Talk:Mercury poisoning/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Review on clinical sign of mercury intoxication

mercury intoxication: clinical sign

EMedicine Toxicity, Mercury: Multimedia Barry M Diner, Barry E Brenner, Updated: Dec 11, 2007 http://emedicine.medscape.com/article/819872-media http://emedicine.medscape.com/article/819872-media

Observations on the Hydrargyria: Or that Vesicular Disease Arising from the Exhibition of Mercury Di George Alley Pubblicato da Longman, Hurst, Rees, and Orme, 1810 http://books.google.it/books?id=gTIAAAAAQAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=mercury&lr=&as_brr=1&as_pt=ALLTYPES

R M Grounds Unexplained subcutaneous deposits of metallic mercury. J R Soc Med. 1984 July; 77(7): 611–613 http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1439967

H. R. Johnson and O. Koumides Unusual case of mercury poisoning. Br Med J. 1967 February 11; 1(5536): 340–341. http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1840764

Walter S. Atkinson and Ludwig Von Sallmann Mercury in the Lens (Hydrargyrosis Lentis) Trans Am Ophthalmol Soc. 1946; 44: 65–70. http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1315201

R A Burn Mercurialentis Proc R Soc Med. 1962 April; 55(4): 322–326. http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1324121

L K Garron, I S Wood, W H Spencer, and T L Hayes A clinical pathologic study of mercurialentis medicamentosus. Trans Am Ophthalmol Soc. 1976; 74: 295–320. http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1311519

Walter S. Atkinson A Colored Reflex from the Anterior Capsule of the Lens Which Occurs in Mercurialism Trans Am Ophthalmol Soc. 1942; 40: 254–261. http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1315049

---

• I'm not sure what the point of the above (unsigned) list of sources is, but except for Diner & Brenner 2007 these are all low-quality sources from the point of view of WP:MEDRS: they're either old, or primary sources, or both. Eubulides (talk) 17:58, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

MSM

Some recommend MSM and other supplements to get rid of mercury. Any supporting sources would be helpful.

[1]www.mercola.com/article/mercury/index.htm curezone.org/forums/fm.asp?i=1212801

None of the sources you list are reliable. I looked for reliable sources on the topic, and didn't find any. Apparently the use of methylsulfonylmethane (MSM) for mercury poisoning is not supported by scientific evidence. Eubulides (talk) 20:15, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

N-Acetylcysteine (NAC) - 3 rat studies find it decreases brain organic Hg; 1 finds no effect on elemental brain Hg

There's been some interesting findings on NAC lately. The article currently says "Glutathione and N-acetylcysteine (NAC) are recommended by some physicians, but have been shown to increase mercury concentrations in the kidneys and the brain" citing Rooney 2007 (PMID 17408840). Rooney cites Aposhian et al 2003 (PMID 12870874), an article which strangely doesn't cite Ballatori et al 1998 (PMID 9520359), which had found that NAC reduced brain mercury. Ballatori's laboratory/research group recently published two more replications of their 1998 finding that NAC decreased brain mercury, as well as mercury in other tissues (Madejczyk et al 2007 and Aremu et al 2008). The decrease in the brain mercury in the 2007 paper was not statistically significant, and in the 2008 paper it was seemingly only significant in the pregnant rats (a 90% decrease). While it's not really unusual to see scientists write as if that work which doesn't support their conclusions doesn't exist, this seems like an exceptional case. The Ballatori papers cite Aposhian et al 1995, but not the 2003 rat study led by Aposhian. All of the studies had only a few rats - around Aposhian et al 2003 had 5 per group, the others had in the range of 4-8. II | (t - c) 00:02, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I can't really figure out what the preceding comment is trying to say. Is it saying that the review we're using (Rooney 2007, PMID 17408840) is exceptionally blinkered in ignoring work that touts NAC for treating mercury poisoning? But Rooney doesn't base his results simply on the experimental results: he also argues based on the underyling chemistry (e.g., the known inefficiency of elimination of methylmercury via the bile). And Rooney isn't the only reliable review that is deeply skeptical of the NAC claims: Guzzi and La Porta 2008 (PMID 18077077) is another one that is just as skeptical. Given this situation, I'd be quite reluctant to cite recent primary studies to dispute the conclusions of the review. Eubulides (talk) 05:23, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Don't hurt your head trying to figure it out; the purpose of the comment was to open a discussion on a possibly inaccurate/outdated/misleading statement in the article. The fact that Rooney discusses chemical theory in addition to experimental work doesn't change the fact that experimental work is ultimately what matters (and what he really emphasizes), and the weight of the animal research has found the NAC actually decreases mercury levels. Rooney's article was published a month after Madejczyk et al's article, and probably submitted before that. Guzzi and La Porta are interesting in that they were published a bit later and don't cover Madejczyk et al. It's also interesting that they cite Watson et al 2004 (PMID 15490384) as evidence against NAC, but Watson et al don't seem to discuss any cases on mercury poisoning; n-acetylcysteine is used in the acetominophen cases. Dodd et al 2008 cite Aremu et al 2008, but I don't have access to the article.

