Why Cremation Is Not A Green Choice

10 Green Reasons To Avoid the Toxicity of Cremation

  1. Mercury Vapors. This is the #1 lethal toxin in crematory vapors. Currently, no crematories have adequate filters for mercury or the many other heavy metals, plastics, and dioxins that are emitted in the vaporization of a body. Most mercury vapors are due to the mercury-silver dental fillings (eight on average in each body) that are liquified and vaporized into the air from each cremation. With over a million bodies cremated each year, that’s a lot of toxic mercury in the air that we breathe.

  2. Alzheimer’s Disease (#3 cause of death in the U.S.) and other neurological diseases such as MS, ALS, Parkinson’s Disease, Depression, etc are caused largely by mercury build-up in the body over 20-40 years. Unlike cyanide poison which has an immediate effect, mercury has a long half-life in the brain. Mercury contamination is due to mercury dental fillings, coal mining, and… you guessed it, cremation vapors. The United Nations 2019 estimates show that 680,000 pounds of mercury is emitted from dental amalgams into the wastewater and air annually.

Even if all mercury fillings were removed prior to cremation, most human bodies, including children’s, have unsafe levels of mercury in the liver and other organs. According to science, no amount of mercury is considered safe in any amount or form. With the rise of cremation in America we have seen an epidemic in neurological illnesses. (Watch the Youtube video “Evidence of Harm” by Dr. Boyd Haley, who originated the chelation medication Emeramide to pull mercury safely out of the body of those suffering from neurological diseases.)

  1. Climate Change: Cremation is a huge climate change contributor: each cremation uses about 28 gallons of fuel and releases about 540 lbs. of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. Estimates from the UK say their cremations contribute about 16% of total climate emissions. There are no statistics by the EPA, though 70% of westerners unknowingly choose cremation, mis-informed by the industry to believe it is “green” because of decreased land use. About 1.7 Billion pounds of CO2 are emitted every year in the US alone from about a million cremated bodies. Planting thousands of Legacy Trees at the site of a plot helps to reduce our carbon footprint and sequester carbon dioxide from the atmosphere back into the earth.

  2. Mercury contamination of our global environment. Mercury is known to travel long distances, and biologists are finding mercury in alarming levels in far-reaching places around the planet. Polar bears in the arctic now have peak bioaccumulation of mercury. Mountain lions and deer are drinking mercury-contaminated fog droplets, and showing high levels in their fatty tissues in coastal areas of California, and mammals in the eastern U.S. and Europe also have high levels in their blood and fur.

  3. Industry diseases related to mercury use – Crematory workers, biologists and other handlers of mercury tainted mammals, dental workers, mortuary and morgue workers are all showing evidence of chronic illness from mercury vapors that are rising in air pollution, through skin absorption, in office vapors and within the air surrounding the site of mercury contamination. They suffer from higher rates of neurological disease as well as rates of acute and chronic respiratory disease.

  4. A positive reason to choose an alternative like Green Burial is Restoration of the Earth’s Soil. Giving your body back to the earth after a lifetime of food, water, sustenance and enjoyment of nature’s bounty helps restore the rich agricultural biome that America has enjoyed over three centuries. Scientists predict that the topsoil across the U.S. will be depleted by 2060 at the rate we continue to use it. Even though bodies contain contaminants, experts maintain that mercury and other heavy metals will trickle down into the soil to form deep mines from where they originated. The safest place for mercury is actually back into the soil to be returned deep into the earth.

  5. Your Wallet – Green burial has the least cost of all funeral choices at $1k to $3k on average, compared with cremation costs of $6,000 and conventional cemetery costs of $7,000 to $20,000 or more.

  6. Conservation and Restoration of Nature – A legal and beautiful sense of place for your body to be held in a natural reserve that your descendants can visit. Location of your plot is through GPS, and Conservation certified cemeteries have a long-term easement for nature to return to its beautiful state. Planting a Legacy tree or other native tree of your choice can help restore native forests to be enjoyed by many future generations. Conservation burial meadows can help restore pollinator meadows, wildflower meadows, and habitat and food for a wide variety of wildlife. Many certified green burials are open to the public on weekends for quiet enjoyment of the natural surroundings and a new appreciation of cemetery use. Since there is no use of pesticides, herbicides like RoundUp, or embalming fluids, the local watershed is free of toxin runoff as found in conventional cemeteries. No concrete or steel vaults are used for the sole purpose of lawn care as in conventional cemeteries. Saving these resources could assist with rebuilding failing infrastructures across the U.S.

