EPA believes that by using new analytical and sampling
techniques and pollution minimization, POTWs should have no difficulty in
attaining these more stringent requirements. EPA's conclusions in large part
are based on a 1994 mercury sampling project that showed four of nine
wastewater treatment plants had non-detectable mercury levels. This
approach, however, assumes that there is no background mercury concentration
in domestic wastes. Until recently there has been very little information on
mercury concentrations in domestic waste, mainly due to a lack of monitoring
at a sufficiently low level.

To better understand the relative contributions of mercury in domestic
wastes and potential source control options, AMSA initiated a study to
collect information on concentrations of mercury in domestic wastewater, to
identify the sources of mercury in domestic wastewater, and to evaluate the
feasibility of controlling those mercury sources. Sources evaluated included
common household products and food items, as well as research on mercury
contributions from individuals with amalgam fillings.

The results of this study offer some important observations for sources of
mercury in domestic wastewater and the feasibility of effective control
options, and are available in a final report from AMSA. The major findings
are listed below.  Significant amounts of mercury at the average
concentration of 138 parts per trillion were consistently found in strictly
domestic wastewater in various parts of the country. This was wastewater
that contained no industrial or commercial inputs, dental offices included.
POTWs remove 97 percent of mercury that is discharged into sewage systems.
    Several common household and toiletry items were found to contain
substantial concentrations of mercury when examined using sensitive
analytical techniques. Although these products individually do not
contribute significantly to a total concentration in wastewaters, their
cumulative effect accounts for approximately 15 percent of the mercury
concentration in domestic wastewater. The feasibility of controlling these
sources would require a broad national effort.
    Although several sources contributing to the domestic mercury
concentrations have been identified, human wastes (feces and urine) from
individuals with dental amalgam fillings are believed to be the most
significant source - greater than 80 percent. These results were
corroborated by the results from chemical toilet and septic wastes that
showed that a significant portion of the mercury in domestic wastewater is
from uncontrollable sources such as dental amalgam fillings.
    While controlling human wastes is impractical, the long-term outlook is
promising inasmuch as the trend in dental health is for fewer cavities and
resulting in smaller and smaller populations of amalgam-loaded individuals
over time.
    Based on this information, domestic waste contributes appreciable
concentrations of mercury to POTW influent wastestreams and must be
considered when addressing mercury control strategies and the likelihood of
virtual elimination of mercury. Background mercury concentrations averaging
more than 100 parts per trillion can be expected in POTW wastewater
influents, even if complete elimination of industrial point source
discharges is accomplished.

In EPA's cost analysis for the Great Lakes Water Quality Initiative, and in
subsequent discussions with wastewater representatives, the Agency has
supported the use of pollutant minimization programs as a way for achieving
compliance. AMSA strongly endorses and promotes pollution minimization
efforts, but is concerned that these efforts may not be adequate to produce
the desired level of permit compliance sought by regulatory authorities,
highlighting the need for a national mercury compliance strategy for POTWs.

AMSA represents the nation's publicly owned wastewater agencies. Together,
AMSA member agencies serve the majority of the sewered population and
reclaim over 18 billion gallons of wastewater every day.

About - AMSA Year in Review - 2001-2002 - AMSA Takes Strides Toward a
National Mercury Policy

http://www.amsa-cleanwater.org/about/02yir/17.cfm

While publicly owned treatment works (POTWs) are on the front lines of the
fight to reduce the level of mercury in our nation's waters, they find
themselves, more and more, on the receiving end of stringent mercury permit
limits, where end-of-pipe treatment simply will not be the solution. As a
result, AMSA has been very involved over this past year in urging the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Congress and fellow associations and
organizations to support a national mercury strategy that will take into
account not only the appropriate role for POTWs in reducing mercury levels -
but also the responsibility of domestic and industrial users of mercury to
do the same.

AMSA Gathers Evidence, Seeks to Enlist EPA's Support on Mercury
On March 8, 2002, AMSA released its Mercury Source Control and Pollution
Prevention Program Evaluation - Final Report. The Report, funded by EPA, is
the product of two years of cooperative effort between AMSA and EPA to
evaluate the effectiveness of pollution prevention programs to control the
amount of mercury discharged by dental offices, hospitals, and other sources
into the sewer system. The Report provides evidence that neither POTWs - nor
industrial or commercial sources of mercury - can be singled out to solve
this complex issue. This Report will serve as a significant and lasting
factor in AMSA's ongoing advocacy efforts and the critical importance of
making progress toward a national mercury strategy.

