Mercury and the National Institute of Standards and Technology

Let's first discuss analogies and word meanings by using some examples.

Glycerin is an innocuous water-soluble lubricant. Nitroglycerin is an explosive. Nitroglycerin is prepared from glycerin. It is a different compound.

Mercury is a non-toxic liquid metal. Methylmercury is toxic. Mercury is converted to methylmercury by microorganisms primarily in swamps.

With the recognition that methylmercury is a toxic material, there has been a general panic to eliminate all mercury from the environment. The only justification is that methylmercury is generated by microorganisms in the environment, without human involvement. Contrarily, preparation of nitroglycerin requires a distinct human-controlled operation.

However, the world is not one big swamp with mercury converting microorganisms ready to do their damage. Laboratories, where mercury has been used in thermometers, do not contain these microorganisms. Similarly, houses using mercury containing thermostats do not contain these microorganisms. The only source of mercury susceptible to conversion to methylmercury is that from coal-fired power plants. Emissions from such power plants contain small amounts of mercury which pervade the atmosphere and fall into swamps where the microbiological conversion to methylmercury takes place. Controls on coal-fired power plants continue to be instituted to reduce the source, even though the generated quantities of methylmercury are very small and dissipate into the general atmosphere.

Mercury containing thermometers used in laboratories is encapsulated within the glass bulbs of thermometers. If the bulbs break, the mercury is spilled. In the general interest of laboratory cleanliness and economy, spilled mercury is routinely physically recovered. Very small droplets are made to react with sulfur to form a solid material, which can be swept up, or with zinc to form a solid amalgam, which can similarly be easily collected. Many mercury compounds are not toxic to humans. In fact, mercuric oxide has been used for many years to treat eye infections.

With that background of technology and logic, we can proceed to the main point of this message.

The National Bureau of Standards was established by Congress in 1901. The purpose was to establish standards of measurement for uniformity in science and industry. For example, what is the standard length of a meter? What is the standard weight of a pound? The Bureau did its job well and we have no confusion in measurement standards.

However, subsequent political motivations have changed the nature of the Bureau, including its name, which is now the National Institute of Standards and Technology. The name change is associated with a change in policy. For example, part of the Institute's new responsibilities is to promote US industry. Presumably the justification for this is that the NIST is a part of the Commerce Department. The difficulty arises in that adding the new responsibility also leaves the Bureau open for other political maneuvering.
In its new political role, NIST has assumed the responsibility of removing mercury containing thermometers from society. As shown above, there is no technological justification for such action, nor does NIST have the right to assume that responsibility. This is another of many cases of government "overreach".


The argument can be presented that technology changes in temperature measurement have outmoded the need for mercury thermometers. It is a fact that digital thermometers have become the workhorse of temperature measurement in laboratories, industry and the home. It is also a fact that temperature can be measured by resistance changes in platinum. It may be that the NIST is now using this technology as a standard for temperature measurement. If so, I have no objection to this switch based upon the improved technology.

With the increased use of digital thermometers, the requirement of calibrating a mercury thermometer has become unnecessary. The Bureau previously ran such calibrations for industry on a fee basis and that requirement has dropped off such that the bureau is justified in no longer offering thermometer calibration service. However, a requirement for calibration of digital thermometers now is necessary, and I am wondering what the bureau is doing about that. If it does not offer such service, I also have no disagreement. Maintaining a temperature measurement standard and offering a calibration service are two different things. I hope that the Bureau maintains the temperature measurement standard, so that all in science and industry can be equally confident of the equality of heat involved in a standard degree Fahrenheit or Centigrade.

When people get involved in political considerations, they tend to lose sight of scientific facts. I would like the NIST to act like a Bureau of Standards, rather than a political body such as the EPA.

Do We Want to Start a Third US War in Libya?

EIN News says, "U.S. Mulls Air Strikes As Battle for Benghazi Looms Libyan government soldiers battled rebels on the road to the insurgent stronghold of Benghazi as the United States raised the possibility of air strikes to stop Muammar Gaddafi's forces. (reuters.com)".

Do we want to start a third war to help people who we know little about? It has been said that the rebels are basically the Muslim Brotherhood. Let's remember that Muslims are followers of Islam and their book is the Koran, which specifically says that it is a Muslim's responsibility to convert Christians to Islam or alternatively kill them.

Will We Be Swayed by the UN to Establish a No-Fly Zone in Libya?

EIN News says, "UN Supporters Introduce No-fly Resolution at UN Security Council supporters of a no-fly zone over Libya were working Wednesday to persuade the group's more reluctant members to back a UN resolution aimed at stopping Moammar Gadhafi's planes from bombing civilians. (foxnews.com)".

I am surprised at Fox news. They are normally reasonably unbiased in their reporting. In this case, the statement is inflammatory.

The question is whether will bomb or is bombing innocent civilians. While I am not familiar with all the details, it makes no sense that Gaddafi would bomb innocent civilians. His primary purpose is to protect his government and preserve his power against insurgent rebels.

These insurgent rebels are likely of civilian origin, but when they took up arms against the Qaddafi government, they gave up their "innocent civilian" status.

With respect to the UN supporters introducing a no-fly resolution at the UN, this is to be expected. Those Security Council supporters are of socialistic ideology and are also ignorant concerning the status of the rebels. I am also ignorant on that point, but suspect that most of the rebels are members or supporters of the Muslim Brotherhood. We need to consistently remind ourselves that Muslim doctrine is to kill Christians, unless they can be converted to Islam. Would we rather have the Muslim brotherhood in charge of Libya, with intent to do harm to the US and its Christian citizens wherever possible, or would we rather have Gaddafi remaining in power? Gaddafi has not been a friend to the United States, but the Muslim Brotherhood is likely to be worse.

The thing that worries me is that the UN Security Council may convince the Gen. Assembly to introduce a no-fly zone. If that occurs, we must recognize that in spite of the fact that UN actions have routinely been detrimental to the interests of the United States, we likely will be required and accede to a leadership position in securing a no-fly zone. This means supplying military at great cost, when we already have two ridiculous wars in progress.

Who Controls the Federal Treasury Departmet's Payments?

Open letter to Rep. Neugebauer:

It has been said that the House controls the federal purse strings.

However in investigating the responsibilities of the Treasury Department, the following is mentioned:
"Collecting taxes, duties and monies paid to and due to the U.S. and paying all bills of the U.S."

Since the Treasury Department is under the control of the President, does Treasury take orders from the House or the President on what bills it should pay?

Comments would be appreciated from anyone receiving a copy of this e-mail

Is Buying Support with Libyan Oil Money Unethical?

EIN News says, "Libya's Oil Money Let Qaddafi Buy Support in Africa From Liberia to South Africa to the island of Madagascar, Libya's holdings are like a giant venture capital fund, geared to make friends and win influence in the poorest region in the world. This may help explain how Colonel Qaddafi has been able to summon sub-Saharan African soldiers to fight for him in his time of need - Libyans have spoken of "African mercenaries" killing protesters and helping him rout rebel fighters - and why so many African leaders have been so slow to criticize him, even as his forces slaughter his own people. (nytimes.com)".

This is an inflammatory statement typical of the New York Times.

I am not a supporter of Qaddafi. He is a dictator. However we need to judge the actions of dictators or anyone in the proper context. The fact that Qaddafi has used oil revenues to gain the support of poor regions of the world is not without precedent. The United States has done this and continues to do this regularly using taxpayer money and money garnered from inflating the currency.

I don't condone either of these actions, but they are consistent with the facts of life. Money is power and is routinely used to support and gain influence for the holder. I don't see how this can be changed. Meanwhile, let us not unduly criticize the left hand, while the right hand is doing the same thing.

Short-Term Budget and Zero Budgeting

Open letter to Representative Randy Neugebauer (Texas):

Dear Randy,

I just read your latest newsletter.

You say funding the government for a week or two at a time is not the answer, and you will not continue to support short-term funding as a long-term operating solution.

I believe most of us will partially agree with that statement, but I caution you not to concentrate on the fact that you must have a long-term budget solution, because in so doing you weaken your position and resolve to stop the Socialist/Democrats in their tracks.

This is a hard ball game. You can't get everything you like. You can give up the long-term budget solution temporarily, if you want to whack the stuffing out of excess spending proposals.

I strongly suggest that you aim for zero budgeting of all the various administrative departments. This means that they must explain the justification for any expense from the first dollar, not only for any increase above past expenditures.

Lack of Diligence in Congress

From an associate.

The picture did not come through to the blog, but the comments below are still revealing.

"This picture is worth a trillion $$


House Minority Leader Lawrence F. Cafero Jr., R-Norwalk, pictured standing, far right, speaks while colleagues Rep. Barbara Lambert, D-Milford and Rep. Jack F. Hennessy, D-Bridgeport, play solitaire Monday night as the House convened to vote on a new budget. (AP)

The guy sitting in the row in front of these two....he's on Facebook, and the guy behind Hennessy is checking out the baseball scores.

These are the folks that couldn't get the budget out by Oct. 1, and are about to control your health care, cap and trade, and the list goes on and on….
Should we buy them larger screen computers - or - a ticket home, permanently?

This is one of their 3-DAY WORK WEEKS that we all pay for (salary is about $179,000 per year)."