  7. The only non-toxic, truly green choice in deathcare is green burial. So-called “alternatives” of Alkaline Hydrolysis (“water cremation”), Human Composting, and Conventional Cremation all are extremely polluting in their lack of responsible mercury handling, hazardous waste disposal, and housing of hazardous waste sites in residential neighborhoods and industrial sites. These expose the public to dangerous availability of mercury in the form of vapor, contaminated wastewater, and natural disaster unpreparedness in the event of wildfire, earthquake, or other environmental disasters.

  8. Taking time for natural grief, enjoyment of a beautiful funeral in nature. Most green cemeteries don’t put a limit on how long you and your family can take alongside a green grave-side burial. Memorial Halls with spectacular views of nature can remind us of its eternal aspect and the natural cycle of life and death.

As John Muir wrote in 1869, in “My First Summer in the Sierras”, “Another glorious Sierra day in which one seems to be dissolved and absorbed and sent pulsing onward we know not where. Life seems neither long nor short, and we take no more heed to save time or make haste than do the trees and stars. This is true freedom, a good practical sort of immortality… One is constantly reminded of the infinite lavishness and fertility of Nature … no particle of her material is wasted or worn out. It is eternally flowing from use to use, beauty to yet higher beauty; and we soon cease to lament waste and death, and rather rejoice and exult in the imperishable, unspendable wealth of the universe…[We} faithfully watch and wait the reappearance of everything that melts and fades and dies about us, feeling sure that its next appearance will be better and more beautiful that the last.”

Additional statistics relating to cremation pollution:

  • The Environmental Protection Agency estimates crematoriums emit 320 pounds of mercury per year, while activists say the real figure could be as high as three tons in 2007. A review of a study done by the EPA that estimated emissions from dental amalgam has since been underestimated. The United Nations Environmental Programme current (2019) accounts indicate that 340 tons (680,000 pounds) of mercury is discharged into the environment from dental amalgam, 100 tons of which enters the waste stream. From cremation, tooth loss, human waste and infectious waste are released significant releases, and it was determined that cremation is the most critical because of the invisibility of vapors into the air without adequate or appropriate filters.

  • Mercury in dental amalgams has been banned in Denmark, Norway and Sweden. However it is estimated by the EU EPA that 1,500 tonnes (200,000 pounds) of mercury is held in human bodies and will be released in cremation, with 75% of 500 million EU residents having had mercury fillings in their older generations, 1,500 tons (3 million pounds) total mercury in their bodies to become cremated. Http://www.eea.europea.eu/publications

  • Overall the US has a 51% cremation rate, while Oregon and Washington have 70% rates mostly due to the myth in advertising that cremation saves on cemetery land use and is therefore “green”. However, Neptune Society, the largest funeral monopoly in the US, will not comment about high fossil fuel use or about mercury vapor emissions, claiming instead that cremation is “green”.

  • 340 tons of dental mercury in the world is dumped directly into waste water systems, 34 tons at minimum in the U.S. In 2008, the average European held 2-5 grams of mercury in their bodies, while the allowable amounts are zero grams.

  • For an excellent discussion of the link between mercury vapors in the environment and the link with Alzheimer’s Disease (the 3rd largest cause of death in the US), watch the documentary

    Evidence of Harm” a youtube video by AD researcher Dr Boyd Haley, PhD. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wqb4fDSQDjQ and http://Evidence-of-Harm.com

    This is a documentation of Dr Haley’s 26 year NIH career linking mercury toxicity with Lewy bodies in Alzheimer’s Disease and other neurological diseases.

It is commonly thought that cremation is more environmentally-friendly because it seems to simplify the funeral/burial process and minimizes land use for cemeteries and their inherent pollutants. However, research shows the facts which reveal disturbing problems for the environment. In our research into the effects of cremation on the environment, there was a strange lack of studies, particularly by the EPA and U.S. government.