Critically, AMSA has been on the front lines of explaining that there is
currently no method available that can meet mercury levels of less than 1
part per trillion, which some states have considered mandating, and that
such a level would automatically, and arbitrarily, force POTWs into
noncompliance. AMSA has also written EPA Administrator Christine Todd
Whitman urging her to work with a coalition of leaders from state
environmental associations (known as the Quicksilver Caucus), as well as
leaders from the POTW community, to craft a viable a national strategy.

AMSA-Backed Mercury Legislation Garners Important Attention
This year, AMSA staunchly supported the Mercury Reduction and Disposal Act
of 2001, S. 351, introduced by Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME). The legislation
would create an Interagency Task Force on Mercury to guide the development
of a national environmental mercury compliance strategy. AMSA launched a
successful campaign in June 2001 urging Association members to send letters
to their Senators in support of S. 351 to ensure that mercury controls look
beyond traditional end-of-pipe controls. These efforts resulted in increased
support for S. 351 from key Senators including Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX),
Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), and George V. Voinovich (R-OH) who continue to
vocally support the need for a national strategy. While action on the bill
itself has been overtaken by other events, AMSA will continue to explore
both regulatory and legislative means to push for a national mercury policy.

Dentists' mercury could hurt environment

By Marjory Sherman
Eagle-Tribune Writer

Monday, June 24, 2002
http://www.eagletribune.com/framesets/news.htm

While the debate over whether mercury fillings pose a health risk remains
unresolved, there is more widespread worry about harm to the environment
when mercury from old fillings reaches the waste stream.

"The only real issue in dental offices with regard to mercury is when we
remove a silver filling, we grind out an old silver filling, the amalgam is
sucked down into the waste water system and there is some evidence that the
mercury is released in the ground water,'' said Methuen dentist Dr. Thomas
Torrisi.

According to Mark E. Stone, researcher at the Naval Dental Research
Institute in Great Lakes, Ill., elemental mercury in amalgams can become
methylmercury, or a more dangerous form, when it is surrounded by bacteria,
especially from sediment in the ground water.

Methylmercury is known to accumulate in fish and move up the biodiversity
chain. People in the Merrimack Valley have already been warned against
eating fish caught in local waterways, since many of those tested exhibited
high levels of mercury.

In a report out this month, Health Care Without Harm and other groups
charges that dentists are the third largest users of mercury in the country
and the single largest polluter of mercury to the nation's waste water
treatment plants.

In the process of restoring teeth, dentists use approximately 40 metric tons
of mercury each year, most of which is released directly into the
environment, said Bill Ravenisi of Health Care Without Harm.

"While many other industries, including hospitals, are phasing out the use
of mercury products, dentists continue to use large amounts of mercury and
dispose of it improperly. We call on American Dental Association and on
dentists everywhere to pledge to stop polluting our environment and
endangering our health,'' he said.

The Massachusetts Water Resources Authority is working with the
Massachusetts Dental Society to find appropriate machinery for all 4,400
dentists in Massachusetts to use to separate amalgams from the waste stream
before it goes into the water supply.

"We're not taking a position on whether mercury in amalgams is safe or not.
Our concern is just what happens when it gets into the environment and
keeping it out of the environment,'' said Peter Nugent of the Massachusetts
Department of Environmental Protection.

In New Hampshire earlier this month, Gov. Jeanne Shaheen signed into law a
bill that will require dentists in the state starting Jan. 1 to separate
mercury from their waste flow as well as provide their patients information
about the debate over the safety of dental amalgams containing mercury.