After reading these articles a bit more carefully, I noticed that Aposhian et al 2003 (Rooney's source) used elemental mercury. Ballatori et al 1998 used methylmercury. Madejczyk et al 2007 explicitly says "NAC is relatively selective for MeHg and does not affect the elimination rate of inorganic mercury (Ballatori et al., 1998a). Therefore, the majority of the excreted [14C] over the 12-day experiment should reflect the amount of MeHg excreted". I don't mean to imply that elemental = inorganic, but one can probably add elemental to the list of things which aren't eliminated. Thomas Clarkson is among the authors of the 2007 Madejczyk article, by the way. Aposhian et al 2003 were apparently completely unaware of Ballatori et al's research; at the end of the article they say "similar experiments as to brain Hg levels in organic mercurial (MeHg- or EtHg-) -exposed animals would be of interest". Of course, that research occured 5 years prior, when Ballatori et al tested both inorganic and methylmercury. Ballatori et al noted that this differential effect was reported even as far back as 1987. II | (t - c) 07:14, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Two more reviews. Clifton 2007 (PMID 17448359) says only " N-acetylcysteine (NAC) administered orally as a chelator for MeHg and inorganic mercury poisoning has been studied only in animals." Dodd et al. 2008 (PMID 18990082) don't mention mercury in their abstract, as one might expect if they thought mercury an important application area of NAC. Google Scholar says few people have cited these primary sources so far. I think I'd rather stick with reviews rather than consult primary sources ourselves; see WP:MEDRS#Respect secondary sources. Eubulides (talk) 08:06, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I've submitted an interlibrary loan for Dodd et al 2008, so I'll let you know what it says when I get it. II | (t - c) 23:10, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Dodd simply says that "NAC administration can increase urinary excretion of methylmercury in a dose-dependant manner [sic]. This detoxification is suggested to be due to the formation of a MeHg-NAC complex, which is actively transported across renal tubule cells" citing Aremu et al. Rooney and Guzzi and La Porta don't cite relevant articles. The latter cites an article which doesn't discuss NAC and mercury at all and the former cites Aposhian on elemental mercury rather than methylmercury. II | (t - c) 17:21, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

look up and do some research

stop addin your own oppions the Mad Hatter thing is false he is also called the hatter coz he makes hats in the 18th century which on this page says hat makers got mercury posion unless you have read the books well which you clearly haven't as many things written in book say things that describe the hatter as mad and confusing (why people say mad hatter instead) don't add things not in the book unlike the millions of hints the hatter was a hatter maker in the 18 century. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.22.199.25 (talk) 19:59, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Clearly the person who wrote the above has never picked up a book on English spelling, grammar or punctuation!