In 2012, the EPA Crematorium Working Group reported that crematoria are significant sources of mercury, dioxin, and particulate matter. Incineration of bodies, body parts, and infectious and chemotherapeutic wastes collectively represent the second largest known source of dioxin and mercury pollution in the US. The World Health Organization, the US EPA and other public health experts consider any level, no matter how low, of emissions of mercury, dioxins, furans, and particulate matter from incineration to be a threat to human health. Vulnerable populations such as babies, children, women of childbearing age, and the elderly are particularly at risk from exposure to these toxins. Employees who work in these environments, as well as those populations who live near the source are exposed to higher levels of these pollutants.The effects of mercury vapor exposure can last long after the exposure has ended. While typical symptoms and signs, such as tremors, gingivitis and salivation may quickly disappear after exposure has stopped, mechanisms of long-lasting or remote effects have not been investigated. This is possibly due to the damage caused by mercury vapor exposure remaining for a long period of time, or by mercury remaining in the body and continuing to cause adverse effects, or to the prior exposure somehow stimulating aging, resulting in poorer neurobehavioral performance.

The final report of the Senate Crematoria Study Committee was prepared in 2012. This report noted that while there are emissions of other chemicals during the cremation process, mercury is of the most concern to communities near crematoriums. When mercury is burned, it becomes a colorless and odorless gas that can travel long distances. While mercury exposure has the potential to cause a variety of health problems, the brain and kidneys are especially vulnerable. According to Dr. Anne Summers of the University of Georgia, there is no known lower level for toxicity of mercury, and scientists clearly agree that mercury toxicity can have serious consequences on human health.” (from Mercury Contamination from Dental Amalgam, 2019)

Amy Cunningham, a “green” funeral director of Fitting Tribute Funeral Services (and Crematory) in the Greater New York City area writes in her well-known blog:

“Cremation takes up less land and might save some money, but here’s the downside with some crematories:  it takes a lot of fossil fuel to heat that retort (or cremation chamber) to 1800 degrees F and keep it heated for two to three hours… Then perhaps, if you are not satisfied with the answers you’re getting and your family is open to changing plans quite dramatically, consider the love of my life (sorry Steve)–Green Burial. Pine box. Or simple shroud. Drive out of the city and convene in a green cemetery. Let your loved one descend into the soil naturally–without chemicals or vaults or barriers to Mother Nature.”

More studies and research have been done in Europe in recent decades as the rate of cremation has increased slowly over the last century. Several articles reveal periodic surveys of literature over twenty years that showed a largely unregulated industry by the US Environmental Protection Agency. At the grassroots level, citizens in both Canada and in over 35 U.S. states have set up blocks and ordinances, built a library of research for other states to refer to and assisted in local initiatives to deconstruct or prevent the further building of crematories.

Several studies in the last two decades have shown a correlation between local crematories and stillbirth, anencephaly, and increasingly widespread air pollution containing toxic gases. Finally, a visit to the Crematorium will show you that both the time a family can say goodbye to their loved one’s body and naturally move through the letting-go process is very minimized and tends to make the grief process interrupted.

Cremation involves a box or casket containing the body to be placed in a steel incinerator and heated to temperatures from 7600 to 21000 F. At the highest temperature, most of the body is vaporized and oxidized as water within about two hours. However, gases released are then temporarily held in a second metal chamber or “filter” and then released to the outside air through an exhaust system.

It is commonly thought that crematories have “filters” –adjacent storage tanks that are supposed to catch and “hold” toxins such as mercury.  The EPA’s answer to this has been to add a second “chimney” in effort to somehow “catch” some of the toxic vapors.

“Gaseous emissions are by far the greatest source of cremation pollution and thus far the only crematorium waste that is regulated. In addition to harmless compounds such as water vapor, emissions include:

  • the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide
  • extremely toxic mercury vapors
  • toxins and carcinogens of carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxide, and sulfur oxide;
  • volatile acids such as hydrogen chloride and hydrogen fluoride, both of which form during vaporization of plastics and insulation
  • compounds such as benzenes, furans and acetone are also emitted and react with HCl and HF under combustion conditions to form polychlorinated dibenzodioxins (PCDDs) and polychlorinated dibenzofurans (PCDFs), both of which cause cancer.

“These and mercury are of special concern because they are susceptible to bioaccumulation.”