The American Dental Association's Response to the Problem of Mercury Amalgam
Wastes

     MercuryPolicy.org

     http://www.mercurypolicy.org/

          12/2/02 Chicago The American Dental Association's "National
Advocacy Initiative" to reduce dental amalgam in wastewater launched today
is a step forward, but nearly toothless, say health and environmental groups
(see the press release).
http://www.mercurypolicy.org/new/documents/ADA120202ChicagoRelease.pdf

          The ADA Initiative and accompanying back up report by Environ is
based on flawed assumptions that dental mercury pollution is not a
"significant" problem and that installation of amalgam separators by
dentists is cost-prohibitive and not necessary.
http://www.mercurypolicy.org/new/documents/ADANationalAdvocacyInitiative.pdf

                 http://www.mercurypolicy.org/new/documents/ADAScientificAssessmentVersion3.pdf

        "There is much 'fuzzy science' and doublespeak in the ADA's
'Initiative'--which should more appropriately be called 'Impediment'," said
Charles Brown, Esq., of Consumers for Dental Choice. "The upshot is that ADA
recommends doing little more than what the law requires." The Environ
report's cost analysis for capturing dental mercury--estimated at between
$45,000 to $141,000 per pound--is wildly off-base, compared to real life
examples in dental clinics in both the US and Canada, say the groups. "I am
surprised that the ADA would stand behind such wildly erroneous cost
estimates for capturing dental mercury, when their own scientists have
recently evaluated amalgam separators," said Bender. "Based on the latest
government estimates, the average cost for dental clinics to operate amalgam
separators is about $60 per month, with a one time upfront cost of between
$1,000 to $1,500 to purchase an amalgam separator. How that equates to over
$40,000 to capture a pound of dental mercury is beyond me." Read the full
MPP analysis of the Environ Report.
http://www.mercurypolicy.org/new/documents/MPPresponseEnviron120202.pdf

     ADA Statement: Dental Amalgam in Dental Office Wastewater

     http://www.ada.org/prof/prac/issues/statements/amalgam4.html

     The American Dental Association (ADA) and its members are committed to
providing the best possible health care in an environmentally responsible
manner. Since the early 1980's, the ADA has advocated for the proper
handling and recycling of amalgam tooth-filling wastes from dental offices.

     In addition, the ADA developed a comprehensive action plan that
addresses amalgam in dental office wastewater, including an assessment of
the release of mercury from dental offices, educational activities for
dental office personnel and the effectiveness of current amalgam reduction
technology. The plan is being implemented now, starting with the scientific
assessments on which all ADA policy is based.

     In the meantime, the ADA has evaluated the efficiency of commercially
available amalgam separators, a dental office device that filters amalgam
particles from wastewater. The results of that study were published in the
May 2002 issue of The Journal of the American Dental Association as a guide
to ADA members.

     The ADA is aware that some waste amalgam particles generated during
the placement and removal of amalgam restorations (fillings) end up in
dental office wastewater. However, a 1996 study found that when amalgam
particles were subjected to simulated wastewater treatment processes, no
soluble mercury was detected, even at a concentration of one part per
billion.

     Nonetheless, dentists around the country, with leadership from
organized dentistry, are increasingly adopting a best management practices
approach to environmental issues.

     The ADA does not endorse any single pretreatment source reduction
method but believes that any reduction method should consider factors
specific to a dental office. In addition, the ADA will continue to evaluate
new reduction technology as it becomes available and actively address the
issue of amalgam in dental wastewater.

     Page Updated: November 09, 2004

This Dental Mercury Environmental Issues Website was developed to provide a
resource for the management of mercury in the dental-unit wastewater stream.
This Website is supported by a grant from the Great Lakes National Program
Office of the United States Environmental Protection Agency: Interagency
agreement number DW17947929-01-0.  EPA project manager Edward Klappenbach,
Great Lakes National Program Office, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, IL
60604 (312) 353-1378.

Please e-mail mark.stone@ndri.med.navy.mil for questions about this site.