The previous comment was accompanied by a deletion from the article of the following text:

"(The Mad Hatter character of Alice in Wonderland was almost certainly inspired by an eccentric furniture dealer, not by a victim of mercury poisoning.)" (citing Waldron 1983, PMID 6418283)

The text in question is supported directly by the cited source, which says:

"In fact, the model for the Mad Hatter was almost certainly a furniture dealer called Theophilus Carter, who lived near Oxford and was well known to Carroll, a lecturer in mathematics at Christ Church. Carter was actually known in the locality as the mad hatter because of his eccentric ideas and because he was in the habit always of wearing a top hat. He was also something of an inventor and one of his more bizarre creations, an alarm clock which woke the sleeper by tipping him out of bed, was exhibited at the Crystal Palace in 1851. This may explain why the Mad Hatter in Alice was so obsessed with time; he certainly was not poisoned with mercury."

The cited source also says that there's a lot of misinformation floating around claiming that the Mad Hatter had mercury poisoning; perhaps these are the (unnamed) "millions of hints" mentioned in the previous comment? Anyway, the text in question is well supported by a reliable source and no good reason has been given to remove it, so I have reinstalled the text. Eubulides (talk) 20:36, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Hey, I just wanted to say to whoever carefully moved things around so that the Alice in Wonderland line used citation #42, thank you. I appreciated it :) --Ozymandias42 (talk) 09:43, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Banning in Scandinavian countries

A poisoning&oldid=347237704 346922123 added the text "though in Norway and Sweden amalgam fillings have been banned, due to both personal health and environmental concerns", citing a web site. I looked for more-reliable sources on this topic, and found the following:

• "Realizing the environmental dangers of mercury, the Norwegian Minister of the Environment and International Development, Eric Solheim, has prohibited the use of mercury in products in Norway (Solheim 2007). This ban includes dental filling materials (amalgams) and measuring instruments, as well as other products. This ban has been valid since January 1, 2008. Sweden announced a similar ban and dentists in Denmark are no longer able to use mercury in fillings after April 1, 2008." Edlich et al. 2008 (PMID 18821394)
• "recognition of the problem of mercury pollution of the environment has resulted in significant curtailment of the use of mercury by some segments of industry.... The Norwegian Government produced a White Paper on mercury in 2006, which was debated in Parliament and a national strategy was agreed with targets to reduce release of mercury into the environment by 2010 and 2020.... On 7 January 2008 I wrote to the Norwegian Ministry of the Environment expressing my dismay at their decision of 14 December 2007 to ban the use of dental amalgam as of 1 January 2008." Jones 2008 (PMID 18327185)

From these and other sources it's quite clear that the ban of the use of mercury amalgam was driven by environmental concerns, not personal health issues. For this reason, the inserted text is misleading (and the source that it relies on, a web site, is not that reliable). I attempted to improve things by substituting one of the more-reliable sources listed above and adjusting the text to match. Eubulides (talk) 17:56, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

It does not seem so clear to me, though the issue is of such monumental potential significance that it is hard to pin down exactly what the Swedish Commission said amongst the general rejoicing and vituperation. [This] link tells us

The Swedish Commission included representatives from the Swedish Dental Association, the dental schools, the Swedish National Board of Health and Welfare, and the Swedish Association of Dental Mercury Patients. The 557-page report contains analysis and recommendations to increase knowledge about health problems related to amalgam and other dental materials, and to improve the care given to patients with such problems. The Swedish newspaper Dagens Nyheter wrote "Amalgam can cause ill health. That is the unanimous conclusion of the study delivered on Tuesday to the Minister of Social Welfare Lars Engqvist. The Dental Materials Commission recommends that the government and Parliament speed up efforts to remove mercury-containing amalgam from dental care." (paragraph order reversed for clarity.)

Perhaps a translation of the complete document is available? Rumiton (talk) 13:29, 5 March 2010 (UTC) Further to the above, the site I quoted when I made the edit apparently used [[2] Reuters as a source. Reliable enough? Just also found the original Swedish. [3]

Förbudet tas på grund av miljö- och hälsoskäl och kan redan börja gälla under nästa år, uppger Svt:s Rapport.