An estimated one-third of all air-borne mercury pollution is due to the cremation of bodies containing mercury from dental amalgams in the deceased person’s mouth. In a “Summary of References on Mercury Emissions from Crematoria, September 25, 2012”, Jon Reindl, P.E. investigated studies in both the U.S. and Europe for three aspects of cremation: mercury emissions, deposits in filters and chimneys, and mercury found in cremains (cremation ash):

“Crematoria represent a significant source of mercury emissions to the environment. While estimates of the quantities vary significantly, it appears that each cremation releases between 2 and 4 grams, with the maximum seen by this reviewer at 8.6 grams in an individual cremation in Switzerland. There has been an increase in the number of cremations annually and forecasts include both a further increase in the number of cremations over time and an increase in the amount of mercury released in the next few decades due to an increase in the number of the deceased having a larger number of their own teeth with amalgam restorations. This increase is expected to be followed by a decrease in mercury emissions from industrialized countries as the next generation of people has both fewer cavities and an increased substitution of amalgam restorations with restorations that do not use mercury.”

“In the US, a mercury flow worksheet developed for Region V of the EPA estimates that in 2005, just under 3,000 kilograms of mercury were released to the environment from cremation to the US. Bender estimates that this will increase to 7,700 kilograms by 2020.”

“Most of the mercury from crematoria is released into the air, although some may collect on the walls of the oven and chimney. Soil surveys have shown that while there is often an elevation of mercury in the topsoils near crematoria, most (over 99%) of the mercury emitted to the air does not settle to the soil in the nearby area, but is instead added to the general atmosphere. Mercury levels in the ash have been only rarely tested, and have been shown to be negligible in those tests.” One wondered what the blood and tissue levels of air-borne mercury is in crematory industry workers who breathe in mercury fumes every day.

“Mercury emissions from crematoria are regulated in few places in the world, although the amount of regulation is slowly growing. Possible control of mercury from crematoria includes the removal of teeth with amalgam restorations before cremation, the use of selenium capsules to bind up the mercury and exhaust gas capture systems. The effectiveness of the selenium capsules is controversial and the effectiveness of the exhaust gas capture systems is not well documented.”

Although laws now require crematoriums to place mercury storage tanks on their incinerators, most of the toxic residues are released. These also include toxic metals or plastics that can leach into the air and then water, causing a public health concern. One study of the Cremation Association of North America found that “filtering crematorium fumes has little effect on the toxins released.” In India, where outdoor cremation has been the norm for thousands of years, air pollution is in the top five highest percent in the world. Meanwhile, more research needs to be done in the U.S. to assess these very real effects of crematory air pollution.

In addition, there is the issue of cremation remains and their dispersal into the air. “Cremains are often sprinkled somewhere in memorial, releasing whatever compounds and toxins found in them back into the environment in a form that is easily picked up by wind or water,” writes Huffman.   A scientific method for analyzing cremains is X-ray diffraction and has found that “calcified compounds within cremains can contain metals such as lead, boron, cadmium, chromium, cobalt, copper, tin, lithium, magnesium, manganese, nickel, and strontium. Metals such as arsenic and selenium, though present in a live human body, are volatile and decompose quickly upon burning…  I have found no studies of whether or not sprinkling cremation remains could have a significant impact on the levels of metals in the soil.”  Often the ashes are then stored in metal urns or other non-biodegradable receptacles, and then buried in cemeteries which are already over-filled.  Many cemeteries, particularly in larger US cities, as well as in Japan and Europe have reached maximum use.   In London, a space crisis led to proposals to reopen old graves to create more space for the burial of cremains and the deceased.

“Not all that remains is bone. There may be melted metal lumps from missed jewelry, casket furniture, dental fillings, and surgical implants, such as hip replacements. Breast implants do not have to be removed before cremation. Large items such as titanium hip replacements (which tarnish but do not melt) or casket hinges are usually removed before processing, as they may damage the processor. (If they are missed at first, they must ultimately be removed before processing is complete, as items such as titanium joint replacements are far too durable to be ground.) Implants may be returned to the family, but are more commonly sold as ferrous/non-ferrous scrap metal. After the remains are processed, smaller bits of metal such as tooth fillings, and rings (commonly known as gleanings) are sieved out and may later be interred in common ‘consecrated’ ground in a remote area of the cemetery.”

While cemeteries may have the illusion of holding consecrated ground, they are actually sites of heavy metal waste that accumulate over time and which cause leaching downstream, especially when located adjacent to natural water sources such as creeks, rivers, and oceans as is more common in older cemeteries.