Publications
http://www.dentalmercury.com/publication.html

 New Abstracts
    Methylmercury Content of Dental-Unit Wastewater
    TCLP Analysis and Residual Mercury Levels in Dental Wastewater Lines
    New American Dental Association abstract evaluating amalgam separators
     Publications
    The Management of Mercury in the Dental-Unit Wastewater Stream  (Full
paper in PDF Format)
    Mercury Removal from Wastewater -- Dr. Thomas Klasson Oak Ridge
National Laboratory
    Solid Waste Disposal Issues and Dental Amalgam (Full paper in PDF
Format)
       Residual Mercury Content and Leaching of Mercury and Silver from
Used Amalgam Capsules (Full paper in PDF Format)
       The Removal of Mercury from Dental-Operatory Wastewater by Polymer
Treatment
       Mercury Levels and Particle Size Distribution in the Dental Unit
Wastewater Stream at Naval Dental Center, Norfolk, Virginia, USA
       Mercury Removal From Dental Operatory Wastewater Using Polymers
       Silver Generation Rates from Dental Wastewater
    ICP Analysis of Dental Wastewater
       Electro Kinetic Properties of Colloidal Dental Wastewater
       Mercury Removal Method and Device for Dental Operatory Wastewater
       Mercury Management of Dental-Wastewater Streams Using Secondary
Treatments
       Technique for Removing Polymer-Bound Mercury from Dental Wastewater
       Line Cleanser/Disinfectant Effects on Soluble Mercury Content of
Dental Wastewater
       Mercury Removal from Dental Wastewater by a Microbial Bioadsorbent
Derived from Genetically Engineered Bacteria
       Evaluation of an Integrated System to Remove Mercury from
Dental-Unit Wastewater
       Mercury Hygiene Best Management Practices

Technologies
http://www.dentalmercury.com/technologies.html

 Most of the mercury released into the wastewater stream leaving the
dental-unit is in the form of amalgam particulate. However a significant
quantity of mercury is in the "soluble form" (< 0.45 microns) and in high
enough concentrations to violate discharge limits for some local Publicly
Owned Treatment Works (POTWs). Amalgam separating devices currently marketed
to remediate this problem are certified using an ISO standard (ISO 11143)
that focuses on percent particle removal (> 95%) utilizing a standard
amalgam sample suspended in water. However the regulations governing the
discharge of metals into the wastewater stream are framed in terms of
concentrations and load.  The United States Environmental Protection agency
(US EPA) has instituted the Environmental Technology Verification Program
(ETV) to verify the performance of commercial technologies.  The US EPA
Office of Research and Development and NSF International, an independent,
not-for-profit organization have published a protocol for the evaluation of
amalgam separators.  This protocol looks at efficiency as a function of
mercury concentrations  as opposed to percent particle removal. There are
numerous "amalgam separating" devices available to dentists, but particle
separation may not be enough to satisfy local regulators. Dentists need to
be aware of this issue before purchasing expensive devices that may not
satisfy the discharge requirements of POTWs.

     Scanning electron micrograph of mercury containing amalgam particulate
in dental-unit wastewater.

     The following is a list of just a few of  the amalgam separating
systems (also known as pretreatment systems) available in the marketplace.
This list of commercially available products does not imply endorsement.

    AB Dental Trends, Rasch 890 amalgam separator

    KeyleX© mercury sorbent system from Solmetex, Inc.

    ADA Technologies, Inc.

    Nalco, Inc. polymers N8701 (NALMET®) and N8186 (ULTRION®)

    Air Techniques, Inc

    Maximum Separation Systems Inc.

    Pure Water Development, L.L.C. - METASYS Group

    Dental Amalgam Recyclers

Methods
http://www.dentalmercury.com/methods.html

 Analytical Methods
    Method 1630: is for determination of methyl mercury (CH3Hg) in filtered
and unfiltered water by distillation, aqueous ethylation, purge and trap,
desorption, and cold vapor atomic fluorescence spectrometry (CVAFS).
    Method 1631: allows determination of mercury at a minimum level (ML) of
0.5 ng/L (parts-per-trillion; ppt), approximately 400 times lower than the
level achieved by other mercury methods previously approved at 40 CFR Part
136.
    Method 245.1: This method describes the instrumental analytical
procedures for mercury by cold vapor atomic absorption (CVAA).
    Method 7470 A: is a cold-vapor atomic absorption procedure approved for
determining the concentration of mercury in mobility-procedure extracts,
aqueous wastes, and ground waters.
    Method 7471 A: is approved for measuring total mercury (organic and
inorganic) in soils, sediments, bottom deposits, and sludge-type materials.
    Method 7473: is designated for the determination of mercury in solids,
aqueous samples, and digested solutions in both the laboratory and field
environments

Links
http://www.dentalmercury.com/links.html

 The following are links to other Websites that focus on the issues of
mercury content from the dental-unit wastewater stream:
     Organizations
    Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry
    Association of Metropolitan Sewerage Agencies (AMSA)
    Great Lakes Information Network
    Organization for Safety and Asepsis Procedures
    The Great Lakes Regional Pollution Prevention Roundtable
    The American Dental Association

     Private Industry
    Nalco Chemical Company
    Solmetex, Inc.
    ADA Technologies, Inc.

