Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-8bhkd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-06T00:18:14.177Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Magico-Religious Mercury Use in Caribbean and Latino Communities: Pollution, Persistence, and Politics

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 July 2005

Arnold P. Wendroff
Arnold P. Wendroff
Affiliation:
Mercury Poisoning Project, Brooklyn, New York
Get access

Abstract

Elemental mercury is put to magico-religious uses, most problematically the sprinkling of mercury on floors of homes in Caribbean and Latino communities. Indoor mercury spills are persistent and release toxic levels of mercury vapor over long periods of time. Surveys in these communities have demonstrated widespread and large-scale mercury sales for ritualistic use, elevated mercury vapor levels in public hallways, increased amounts of mercury in wastewater, and elevated urine mercury levels in Latino children. Yet no clear connection has been drawn between ritualistic mercury use and these elevated levels, nor has any pathology been associated with such use. Social, political, and economic factors have acted to preclude advocacy for these affected communities, whose members are largely unaware of their mercury exposure (frequently secondhand) and of its adverse health effects. Without the political mandate to act, environmental agencies have not allocated the resources necessary for environmental professionals to assess and respond to this latent environmental health disaster. Steps to investigate and respond to this impending public health emergency are suggested, as presently there is no coordinated plan for assessing and remediating the tens of thousands of dwellings around the country likely to be contaminated with actionable levels of mercury vapor.

Type
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
Information
Environmental Practice , Volume 7 , Issue 2 , June 2005 , pp. 87 - 96
Copyright
© 2005 National Association of Environmental Professionals

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Aguirre-Molina, M., C. Molina, and R. E. Zambrana, eds. 2001. Health Issues in the Latino Community. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, 492 pp.
Baard, E. 2001. Mercury Rising: Could Spiritual Practices Be a Source of Mercury Contamination? The New York Times Magazine, 18 February, 17.
Baker, B. A., C. Herbrandson, T. Eshenaur, and R. B. Messing. 2005. Measuring Exposure to an Elemental Mercury Spill—Dakota County, Minnesota, 2004. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report 54(6):146–149.Google Scholar
Blum, J., and M. Fernandez. 2003. Mercury Detected in 3 More Homes; SE Apartment Building Evacuated; Blood Tests Suggested for Residents. Washington Post, 10 October, B.08 (Final Edition).
Cahn, A. L., and G. Thompson. 2003. The Politics of Poison: Why One of Three Bedford-Stuyvesant Children Are Growing Up in Housing that Impairs Their Cognitive Development. Pratt Area Community Council, Brooklyn, NY, 24 pp. Available at http://www.nmic.org/nyccelp/documents/PACC-Report.pdf.
Carpi, A., and Y. F. Chen. 2001. Gaseous Mercury as an Indoor Air Pollutant. Environmental Science & Technology 35(21):4170–4173.Google Scholar
Castillo, F. 2004. Mercury's Menace: Use of Mercury in Religious Rituals Seen as Health Danger. The Journal News, Westchester County, NY, 25 October, 1–2.
Celli, B., and M. A. Khan. 1976. Mercury Embolization of the Lung. New England Journal of Medicine 295(16):883–885.Google Scholar
Chicago Department of Public Health. 1997. Mercury Use in the Hispanic Community of Chicago. Office of Hispanic Affairs, Chicago, 27 pp.
Circuit Court of Cook County. 2001. In Re: Mercury Class Action Litigation—Notice of Pendency of Class Action, Proposed Class Settlement and Hearing. Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois County Department, Chancery Division, 8 pp. Available at http://www.nicorinc.com/nsr/mnoticefinal.pdf.
Cizdziel, J. V., T. A. Hinners, and E. M. Heithmar. 2002. Determination of Total Mercury in Fish Tissues Using Combustion Atomic Absorption Spectrometry with Gold Amalgamation. Water, Air, and Soil Pollution 135:355–370.Google Scholar
Clarke, B. P. 2002. Personal communication. Deputy Director, Technical Services, New York City Housing Authority, New York, 25 September.
