Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2007-06-19-Speech-2-439"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20070619.47.2-439"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Ladies and gentlemen, mercury is considered a heavy metal, and is very dangerous in the food chain. A number of other heavy metals, such as chrome, nickel, uranium and plutonium can also be classified in the same category.
It is true that not only heavy metals but also a number of lighter elements in the periodic table can, in large quantities, be harmful to health. For example, beryllium is known to cause berylliosis. Mercury is not just a metal that can cause serious harm after consumption in its metallic state, it is also an important substance in the field of technology. In the past, electrolysis, dentistry and jewellery could not do without it. The instrumental method of chemical analysis using mercury drop electrodes is well known, and in 1959, the Czech academic Heyrovský won the Nobel Prize for Chemistry for this process, which he termed polarography. One important issue revolves around the potential uses of mercury and its compounds in industry, although this must, of course, involve the highest environmental standards.
I am not sure whether storing mercury and its compounds in one place is the best solution. The same goes for how long the transitional period should be before the regulation enters into force. It is my impression that for some Member States the period laid down in Amendment 8 is too short. This is why I have reservations about the proposal, although in most Member States mercury and its compounds, including stockpiles, are strictly monitored by the relevant state bodies.
I feel it is unacceptable to enshrine the role of unspecified NGOs in the regulation, regardless of any issues of tolerance and openness to the public, this does not belong in a regulation on the banning of exports and the safe storage of metallic mercury. The involvement of citizens in monitoring activities is covered in other areas of EU legislation.
I fail to understand why salt mines or the mines in Almadén in Spain would be the best place to store mercury and its compounds. It is obvious that the end of operations in any given mine leads to social problems for the miners. In the Czech Republic and other Member States of Central and Eastern Europe, dozens of large mines have been shut down, without anyone drawing up EU regulations to deal with the massive unemployment that that has caused. It strikes me that the bottom of mineral mines might be a better storage place than salt mines. I strongly support the solution of addressing the issue of substances with less than 5% mercury content.
Furthermore, heavy metals in rocks throughout Europe are at normal levels, and in the course of weathering, they – including mercury – find their way into European water supplies. This is why, for example, in the River Elbe concentrations of mercury and other heavy metals are always detected. This is of course a natural occurrence.
There is also the issue of water from old mines, the extraction of mercury from old dumps and waste sludge, which is a potentially massive source of environmental pollution. This regulation cannot, however, cover this issue, of course.
To conclude, I should like to thank all those who contributed to drawing up this regulation, a process that was conducted in a positive atmosphere of cooperation. Mercury and its compounds have a future in science and technology, as this regulation shows, and that is why we support it."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples