Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2000/09/08

[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]

Subject: Re: [Leica] Re: Battery adapter wanted (became a long story)
From: Dan Cardish <dcardish@microtec.net>
Date: Fri, 08 Sep 2000 11:24:02 -0400
References: <34EEAD35AB9BD311BE4A0050DA27CFA020F2DA@ERNIE> <39B8EBFB.1E44F1AC@alumni.duke.edu>

Don't tell anyone, but I have about 5 1/2 pounds of the stuff lying around
my apartment (safely sealed, mind you, just in case you DO tell someone!)

Dan C.

At 10:20 AM 08-09-00 -0400, khmiska wrote:
>John,
>The idiocy of banning mercury has reached new heights in Ann Arbor, Michigan.
>After a small mercury spill in a nearby school, the Ann Arbor city council
passed
>a resolution banning mercury thermometers. Owners of mercury fever
thermometers
>may trade theirs in for a non-Hg version at no charge. The idocy of it
boggles the
>mond.
>Kurt
>Ann Arbor
>
>John Coan wrote:
>
>> There are other sources of mercury that were NOT banned, many with much
larger
>> quantities than tiny photo batteries.  Take for instance fluorescent
lights.
>> Or, as a personal example, I recently purchased a sphygmomanometer .  It
>> contains about an ounce of pure elemental mercury.  How come that wasn't
>> banned?  I think banning the batteries was a symbolic gesture and we
>> photographers were sacrificed on the enviroalter.
>>
>> Buzz Hausner wrote:
>>
>> > Trust me, Hans-Peter, mercury is one very nasty environmental
contaminant,
>> > it is extremely toxic in even small doses and it may be both ingested
in its
>> > liquid form and inhaled as a vapor.  EU and US regulators were unusually
>> > wise in banning the production of mercury batteries.  They were not being
>> > capriciously mean to devotees of old photographic equipment.
>> >
>> >         Buzz Hausner
>> >
>> > -----Original Message-----
>> > From: Hans-Peter.Lammerich@t-online.de
>> > [mailto:Hans-Peter.Lammerich@t-online.de]
>> > Sent: Thursday, September 07, 2000 4:43 PM
>> > To: leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
>> > Subject: [Leica] Re: Battery adapter wanted (became a long story)
>> >
>> > After all I find it stupid that EU and US legislators banned mercury
>> > batteries instead of just requiring that new cameras, hearing aids etc.
>> > shall work with mercury free batteries. Mercury cells in my cameras seem
>> > to last for years instead of the 4 to 6 weeks quoted for zinc-air cells.
>> > Are 30 to 60 zinc-air cells that I would need to purchase over five
>> > years better for the environment than a single mercury cell, even
>> > without recycling? Where is the proper environmental impact assessment
>> > to prove that zinc-air is better? Why legislators are bashing the
>> > minority of classic camera users, but not owners of 3 ton, 400 hp "sport
>> > utilitiy vehicles"? Zinc-air is probably ok for hearing aids which suck
>> > any battery in 4 weeks, for occasional use and low current applications
>> > like photoelectric meters mercury is hard to beat. I am not really
>> > willing to accept the limited life of the . Because the battery is
>> > hidden inside the Rollei 35 and Leica CL, you can replace it only in the
>> > dark or when you change the film.
>
>
>

In reply to: Message from Buzz Hausner <Buzz@marianmanor.org> (RE: [Leica] Re: Battery adapter wanted (became a long story))
Message from John Coan <jcoan@alumni.duke.edu> (Re: [Leica] Re: Battery adapter wanted (became a long story))