Corburn, J. 2002. Combining Community-Based Research and Local Knowledge to Confront Asthma and Subsistence-Fishing Hazards in Greenpoint/Williamsburg, Brooklyn, New York. Environmental Health Perspectives 110(Supplement 2):241–248.Google Scholar
Cordier, S., C. Grasmick, M. Paquier-Passelaigue, L. Mandereau, J.-P. Weber, and M. Jouan. 1998. Mercury Exposure in French Guiana: Levels and Determinants. Archives of Environmental Health 53(4):299–303.Google Scholar
de Cerreno, A. L. C., M. Panero, and S. Boehme. 2002. Pollution Prevention and Management Strategies for Mercury in the New York/New Jersey Harbor. New York Academy of Sciences, 113 pp. Available at http://www.nyas.org/publications/policySum.asp?ID=922.
Edelstein, M. R. 1988. Contaminated Communities: The Social and Psychological Impacts of Residential Toxic Exposure. Westview Press, Boulder, CO, 217 pp.
Fenzel, D. 2005. Personal communication. Sales Representative, American Safety & Abatement Products, St. Louis, MO, 8 March.
Fleshler, D. 2004. Hazardous Ritual: Religious Use of Mercury Persists for Some Practitioners in South Florida. South Florida Sun Sentinel, 21 June, 1, 6A (Broward Metro Edition).
Foreman, C. H., Jr. 1998. The Promise and Peril of Environmental Justice. Brookings Institution Press, Washington, DC, 191 pp.
Garetano, G. 2004. Assessment of Mercury Vapor Concentration in Residential Buildings Using Real Time Direct Reading Instruments. ISEE-491, International Society for Environmental Epidemiology, Conference Abstracts. Epidemiology 15(4):S193–S194.Google Scholar
Geffner, M. E., and A. Sandler. 1980. Oral Metallic Mercury: A Folk Remedy for Gastroenteritis. Clinical Pediatrics 19(6):435–437.Google Scholar
Goldman, L. R., and M. W. Shannon. 2001. Technical Report: Mercury in the Environment: Implications for Pediatricians. Pediatrics 108(1):197–205.Google Scholar
Greenberg, M. I. 1999. Mercury Hazard Widespread in Magico-Religious Practices in US. Emergency Medicine News XXI(8):24–25.Google Scholar
Hartman, D. E. 1995. Neuropsychological Toxicology: Identification and Assessment of Human Neurotoxic Syndromes, 2nd Edition. Plenum Press, New York, 525 pp.
Hispanic Health Council. 1993. Limiting Azogue (Metallic Mercury) Poisoning Risk Through Community Education. Prepared for Connecticut Department of Public Health Services, Environmental Epidemiology Section, Hartford, CT, 15 pp.
Hryhorczuk, D. 2004. PEHSUs [Pediatric Environmental Health Specialty Units] and Mercury. Presentation. Mercury: Medical and Public Health Issues Symposium (US Environmental Protection Agency), Tampa, FL, 28–30 April.
Illinois Attorney General. 2000. Draft Work Plan to Screen Homes for Mercury. Chicago, IL, 502 pp.
Jeffery, N. 2004. An Assessment of Mercury Exposure Among Young Children Living in NYC. ISEE-555, International Society for Environmental Epidemiology, Conference Abstracts. Epidemiology 15(4):S218.Google Scholar
Jeffery, N., 2005. Personal communication. Scientist, Environmental and Occupational Disease Epidemiology, New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, New York, 10 February.
Johnson, C. 1999. Elemental Mercury Use in Religious and Ethnic Practices in Latin American and Caribbean Communities in New York City. Population and Environment 20(5):443–453.Google Scholar
LaPeter, L., and P. De La Garza. 2004. Mercury in Rituals Raises Alarms. St. Petersburg Times, 26 January. Available at http://www.sptimes.com/Channel10/2004/01/26/Hillsborough/Mercury_in_rituals_ra.htm.
Latowsky, G. 2003. Ritual Use of Mercury (Azogue) Assessment and Education Project: Final Project Report. Submitted to the Environmental Justice Office, Massachusetts Executive Office of Environmental Affairs, JSI Center for Environmental Health Studies, Boston, MA, 8 pp.