(The ban is for both environment and health reasons...) Rumiton (talk) 14:13, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

This sounds like original research to me. I'm sure that one can go into primary sources and find all sorts of comments about the ban. Let's stick with reliable secondary sources. The health concerns had been around for ages, and were not new. The drive to prevent mercury pollution was new. It's a pretty clear call. Eubulides (talk) 16:23, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the Swedish text is a primary source and by itself could be misleading, but it is backed up by the report from Reuters. Surely that is a reliable secondary source? Rumiton (talk) 15:23, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Not everything published in Reuters.com is a Reuters news article. That particular citation is to a press release. Press releases are not good sources, except for statements about what the opinions of the issuers are. Eubulides (talk) 19:56, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand your contention. The Reuters article indeed summarised a press release from the Norwegian Government, but it also reported on articles in the Swedish newspapers Dagens Nyheter and Svenska Dagbladet which reproduced parts of the report to the Swedish Government by the Dental Materials Commission . Dagens Nyheter wrote "Amalgam can cause ill health. That is the unanimous conclusion of the study delivered on Tuesday to the Minister of Social Welfare Lars Engqvist. The Dental Materials Commission recommends that the government and Parliament speed up efforts to remove mercury-containing amalgam from dental care." Rumiton (talk) 16:32, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

It's a PR Newswire press release, clearly labeled as such at the start. Reuters is a wire service that redistributes press releases as well as news articles. The source doesn't pass the smell test. Let's stick with peer-reviewed sources and avoid press releases, which are near the bottom of the reliability scale. Even if this source were a popular-press news article (which it's not), it still shouldn't be used when we have peer-reviewed sources on the same medical topic. Eubulides (talk) 19:35, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Clarification on mercury levels in Japanese whale meat

Under the sources of mercury poisoning listed, whale meat from Taiji, Japan was mentioned as having 20 times the normal levels considered safe by Japanese standards. According to the revealing documentary film The Cove, the city of Taiji is heavily involved in the secretive killing of dolphins and the selling of dolphin meat. Contrary to what Taiji fishermen claim, dolphin is not a traditional nor acceptable food among Japanese people and the reason the "whale meat" has 20 times the normal levels of mercury is because most whale meat from Taiji is actually dolphin meat that has been deliberately mislabeled. Dolphin meat was tested and was shown to have these very high levels of mercury, higher than whale meat. As a result, some residents of Taiji, which all of whom have been fed dolphin meat, have tested positive for mercury poisoning. Peraino (talk) 10:18, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Mad as a hatter

The main article on Mercury suggests that the origin of the phrase is not related to mercury poisoning, a statement which this article contradicts. This should probably be sorted out.--Goodbye Galaxy 16:52, 20 April 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Goodbye Galaxy (talk • contribs)

Very misleading on an important issue

Under "causes", the first thing stated is that the largest exposure from ingestion, is fish. This leads the average reader to believe fish are the largest exposure in all, more so than dental amalgam. This paper from the World Health Organization shows that vapor from amalgam is the highest exposure in humans, by any route, and this should be the first sentence in this section. After that, it may be stated that by oral route (the loose definition of "ingestion"), fish are the highest.

Placing amalgam near the end is highly misleading and although there is no factual inconsistency here, the order the information is presented in does not correlate with its importance or relevance. Anyone can see that the greatest impact, dental amalgam, is downplayed here. 99.246.64.91 (talk) 03:48, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Conflicting information presented

Under "Inorganic Mercury Compounds", the following lines have a conflict. "Inorganic" and "such as Hg(CN)2" do not agree with one another. If "inorganic mercury compounds have not been shown to be human teratogens" is actually true, the example given should be changed to an actual inorganic compound:

 " Mercuric cyanide has not been tested on its ability to cause reproductive damage. Although inorganic mercury compounds (such as Hg(CN)2) have
not been shown to be human teratogens, they should be handled with care as they are known to damage developing embryos and decrease fertility in
men and women.[20] "