On a more positive note, Community Awareness Network (CAN!) is an informal grassroots organization that advocates on the local, state and national levels for change in the way the crematory industry in America is being operated and regulated. It “educates communities about the real nature of toxins in crematory emissions and what they can do to succeed when faced with the challenge of preventing or stopping a crematory from operating in a residential area or near schools and daycare facilities.”

As of 2015, CAN has grown to 55 individual communities in 35 states. Originally, it started as a small group of volunteers and then grew to 700 residents who organized a protest that successfully proved to their county planning department that their town was too densely populated to accommodate a crematorium. They believe no more communities should have to absorb another crematory that is unsafe for public health and the environment.

The CAN Website reports:

“When first faced with this daunting task, it was noticed that there are communities who had challenged crematories near their residential areas … but with varied results. Wanting to learn from the success stories, and the failures, many hours were spent online searching blogs and forums of newspapers around the country. The successful communities all had one thing in common: someone in that community was willing and able to stop everything else they were doing and devote their energy to finding the data, and these voluntary warriors motivated their neighbors to act.  These communities fought back and won – but at a huge cost. The cost was so great to most of these “activists/advocates” that once the fight was over, they mostly just wanted to go back to their normal lives. Who could blame them?  The fight is exhausting.  The only reward is winning – preventing or stopping or even closing down a crematory.  There is no financial gain, only the stop-loss prevention of property devaluation and keeping one more pollution source away.  For the communities that have lost – the cost to their health, homes, and happiness has no measure.  How can you measure that? It was decided that no community should ever have to re-invent the wheel when faced with a crematory near their homes.  No community should win or lose based on whether or not there is a volunteer activist among them. No more communities should have to spend months of research just to determine if the crematory is going to be unsafe and then prove that to their local government authority.”

Is it not strange that a government agency such as the EPA would not preventatively or even extensively study the toxic emissions of cremation? Why is the cremation industry largely unregulated when there clearly are toxic gas emissions? With cremation reaching an all-time high of nearly 50-70%, and with humanity’s huge impact on the environment worldwide over the last two centuries, the mercury and gaseous emissions of our cremains must now be extensively studied, and existing crematoria must be regulated by local, state or federal agencies.  Further building of crematoria should be halted while alternatives for our deceased and their descendants and environment should be put first.  Alternatives include green burial which allows for the natural return of our bodies to the earth.

Finally, cremation does not allow for the necessary time essential for the natural letting-go and grief process that is made “real” for people with burial. People tend to “send away” the body, or if they actually visit the Crematory, there is a short amount of time to “say goodbye” to their loved one’s body. Numerous experiences and videos show how there is limited time at a crematory. The “industrial” environment of cement walls and steel ovens has little ambiance of emotional safety for the grieving person or family. The grief process then tends to be aborted or put off for some other time when it is more “convenient”. Although some families have a memorial prior to cremation there is often still a lingering feeling of difficulty accepting that a loved one has died. A grief that is complicated from a sudden loss, traumatic accident or suicide becomes even more difficult when the body is boxed away and cremated before a person can fully accept it and come to terms with the surreal feeling, numbness and other feelings specific to these types of loss.

With memorialization and burial, there is much more time to see the body, tend to it, and bury a beloved in a final goodbye with an attitude of acceptance and in a timely way. Grave-side funerals also allow for the influence of nature, where we can see that everyone is given the gift of both birth and death in the natural life cycle. With the twenty-year-old natural burial movement, which is really a return to ancient million-year-old traditions, there is much more involvement by the family to be involved in natural deathcare, even if a funeral home is involved. The movement invites people to spend up to 3 days being with their loved one in a home vigil, home funeral, and natural rites of passage that ease and more quickly heal the grief process.


Reference on Mercury in Cremation

Bernhoft RA. “Mercury toxicity and treatment: a review of the literature” Journal of Environmental and Public Health 2012.

Carson, Rachel Silent Spring: The Classic That Launched the Environmental Movement New York: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Mariner Books, 2002 (50th Anniversary edition)

Hyman, Mark. MD “How To Rid Your Body of Mercury and Other Heavy Metals” https://drhyman.com/blog/2010/05/19/how-to-rid-your-body-of-mercury-and-other-heavy- metals-a-3-step-plan-to-recover-your-health/

Itzkoff, Dave. Robin New York: Henry Holt and Company, A New York Times Book, 2018.