Malecki, J. M., R. Hopkins, US Environmental Protection Agency, and National Center for Environmental Health. 1995. Mercury Exposure in a Residential Community—Florida, 1994. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report 44(23):436–437, 443.Google Scholar
Nehls-Lowe, H., and J. M. Morrison. 2004. Health Consultation: Single Family Residence Mercury Spill, Monona, Dane County, Wisconsin [January 8]. Wisconsin Department of Health and Family Services, Madison, WI, 6 pp. Available at http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/HAC/PHA/singlefamilyres/sfr_p1.html.
New York City Department of Environmental Protection. 2004. Mercury Track-Down Washington Heights. New York, Power Point presentation.
New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene. 2000. Inspection Report Environmental Health Services Case No. T00-04-07-056. New York, 6 pp.
New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene. 2004. Health Department Statement on the New York City Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (HANES). New York, Press release, 14 May.
Novello, A. C. 1990. Personal communication. Surgeon General of the Public Health Service, Rockville, MD, 16 October.
Nunez-Molina, M. A. 1993. Evaluacion Psicosocial del Potencial Toxico de un Remedio Folklorico. Unpublished research paper. Department of Social Sciences, University of Mayaguez, Puerto Rico, 22 pp.
Ojito, M. 1997. Ritual Use of Mercury Prompts Testing of Children for Illness. The New York Times, 14 December, 49, 55.
Ozuah, P. O., M. S. Lesser, J. S. Woods, H. Choi, and M. Markowitz. 2003. Mercury Exposure in an Urban Pediatric Population. Ambulatory Pediatrics 3(1):24–26.Google Scholar
Packard, R. M., P. I. Brown, R. L. Berkelman, and H. Frumkin. 2004. Emerging Illnesses and Society: Negotiating the Public Health Agenda. The Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, MD, 420 pp.
Paul, S. 2003. Mercury Rising. City Limits. http://www.citylimits.org/content/articles/articleView.cfm?articlenumber=927. Accessed February 2005.Google Scholar
Perkins, J. H. 2004. Mercury: Persistence, Pollution, and Politics. Environmental Practice 6(2):99–100.Google Scholar
Prasad, V. L. 2004. Subcutaneous Injection of Mercury: “Warding Off Evil.” Environmental Health Perspectives 112(13):1326–1328.Google Scholar
Puchalik, J. 2005. Personal communication. Chief, Bureau of Solid Waste, Environmental Health Division, Rockland County Department of Health, Pomona, NY, 7 April.
Quintero-Somaini, A., M. Quirindongo, E. Arevalo, D. Lashof, E. Olson, and G. Solomon. 2004. Hidden Danger: Environmental Health Threats in the Latino Community. Natural Resources Defense Council, New York, 67 pp. Available at http://www.nrdc/org/health/effects/latino/english/contents.asp.
Raffensperger, C., and J. A. Tickner. 1999. Protecting Public Health and the Environment: Implementing the Precautionary Principle. Island Press, Washington, DC, 420 pp.
Rauch, K. D. 1991. The Spiritual Use of Poisonous Mercury. Washington Post, 13 August, Health Section 7.
Riley, D. M., C. A. Newby, T. O. Leal-Almarez, and V. M. Thomas. 2001. Assessing Mercury Vapor Exposure from Cultural and Religious Practices. Environmental Health Perspectives 109(8):779–784.Google Scholar
Risher, J., and S. N. Amler. 2004. Mercury Intoxication: Diagnosis and Intervention. Presentation. Mercury: Medical and Public Health Issues Symposium (US Environmental Protection Agency), Tampa, FL, 28–30 April.
Rogers, H. S., K. Caldwell, and J. McCullough. 2004. An Assessment of Mercury Exposure Among Young Children. ISEE-354, International Society for Environmental Epidemiology, Conference Abstracts. Epidemiology 15(4):S145.Google Scholar
Rubin, C. 2005. Personal communication. Chief, Health Studies Branch, Division of Environmental Hazards and Health Effects, National Center for Environmental Health, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA, 8 February.