I personally cannot confirm nor deny if the sentence is otherwise true, but hope that someone who does know can help it out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.239.253.78 (talk) 16:09, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Selenium again

A while back, Eubulides and I discussed the effect of selenium. This is a pretty hot area of the research: in 2008 a review summarized the evidence by saying that "there is considerable evidence of the protective effect of Se against CH3Hg+ toxicity for mammals and birds", and one research article ("Dietary and tissue selenium in relation to methylmercury toxicity") said in 2008 that "selenoenzymes may be the molecular target of methylmercury toxicity". This is food for thought as I'm not really comfortable adding the research to the article at the moment. And, of course, this has been a hot topic for at least a couple decades (see for example PMID 1868791 from back in 1991), although it seems researchers have been hesitant to recommend it as a preventative measure until recently. II | (t - c) 00:32, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

William H. Macy

I believe it is mentioned in William H. Macy's Wikipedia entry that he had to drop out of a production due to mercury poisoning, or rather high mercury content in his blood. CMcCrell (talk) 12:13, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Merge discussion

I propose that Mad hatter disease be merged into Mercury poisoning. They are talking about the same topic, so a merge makes sense. I'm not sure how much content is mergable, or if the former article should just be redirected to this one (Mad hatter disease has no reference. Any opinions? 137.43.23.125 (talk) 14:43, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

I too agree, hatter's shakes is a manifestation of mercury poisoning. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ktp.kti (talk • contribs) 14:10, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

A redirect sounds good. The Hatter would be a good place for references on the second paragraph, and the first paragraph can probably be referenced from Google Scholar. I'll do it if I have time tonight. Scientific29 (talk) 00:19, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. Mad hatter disease is merely a nickname for Mercury poisoning. Although it has its meanings of the origin of where someone might have got Mercury poisoning this can be presented as a derivative of the disease. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.82.19.2 (talk) 18:28, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

I disagree. Mad hatter disease has its own history and should definitely be seperate. Geedubzzz (talk) 23:56, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Suitable historical approach to this occupational disease?

I'm interested in improving the information on WP about this occupational disease within a particular historical setting (an area of knowledge perhaps currently underrepresented on Wikipedia?). At the same time, I too feel uneasy about the name "mad hatter disease", which is not a proper medical term. Anyway, I've been going ahead with some more edits on that page... —86.130.63.128 (talk) 13:33, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

"systemic toxicity" undefined under Elemental Merucury

Can someone define "systemic toxicity" in the page? I've tried googling it, but there are no strong, consistent definitions. I have a vague idea of what it is - something about the disruption of cellular mechanisms in the entire body (as opposed to localized disruption) - but I'd prefer someone that is more familiar with the term to write a concise and easy to understand definition. BBAmp (talk) 18:01, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Units in the Occupational Health and Safty table

I can't figure out how to alter the table, but a common (and very wrong) mistake has been made in converting one cubed metre to a litre. As such, right now exposure limits are listed as xx mg/m^3 (xx mg/L). These values should be a factor of 1000 from each other! 1 mg/l = 1000 mg/m^3. I don't know of which of the two is the correct value, but I suspect that the mg/L is too high by a factor of 1000. Can someone edit this properly, please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.235.153.8 (talk) 02:15, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

The EPA limit for human health is 1.8 nanogram/litre http://www.epa.gov/greatlakes/lmmb/results/mercury/lmmbhg.pdf section 5.3.2 this converts to 1.8 parts per trillion not parts per billion as given in the article --Jem Cooper (talk) 14:54, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Assassination

In an assassination section, one would at least expect one example. Now there's nothing but a few Russians claiming to have been poisoned. One of them with a few drops of mercury on the car floor:

• "Thank God ... we are still alive," she said Wednesday as a child wailed in the background. Colleagues and human rights groups said the incident was likely meant to intimidate Moskalenko. "Karinna Moskalenko's poisoning is causing a great deal of anxiety and shock," said Anna Stavitskaya, who is also representing Politkovskaya's family. "Everyone -- including me -- thinks it is connected with her professional activity, as she is involved in several big cases." A police official in Strasbourg confirmed the discovery of balls of mercury in Moskalenko's family car. The official said laboratory analyses found the mercury was not potent enough to cause injury or death, but the balls' mercury levels could have been greater prior to being shown to police.

