Cremating Amalgam: Cost and Environmental Consequences
- Details
- Published: Wednesday, 12 October 2022 07:52
- Written by Guy Tuggle
- Hits: 1781
Controversy surrounding the use of amalgam for dental restorations is not new and many patients with the financial means to choose between the unsightly metal and a scarcely visual composite filling will invariably opt for the latter.
But as clinicians are all too aware, there are more sinister reasons for treating the admittedly proven-strength material with caution. It has already been side-lined in several countries because of its mercury content and for some patient groups its use is ill-advised.
What’s less well known is the challenge it poses to the environment when bodies containing amalgam restorations are cremated. Mercury, which constitutes 50% of amalgam fillings, is released as vapours during cremation, with the resultant pollution contaminating the environment.
So real is the danger, in Leeds the council is on the cusp of spending £850,000 on new filtration units for its crematoria.
A recent report in the Yorkshire Evening Post said “Leeds City Council’s plan is to install filtration equipment to reduce the levels of nitrous oxide and nitrogen dioxide at Cottingley and Rawdon, and to install mercury-abated filtration and noxious gas equipment t all its cremators at Lawnswood”.
The report added that Cottingley and Rawdon cremators already have mercury filtration units.
Burial space nationally is at a premium and the number of cremations is expected to rise. Given the dominant age of those dying, most will possess heavily restored mouths whilst the prevalence of mercury in the living which includes all those who underwent the amalgam journey of the seventies and eighties only suggests a problem stored up for the future.
According to the United Nations Environment Programme, 3.6 tons of mercury are released into the environment each year due to cremating bodies with amalgam fillings.
One solution would be to remove amalgam filled teeth from the mouths of the deceased before cremation. Who would undertake this gruesome work, who would pay for it and who would dispose of the waste is open to question.
Image Credit: Tavo Romann, CC BY 4.0 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0, via Wikimedia Commons (Modified)
in context
Primary mercury emissions are approximately 5000 metric tons yearly of which an estimated 2220 metric tons are of anthropogenic origin. Perhaps cremation, given it's high carbon footprint is not the best way to dispose of our dead.You need to be logged in to leave comments.
Report