Queen, Sam and Betty A. Chronic Mercury Toxicity, New Hope Against an Endemic Disease

Doctor’s Guide for Lifestyle Counseling (Book 1), Queen and Company Health Communications, Inc., September 1, 1988.

[“An excellent reference text for the health professional and victim interested i n learning more about mercury toxicity is Chronic Mercury Toxicity: New Hope Ag ainst an Endemic Disease. Doctor’s Guide for Lifestyle Counseling by H.L. Queen (1988). The book describes the insidiousness of hg problem and, more importantly, outlines protocols for proper use of intravenous vitamin C and other treatmen t modalities.” — Sandra Denton, M.D. from Health Consciousness, June 1989]

[“The book can be recommended as a suitable complement of the general practitioners library…the information, provided in this book will help physicians to realize that those important first steps in lifestyle counseling–helping patients to get rid of heavy metal excess–are of a greater importance than has generally been assumed.” — V. Bencko in the Journal of Hygiene, Epidemiology, Microbiology and Immunology, 34, 1990, No. 1].

Walker, Morton, D.P.M.  Elements of Danger Hampton Roads Publishing Co., November 1999. “Signs and Symptoms of Mercury Poisoning from Dental Amalgam” Sourced from K. D. Jorgensen, “The Mechanism of Marginal Fracture of Amalgam fillings,” Acta Odont. Scan. 23 (1965): 347.

A Comprehensive Integrative Medical approach to Mercury detoxification and functional rehabilitation” in Reference Guide: Detoxification Therapeutics for Heavy Metals, Toxic Chemicals and other Neurotoxins”. See: https://www.nihadc.com/library/detox-for-life-class-2-addit-resources/53-3-pdf-comprehensive-im-approach-to-mercury-detox-and-functional-rehabilitation

Mercury and the Alzheimer’s Epidemic

Andreoli, V.; Sprovieri, F. “Genetic Aspects of Susceptibility to Mercury Toxicity: An Overview” International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health Vol 14, 2017.

Bento-Abreu A, et al. “The neurobiology of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis” Eur J Neurosci Vol 31, 2010.

Bernhoft RA. “Mercury toxicity and treatment: a review of the literature” Journal of Environmental and Public Health 2012.

Björkman L, et al. “Mercury in human brain, blood, muscle and toenails in relation to exposure: an autopsy study” Environ Health Vol. 6, 2007.

Campbell, S.R., Haley, Boyd E., Khatoon, S. and Slevin, J.T. “Aberrant GTP Tubulin Interaction in Alzheimer’s Disease. Annals of Neurology Vol. 26, 210-215, 1989.

Cassels, Caroline “Mercury Exposure May Contribute To Alzheimer’s Risk” Medscape, Dec, 2, 2010.

Cernichiari E, et al. “Monitoring methylmercury during pregnancy: maternal hair predicts fetal brain exposure” Neurotoxicology Vol. 16, 1995.

Drum DA “Are toxic biometals destroying your children future?” Biometals Vol. 22, 2009.

Ely, JTA. “Mercury Induced Alzheimer’s Disease: Accelerating Incidence?” Bulletin Environ Contam Toxicol. Vol 67, 2001.

Geier, David A. et al. “A Cross-Sectional Study of Blood Ethylmercury Levels and Cognitive Decline Among Older Adults and the Elderly in the United States” Journal of Alzheimer’s Disease Vol. 72, no. 3, 2019.

Gunnersen, D, J. and Haley, Boyd, E. “Detection of Glutamine Synthetase in the Cerebrospinal Fluid of Alzheimer’s Diseased Patients: A Potential Diagnostic Biochemical Marker” Proc. Natl. Acad. Scie. USA 11949-11953, 1992.

Farina, M, Rocha JBT, Aschner M “Mechanisms of methylmercury-induced neurotoxicity: evidence from experimental studies” Life Science Vol. 89, 2011.

Guzzi G, et al. “Dental amalgam and mercury levels in autopsy tissues: food for thought” Am J Forensic Med Pathol Vol. 27, 2006.

Haley, Boyd E. and Pendergrass, J.C. “Mercury-EDTA Complex Specifically Blocks Brain tubulin GTP Interactions: Similarity To Observations in Alzheimer’s Disease” in Status Quo and Perspective of Amalgam and Other Dental Materials, International Symposium Proceedings, Georg Thieme Verlag, Stuttgart-New York, 1995.