Two others with high blood levels:

• They arrived in Berlin in September having previously stayed in Ukraine, Poland and Estonia. According to Focus, doctors at Berlin's Charite hospital found 53.7 microgrammes of mercury per litre in Mr Kalashnikov's blood and 56 microgrammes in his wife's. "The maximum safe level is between one and three microgrammes of mercury in a litre of blood," said Frank Mertens, a toxicologist at the hospital.

Is it evidence of poisoning? In San Francisco, all patients in a 1-year period who came for an office visit in a private internal medicine practice were evaluated for mercury excess using the current RfD. One hundred twenty-three patients were tested (93 females, 30 males). Of these, data were statistically analyzed for 89 subjects. Mercury levels ranged from 2.0 to 89.5 microg/L for the 89 subjects. The mean for 66 women was 15 microg/L [standard deviation (SD) = 15], and for 23 men was 13 microg/L (SD = 5); 89% had levels exceeding the RfD.

So people get the same levels from eating fish. Hardly an assassination attempt. Ssscienccce (talk) 13:19, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Expansion

The following points in relation to mercury poisoning may be incorporated to the article after adequate paraphrasing, expansion and addition of proper references.

• Vaporized mercury if inhaled is poisonous (glass industry worker)
• Rubbing on the skin is poisonous ( finger print powder contains mercury).
• Metallic mercury when swallowed is not poisonous .
• Pharoah’ serpent ( sulphocyanide of mercury stick) swallowed accidentally
• Mercurialentis (brownish deposit of mercury on ant lens capsule known as “Brown malt reflex”, bilateral , no effect on visual acuity.
• Minamata disease,
• Mandible necrosis,
• Membranous colitis,
• Metallic taste,
• Membranous glomerulonephritis
• Fatal dose – 5 gm ( 1 – 4 gm )
• Fatal period – 5 days ( 3 – 5 days)
• Erythrism ** (shy, timid, mental depression, loss of memory)
• Acrodynia *(Pink disease)
• Proximal renal tubular necrosis
• Danbury shakes, Hatter’s shakes, Glass blower’s shakes, Concussio mercuralis
• Mercuric chloride (corrosive sublimate) is most toxic form
• Quick silver, sodium formaldehyde sulphoxylate
• Hydragyrasim (chronic poisoning)
• British antilewisite, penicillamine

Diptanshu^Talk 08:11, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Forked content - Dental amalgam controversy

There is an article for Dental amalgam controversy, then Amalgam (dentistry) and Mercury poisoning.

Wikipedia tries not to repeat the development of content. Persons wishes to write about the dental amalgam controversy should do so at the article for that, and not at the articles for amalgam or mercury poisoning. Those articles should link to the "dental amalgam controversy" article, so that discussion can be centralized. I am looking at these articles now and intend to merge all content from amalgam and mercury poisoning to the controversy article, then make sections in each of those articles based on the lede of the controversy article.

My intent is to direct people to the controversy article if they want to read about the controversy. Please discuss my doing this only at Talk:Dental_amalgam_controversy, not on the talk pages of the other articles, to the extent that it is reasonable to have this conversation in one place. Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:58, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Broken link

Link to Hunter-Russell syndrome doesn't work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.190.80.37 (talk) 16:38, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Link to reference 61 (Colbert man dies from mercury poisoning:Tulsa World) points to an "unsupported media" page --203.167.144.78 (talk) 04:53, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Toxicity main sources

The issue that has arisen is are all Hg compounds comparably bad and is the term "mercury poisoning" too generic. This article does not do a good job of distinguishing these species very well and seems to imply that Hg metal is very bad for one's health. the anchoring citation

The toxicology of mercury and its chemical compounds.Clarkson TW1, Magos L. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16973445

Seems to be refuted by

"Comments on the article "the toxicology of mercury and its chemical compounds" by Clarkson and Magos (2006)." Mutter J1, Naumann J, Guethlin C. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17661216 the abstract of which says that the previous article (the main one in the lede) is wrong headed and misleading.

