3 ms·

Yikes. I'm glad my house was built in the 80's. No asbestos, no lead in the paint, no mercury hiding out in my ceiling. How dangerous was this contamination, t

Yikes. I'm glad my house was built in the 80's. No asbestos, no lead in the paint, no mercury hiding out in my ceiling. How dangerous was this contamination, though? I know mercury evaporates, and that it is an air quality concern, but given its location and assuming normal levels of indoor air movement, is it worth $50k to abate it? I tend to be skeptical of mold issues, for example, but I also imagine that mercury is way more harmful than mold spores, mostly because you can't smell mercury.

detaro 11y ago
The article says: There were still areas in that room that were .037 milligrams per cubic meter. Wikipedia gives the following info: Chronic exposure by inhalation, even at low concentrations in the range 0.7–42 μg/m3, has been shown in case control studies to cause effects such as tremors, impaired cognitive skills, and sleep disturbance in workers. Even if the first number is as high as it is because they handled it, things like that they found it while sweeping the kitchen suggests that not all of it was sitting quietly somewhere, but was possibly disturbed regularly or even ingested. Given that mercury stays in the body for decades and is especially bad for children, that doesn't seem like something one should risk. (+ of course once the building is condemned, you can't really say "yeah, ok, no, we'll risk it")
- steckerbrett 11y ago
  I would definitely be very uncomfortable with my health had I been living there, balls of mercury in the bathroom seem to suggest that there was quite a high degree of exposure.
steven2012 11y ago
Unless your house was built in the very late 80s, there's still a possibility that asbestos could still have been used in your house. Mercury is far more toxic than mold, unless you have asthma or an allergy to mold. I've known people that have lived in mold infested houses with no side effects, so it's not instant death like the lawyers would like to make you think.
Laforet 11y ago
Probably not that harmful, but it's a liability issue and definitely worth addressing early if the house is to be sold in future. The building I currently work in is going to get some plumbing work done and there is likely asbestos somewhere. The current word from above is that if any asbestos is found during the process the whole bulding will have to be evacuated until somebody from the appropiate authority sign it off as safe. Overeaction? Probably. We know that to cause cancer you need to be inhaling asbesto dust for years. But the liability is too great that any other course of action would be deemed negligent.
sooper 11y ago
Now we just have to worry about the formaldehyde and VOCs that modern products emit...
jandrese 11y ago
Oh in the 80s you say? Might want to check to see if you have polybutaline pipes in there. That's another one that's expensive to repair and not covered by insurance.
- function_seven 11y ago
  Ha, nope. Good old-fashioned copper throughout. It's a boring SoCal house. Stucco on slab with tile roof. I'm invincible against any issues (crosses fingers).

detaro 11y ago

The article says: There were still areas in that room that were .037 milligrams per cubic meter. Wikipedia gives the following info: Chronic exposure by inhalation, even at low concentrations in the range 0.7–42 μg/m3, has been shown in case control studies to cause effects such as tremors, impaired cognitive skills, and sleep disturbance in workers. Even if the first number is as high as it is because they handled it, things like that they found it while sweeping the kitchen suggests that not all of it was sitting quietly somewhere, but was possibly disturbed regularly or even ingested. Given that mercury stays in the body for decades and is especially bad for children, that doesn't seem like something one should risk. (+ of course once the building is condemned, you can't really say "yeah, ok, no, we'll risk it")

steckerbrett 11y ago
I would definitely be very uncomfortable with my health had I been living there, balls of mercury in the bathroom seem to suggest that there was quite a high degree of exposure.

steven2012 11y ago

Unless your house was built in the very late 80s, there's still a possibility that asbestos could still have been used in your house. Mercury is far more toxic than mold, unless you have asthma or an allergy to mold. I've known people that have lived in mold infested houses with no side effects, so it's not instant death like the lawyers would like to make you think.

Laforet 11y ago

Probably not that harmful, but it's a liability issue and definitely worth addressing early if the house is to be sold in future. The building I currently work in is going to get some plumbing work done and there is likely asbestos somewhere. The current word from above is that if any asbestos is found during the process the whole bulding will have to be evacuated until somebody from the appropiate authority sign it off as safe. Overeaction? Probably. We know that to cause cancer you need to be inhaling asbesto dust for years. But the liability is too great that any other course of action would be deemed negligent.

sooper 11y ago

Now we just have to worry about the formaldehyde and VOCs that modern products emit...

jandrese 11y ago

Oh in the 80s you say? Might want to check to see if you have polybutaline pipes in there. That's another one that's expensive to repair and not covered by insurance.

function_seven 11y ago
Ha, nope. Good old-fashioned copper throughout. It's a boring SoCal house. Stucco on slab with tile roof. I'm invincible against any issues (crosses fingers).