     U.S. Military
    Naval Dental Research Institute
    US Air Force Dental Investigation Service
    US Navy Dental Corps
    Critical Issues Affecting the Naval Dental Corps

     U.S. Legislation & Regulations
    CESQGS Rule Page
    CFR 40
    Clean Air Act of 1970, as Amended
    Clean Water Act of 1977, as Amended
    NESHAP for POTW
    RCRA Online
    Rule 1179
    Safe Drinking Water Act
    Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976

     U.S. EPA Programs/Documentation
    United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA)
    EPA's Office of Water Homepage
    The Great Lakes National Program Office
    Mercury In Medical Facilities
    US EPA Protocol for testing and evaluation of amalgam separators

Environmental Health Perspectives Volume 107, Number 1, January 1999

[ Citation in PubMed ] [ Related Articles ]

The Removal of Mercury from Dental-operatory Wastewater by Polymer Treatment
Ernest D. Pederson, Mark E. Stone, and Victor G. Ovsey

Naval Dental Research Institute, Applied Laboratory Science Department,
Great Lakes, IL 60088-5259 USA

http://ehpnet1.niehs.nih.gov/docs/1999/107p3-8pederson/abstract.html

Abstract
The mercury (Hg) content of dental-operatory wastewater has become an issue
in many localities, and Hg removal is rapidly becoming a matter of concern
for all dental clinics. This preliminary study tested the efficacy of
polymers for the removal of Hg contaminants from the dental-unit wastewater
stream. Two commercially available polymers were used to treat
dental-operatory wastewater. Used separately, each polymer removed from
74.9% to 88.4% of the Hg from dental-wastewater supernatant. The polymers
used in combination, within the recommended pH range, removed up to 99.9% of
the total Hg from dental-wastewater supernatant. The estimated optimal
concentration of the two polymers is approximately 2.33 ml of each per liter
of waste, and more than 90% of the Hg may be removed with 0.13 ml/l. Results
indicate that a combination of the two polymers may sufficiently reduce Hg
levels to allow discharge of clarified supernatants into public sewer
systems. Key words: amalgam, dental, mercury, polymer, wastewater. Environ
Health Perspect 107:3-8 (1999). [Online 4 December 1998]

http://ehpnet1.niehs.nih.gov/docs/1999/107p3-8pederson/abstract.html

 Address correspondence to E.D. Pederson, Naval Dental Research Institute,
Applied Laboratory Science Department, Building 1-H, 310A B Street, Great
Lakes, IL 60088-5259 USA.
 We thank B.L. Lamberts and P.L. Fan for assistance with manuscript
preparation and P.L. Choo for providing the polymers. Supported by the Naval
Medical Research and Development Command, Bethesda, Maryland, project
063706N M0095.006-0515. The views expressed herein are those of the authors
and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of the
Departments of the Navy or Defense, nor the U. S. Government. The use of
commercially available products does not imply endorsement.

 Received 28 April 1998; accepted 4 August 1998.

It's been unreachable from here for three weeks, because it has been
picked up in my last two link checks. As you can see in the trace I
posted to Jan, I can get as close as one IP address away.

Tragic. I have already received an enquiry from some desperate parent
wanting me to put them in touch with Haley so that he can raise their
hopes.

I notice that he is now a "former chemistry department chairman at the
university". Maybe the university woke up to how incompetent he is.

They at least tell you that you can't get in.

I will try the method I used to get to the P&T show. Back in a second.

Hummm. Whistle.

Yep. Blocked. I can get to it with Cloak.

Could Haley be so frightened of me that he has blocked my IP address,
or has he blocked everyone with a Telstra cable account? Actually, I
am one of those people who when given a situation which can be either
a conspiracy or a cockup, I favour the cockup alternative.

As in:

The *truth* is nauseating

Guess why?

NO, it's NOT closed down.

So what if he fell asleep AFTER speaking before Congress, the man is
exhausted!

What desperation to belittle!!!

That's NOT what he is on to!

GOD BLESS HIM!