Also Greenwood, Norman N.; Earnshaw, Alan (1997). Chemistry of the Elements (2nd ed.). Butterworth-Heinemann. ISBN 978-0-08-037941-8. give a nice overview of the situation:

• Hg metal: Alfred Stock "whose constant use of mercury in the vacuum lines employed in his studies of boron and silicon hydrides, caused him to suffer for many years"
• "Still more dangerous than metallic mercury or inorganic mercury compounds are organomercury compounds of which the methyl mercury ion HgMe+ is probably the most ubiquitous"

Probably a good idea to re-examine this article to make sure that it is straightforward and not hearsay and exaggeration. --Smokefoot (talk) 21:56, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

New Cleaning Spilled Mercury Section

I have added a new section which has been researched. If you would like to make any changes, feel free but please do not delete it. Thanks,

Scubadooba1 (talk) 07:25, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm ambivalent about including this section, since it's about handling and said little in direct relationship to the poisoning aspect (specific topic of the article here). But indeed handling safely is one of the likely concerns of readers, and is a major way to prevent the poisoning. I removed some of the content that seemed too prescriptive (WP is not a how-to/instruction manual, and the link is there if someone wants to read what one health service recommends). Instead, I reworded to focus on the theme that it generally needs to be done carefully (however it's done). DMacks (talk) 07:44, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Can someone make the P in Poisoning CAPS LOCK?

Hi guys, I think this article would look much better if instead of the title being "Mercury poisoning" it would be "Mercury Poisoning". Can someone please change this to make the document look more professional thanks, Scubadooba1 (talk) 07:41, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

The Wikipedia:Naming conventions (capitalization) style-guideline is very clear that article titles use sentence-case (capitalize only first word) not title-case (capitalize every word) unless the phrase is a proper noun. DMacks (talk) 07:46, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

...and I undid your move for that reason. DMacks (talk) 07:49, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

...and I undid your analogous change to the infobox, since that should match the article's own title. DMacks (talk) 07:59, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Any lower threshold of exposure

lead poisoning says "There is apparently no lower threshold to the dose-response relationship (unlike other heavy metals such as mercury).[66]" implying Hg does have a lower threshold (in some conditions?) - Rod57 (talk) 13:58, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

That is a primary source from 1990[4] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:44, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Homeopathy

This ref does not support[5]. Also please stick with major medical publishers. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:09, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Suggestions

Intro could cover poisoning by breathing [inorganic] mercury vapour. Diagnosis could distinguish acute/chronic. Treatment could separate inorganic from organic/methyl-Hg. - Rod57 (talk) 13:59, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Information regarding thimerosol: Dr. Colleen Boyll of CDC stated last year on C-SPAN that thimerosol had been removed from all vaccines since 2001 except for the multi-dose vials. So Multi dose vials are widely used such as with MMR and DPT and so on. Please don't be a part of the Pharmaceutical cover-up.2601:204:4180:12E0:785D:E955:9BFB:8C3E (talk) 15:10, 7 December 2017 (UTC) Tom Johnson Concerned Parent.

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Mercury poisoning. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100212042036/http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/357/13/1278 to http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/357/13/1278

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:57, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Mercury poisoning can also causes increased intelligence

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/273789709_Rising-falling_mercury_pollution_causing_the_rising-falling_IQ_of_the_Lynn-Flynn_effect_as_predicted_by_the_antiinnatia_theory_of_autism_and_IQ Sidney Sol (talk) 14:13, 25 September 2018 (UTC)