Hello Rod, from the NEWMOA item: "Age. Newer, operating landfills produce higher emissions than older, closed landfills. Lindberg speculates that although the older landfills likely contain more mercury wastes, the mercury from these wastes has either already been lost to the atmosphere or been stabilized by sulfur compounds in the landfill. " And since it is recognized the elemental mercury reacts with sulfur compounds or elemental sulfur to produce mercuric sulfide, one wonders why some free sulfur [unbelievably cheap] is not routinely added to municipal waste containing these nanograms of mercury, or particularly at their gas vents, and thus sequester them so they do not evaporate out of the landfills? With that simple addition, the mercury emissions should go to zero, at a negligible cost of energy that needs to be generated by burning fossil fuels containing mercury, to gather and deal with the very low levels of landfill-mercury. Has anyone tried that? Steve Smith. > On 28 Aug 2008, at 03:55, Gordon Davy wrote: >> ... ask yourself: >> >> · Have you ever read an analysis showing how much mercury gets >> into landfills, and how much of that gets back out? >> >> · Have you seen an analysis of how people get exposed to mercury >> (e.g., burning coal), and what fraction of that can be attributed >> to mercury in landfills? > General text > www.newmoa.org/prevention/mercury/landfillfactsheet.cfm > UK parliament answers > www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200607/ldhansrd/text/70625w0007.htm > regards, Rod > rod.dalitz@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx -- Best regards, Steve Smith <steve@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> www.woodrestoration.com www.fiveyearclear.com www.smithandcompany.org, and especially www.smithandcompany.org/mwp/ http://www.lignu.com/lignu/tech_info/tech_info.php www.consultingscientist.us http://www.pickensplan.com/ Subscribe to the Smith & Co. discussion list at: http://nine.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/smith-co-carousel