Haley, Boyd E. and Pendergrass, J.C. “Inhibition of Brain Tubulin-Guanosine 5-Triphosphate Interactions by Mercury: Similarity to Observations in Alzheimer’s Diseased Brain in Metal Ions in Biological Systems V34” Mercury and Its Effects on Environment and Biology, Chapter 16, edited by H. Sigel and A. Sigel. Marcel Dekker, Inc., 1996.

Haley, Boyd E. et al. “Mercury Vapor Inhalation Inhibits Binding of GTP to Tubulin in Rat Brain: Similarity to a Molecular Lesion in Alzheimer’s Disease Brain” Neurotoxicology Vol. 18, No. 2, 315-324, 1997.

Haley, Boyd E. “The Relationship of the Toxic Effects of Mercury to Exacerbation of the Medical Condition Classified as Alzheimer’s Disease. Nordic Journal of Biological Medicine June-July 2003.

Haley, Boyd E. et al. “Mercury Toxicity Presenting As Chronic Fatigue, Memory Impairment and Depression: Diagnosis, Treatment, Susceptibility and Outcomes in a New Zealand General Practice Setting” Neuro Endocrinol Letters Vol 27, No. 4, 416-423, 2006.

Haley, Boyd E. “A Look at the 2006 FDA Hearing On the Safety of Dental Amalgams and Possible Toxicological Concerns” Medical Veritas 1-5, October 2006.

Haley, Boyd, E. “The relationship of the toxic effects of mercury to exacerbation of the medical condition classified as Alzheimer’s disease.” Medical Veritas Vol. 4, 1510–1524, 2007.

Haley, Boyd, E et al. “Amelioration of Acute Mercury Toxicity By a Novel, Non-Toxic Lipid Soluble Chelator: Effect on Animal Health, Mercury Excretion and Organ Accumulation in Adult Rats” Toxicological and Environmental Chemistry Vol. 94, No. 3, 616-640, 2012.

Haley, Boyd, E et al. “New Science Challenges Old Notion That Mercury Dental Amalgam Is Safe” Toxicological and Environmental Chemistry Vol 0, No. 0, 1-8, 2013.

International Academy of Oral Medicine and Toxicology. “MULTIPLE SCLEROSIS AND DENTAL MERCURY: SUMMARY AND REFERENCES” December 22, 2016.




Includes a reference list of 517 science journal articles in support of the link between mercury dental amalgams and adverse health reactions.

International Academy of Oral Medicine and Toxicology (IAOMT) Position Paper against Dental Mercury Amalgam Fillings for Medical and Dental Practitioners, Dental Students, Dental Patients, and Policy Makers Originally Released on April 16, 2013 First Update on March 2, 2016; Second Update on July 23, 2019.

Johnson FO and Atchison WD “The role of environmental mercury, lead and pesticide exposure in development of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis” Neurotoxicology Vol. 30, 2009.

Leistevuo J, et al. “Mercury in saliva and the risk of exceeding limits for sewage in relation to exposure to amalgam fillings” Arch Environ Health Vol. 57, 2002.

Magos L. “Review on the toxicity of ethylmercury, including its presence as a preservative in biological and pharmaceutical products” J Appl Toxicol Vol. 21, 2001.

Mount C and Downtown C. “Alzheimer disease: progress or profit. Nature Med Vol. 12, 2006.

Mutter J “Is dental amalgam safe for humans? The opinion of the scientific committee of the European Commission” J Occup Med Toxicol Vol. 6, 2011.

Mutter J and Yeter D. “Kawasaki’s disease, acrodynia, and mercury. Curr Med Chem Vol.15, 2011.

Mutter J. et al. “Alzheimer disease: mercury as pathogenetic factor and apolipoprotein E as a moderator” Neuroendocrinol Lett Vol 25, 2004.

Mutter J. et al. “Amalgam studies: disregarding basic principles of mercury toxicity”  Int J Hyg Environ Health Vol. 207, 2004.

Mutter, J. et al. “Does inorganic mercury play a role in Alzheimer’s disease? A systematic review and an integrated molecular mechanism” Journal of Alzheimer’s, 2010.

Mutter, J. et al. “Mercury and Alzheimer’s Disease” Fortschr Neurol Psychiatr. Vol 75, No. 9, 2007.