Singhvi, R., Y. Mehra, J. Patel, D. Miller, and D. Kalnicky 2004. Ritualistic Use of Mercury—Simulation: A Preliminary Investigation of Metallic Mercury Vapor Fate and Transport in a Trailer. EPA 540-04-006. Environmental Response Team Center & US Environmental Protection Agency, in conjunction with Lockheed Martin, Edison, NJ, 129 pp. A subsequent draft was available at http://www.epaosc.net/sites/ERTMERCURY/files/complete.pdf.
Siperstein, J. 2004. Personal communication. Engineer, Ohio Lumex Co., Inc., Twinsburg, OH, 7 October.
Stern, A. H., M. Gochfeld, D. Riley, A. Newby, T. Leal, and G. Garetano. 2003. Cultural Uses of Mercury in New Jersey. Research Project Summary. Environmental Assessment and Risk Analysis Element, Division of Science Research and Technology, New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, Trenton, NJ, 3 pp.
Teninga, C. 2002. Personal communication. Deputy Assistant Secretary for the Office of Public Housing and Voucher Programs, US Department of Housing and Urban Development, Washington, DC, 9 December.
Trotter, R. T., Jr. 1985. Greta and Azarcon: A Survey of Episodic Lead Poisoning from a Folk Remedy. Human Organization 44(1):64–72.Google Scholar
Tsuji, J. S., P. R. D. Williams, M. R. Edwards, K. P. Allamneni, M. A. Kelsh, D. J. Paustenbach, and P. J. Sheehan. 2003. Evaluation of Mercury in Urine as an Indicator of Exposure to Low Levels of Mercury Vapor. Environmental Health Perspectives 111(4):623–630.Google Scholar
US Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. 1999. Toxicological Profile for Mercury. Atlanta, GA, 654 pp.
US Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. 2001. Suggested Action Levels for Indoor Mercury Vapors in Homes or Businesses with Indoor Gas Regulators. In Residential Mercury Spills from Gas Regulators in Illinois (a/k/a Nicor), Mt. Prospect, Lake County, Illinois. Illinois Department of Public Health, Springfield, IL, 11 pp. Available at http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/HAC/PHA/resmerc/nic_pl.html.
US Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. 2003. ATSDR Record of Activity. ID#:R_L_W0. Philadelphia, PA.
US Environmental Protection Agency. 2002. Task Force on Ritualistic Uses of Mercury Report. EPA 540-R-01-005. Washington, DC, 93 pp. Available at http://www.epa.gov/superfund/action/community/involvement.htm.
US Environmental Protection Agency, Region 1. 2005. Region I Regional Response Team 2004 Annual Report (Pleasant Street Mercury Site). Boston, MA, 5 pp. Available at http://ems-mx4.sradev.com/netconf/reports/2004/RRT_1_2004_Annual_Report_fr.pdf.
Vinicio, M. 2001. Sin Resloverse el Problema del Mercurio. El Diario/La Prensa, New York, 12 February, 6.
Wendroff, A. P. 1990. Domestic Mercury Pollution. Letter. Nature 347:623.Google Scholar
Wendroff, A. P. 1991. El Envenenamiento con Mercurio. Medico Interamericano 10(11):64, 66, 68.Google Scholar
Wendroff, A. P. 1997. Magico-Religious Mercury Exposure. Letter. Environmental Health Perspectives 105(3):266.Google Scholar
Wendroff, A. P., and D. A. Jetter. 1999. Mercury Contamination Risk for Certain Residential Properties. Environmental Times (Fall):1, 8, 16.Google Scholar
Williamson, T. 2000. Mercury Cleanup Puts Nicor in Red. Chicago Sun-Times, 25 October.
Wyman, B., and L. H. Stevenson. 2001. The Facts on File Dictionary of Environmental Science. Facts On File, New York, 458 pp.
Zambrana, R. E., and G. Flores. 2001. The Health of Children and Youth. In Health Issues in the Latino Community, M. Aguirre-Molina, C. Molina, and R. E. Zambrana, eds. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, 77–106.
Zayas, L. H., and P. O. Ozuah. 1996. Mercury Use in Espiritismo: A Survey of Botanicas. Letter. American Journal of Public Health 86(1):111–112.Google Scholar