[Food Sanitation Act and Minamata Disease].

Immediately after the official recognition of Minamata disease (1956.5.l) a study group at Kumamoto University suggested that Minamata disease was caused by food poisoning. The next year, this suggestion was accepted by the Ministry of Health and Welfare (MHW). Prior to the decision to apply the Food Sanitation Act (FSA), the local government asked MHW for the application of FSA. Soon after, the chief of the Public Health Bureau replied to the local government that the application of FSA to the Minamata area was impossible. Epidemiological investigations of residents and polluted areas, therefore, were not carried out. Data essential for the screening for exposed residents were unavailable. The criteria for the screening were presented. The Environmental Agency (EA) presented the criteria in the form of notice in 1971, which were revised in 1977. Notwithstanding the clear difference between the original and revised criteria, EA insisted that these two sets of criteria were quite similar. This insistence by EA and the absence of epidemiological data on residents and polluted area resulted in the present confusion about Minamata disease. The application of FSA was stopped by bureaucrats who had no interest in the environmental problems and by several scientists patronized by stakeholders (Chisso, Japanese Association of Chemical Industries, MHW and EA). Stakeholders suppressed science.

[History of ignorance of methylmercury toxicity and intoxication in Japan in relation to Minamata disease].

The first reports of methylmercury intoxication appeared in 1865 and 1866. These reports had sensational effects in European countries, and were introduced not only in journals but also in newspapers. These two reports were referable in Japan at the latest in 1927. The formation of organic mercury in the production of acetoaldehyde was also referable in 1906 in Japan. In 1931 (one year before the start of acetoaldehyde production in Minamata) these important reports cited above were referable in Kumamoto University, and there were warnings about the toxicity of organic mercury and environmental pollution prior to the start of acetoaldehyde production. However, not only the plant, authorities (Ministry of Welfare), and Kumamoto Prefectural Office, but also the scientists completely ignored these reports. Waste was dumped into the environment without any treatment. Serious pollution of the environment by organic mercury started, which resulted in the outbreak of Minamata disease (=methylmercury intoxication).

[Bibliographical study of the toxicity of organic mercury compounds].

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study is to correct the misunderstanding that the toxicity of organic mercury compounds is unknown at the time of the outbreak of Minamata disease (May 1, 1956). RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: Two case reports of organic mercury (methylmercury) intoxication were published already in 1865 and 1866. The conversion of inorganic mercury added in acetoaldehyde synthesis was already pointed out in 1921. In 1930 several cases of organic mercury poisoning among workers engaged in acetoaldehyde production were reported. Many reports on not only in occupational exposure but a oral exposure via the ingestion of flour made from grains treated with organic mercurials were available at the time of the outbreak of Minamata disease (May 1, 1956). These reports pointed out the toxic effects of organic mercury on the central nervous system, and indicated cleary that the causal substance of Minamata disease must be the organic mercury compounds (methylmercury) from the Chisso plant. The identification of methylmercury as the causal substance by the authority was presented in 1968 when acetoaldehyde production in the Chisso plant was closed. Most of these reports except that of (Hunter et al.) were not referred to in the study of Minamata disease . Inadequate referencing should be pointed out. CONCLUSION: Several reports indicated that the causal substance of Minamata disease must be methylmercury from the Chisso Plant. However, most of these reports were not referred to during the study of Minamata disease. Inadequate referencing of literatures should be pointed out.

Field evaluation of mercury vapor analytical methods: comparison of the "double amalgam method" and ISO 17733.

In this study, a gold amalgam method called the "Double amalgam method" was compared with the ISO 17733 method for mercury vapor analysis method. In terms of sensitivity and ease of operation, the amalgamation method is superior to the oxidation method. Two parallel samplings were carried out in this research at a button battery factory, where the mercury vapor level in the air was about 0.001 mg/m3 and at a fluorescent lamp factory, where the mercury vapor level was about 0.015 mg/m3. In the both cases, the measured values of the two showed good agreement with each other. As these two workplaces represent typical mercury levels in industries today, the double amalgam method is applicable to working environment measurement.

[Bibliographical study of Minamata disease].

In 1958, Minamata Disease was suggested to be organic mercury compounds intoxication. This suggestion was based on Hunter and Russel's report on occupational exposure to methylmercury. This report is known to have established the typical symptoms of methyl mercury intoxication. However, it has been widely believed since the official recognition of Minamata Disease (1956) that, at the moment of outbreak, no reports were available on organic mercury formation from inorganic mercury in acetaldehyde production from acetylene, or on organic mercury intoxication among workers in acetaldehyde production from acetylene. However, this was not the case. The formation of organic mercury from inorganic mercury used as a catalyst was reported by Vogt and Nieuwland in 1921. In 1930, Zangger reported several cases of organic mercury intoxication among workers in acetaldehyde production from acetylene. Soon after, Koelsch reported that the cases were methyl- and/or ethylmercury intoxication, and that such cases had been common since 1916. These reports were already available at the time of the Minamata Disease outbreak. However, Zangger's report, the most important of these three was not referred to until 1987, notwithstanding its listing in the references of Kurland et al.. Zangger's report was not referred to not by investigators, but by a lawyer. If these reports had been referred to at the outbreak of Minamata Disease, the number of victims in Minamata would have been minimized, and Minamata Disease in Niigata would have been prevented.