Mutter, J. et al. “A Hypothesis That Mercury May be an Etiological Factor in Alzheimer’s Disease” International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. Dec. 2019.

Nielsen, Jesper B. and Grandjean, Philippe, “Mercury in Hair – But From Where?” The Lancet Vol 353, February 6, 1999.

Park, Jung Duck and Zheng Wei. “Human Exposure and Health Effects of Inorganic and Elemental Mercury. Journal of Preventive Medicine and Public Health 2012; 45, No. 6, 2012.

Pigatto, PD, Costa, A & Guzzi, G 2018, “Are mercury and Alzheimer’s disease linked?” Science of the Total Environment Vol. 613-614, 2018.

Ruggieri, F.; Majorani, C.; Domanico, F.; Alimonti, A. Mercury in Children: Current State on Exposure through Human Biomonitoring Studies. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health Vol. 14, 519, 2017.

Sun, Y., Nfor, O.N., Huang, J. et al. “Association between dental amalgam fillings and Alzheimer’s disease: a population-based cross-sectional study in Taiwan”Alz Res Therapy Vol. 7, 65, 2015.

Walach, H., Mutter, J, and Deth,R. “Inorganic Mercury and Alzheimer’s Disease—Results of a Review and a Molecular Mechanism” Science Direct Nov. 2014.

Weiss, Bernard. “Lead, Manganese, and Methylmercury as Risk Factors for Neurobehavioral Impairment in Advanced Age”, Special Issue: Metals And Alzheimer’s Disease. International Journal of Alzheimer’s Disease Dec. 2010.

World Health Organization. International Program on Chemical Safety. “Inorganic mercury: Environmental health criteria” 118. Geneva: World Health Organization, 1991.

Zahir, et al. “Low dose mercury toxicity and human health” Environment Toxicology and Pharmacology Vol. 20, Sept 2005.

Mercury in Cremation Vapors in Our Air and Lungs:

Batchelder, Philip Donald, “Dust in the Wind? The Bell Tolls for Crematory Mercury” Golden Gate University Environmental Law Journal, Vol. 2, Issue 1, August 11, 2010, 45 pages.

Berglund, Sandor, “Kvicksilverutsläpp från krematorium” [Mercury emissions from crematorium], NSD [a Swedish newspaper], April 12, 2008.   http://www.nsd.se/arkiv/2008/04/12/Nyheter/3561348/Kvicksilverutsl%E4pp-frkrematorium.aspx

Blood and Hair Mercury Levels in Young Children and Women of Childbearing Age — United States, 1999”, MMWR Weekly, Vol. 50, No. 8, March 2, 2001   http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5008a2.htm

Burton, V. J. “Too much Hg” Nature Vol 351, June 27, 1991.

Cain, Alexis, et. al. “Substance Flow Analysis of Mercury Intentionally Used in Products in the United States” Journal of Industrial Ecology Vol. 11, No. 3, July 2007.

Cain, Alexis, “Estimating Mercury Releases Resulting from Use of Dental Amalgam”, Testimony Before the Domestic Policy Subcommittee of the Oversight and Government Reform Committee” US Senate, May 26, 2010, 4 pages.

California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, “Air Toxicology and Epidemiology. All OEHHA Acute, 8-hour and Chronic Reference Exposure Levels (chRELs) Dec. 18, 2008” http://oehha.ca.gov/air/allrels.html

Carns, Warren T., Dexter, Matthew A., and Stockwell, Peter B., “Mercury in Crematoria Using Atomic Fluorescence Spectrometery” International Environmental Technology, Sept/October 2010, 49-50.

Carrier, Paul, “ Panel Kills Mercury Bill Aimed at Crematoriums”, Portland Press Herald, 5-25-05,  http://pressherald.mainetoday.com/news/statehouse/050525bill.shtml?survey79072

Cowger, Scott, “An Act To Limit Mercury Emissions from Crematoria”, Maine Legislature. http://janus.state.me.us/legis/LawMakerWeb/summary.asp?ID=280017861

Craft, David, “Crematory Toxic Emissions Inventories, Risk Assessments, and Risk Reduction Measures”, Monterey Bay Unified Air Polution Control District and member, a subcommittee of the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association’s (CAPCOA) Toxics Air Risk Managers Committee (TARMAC), February 27, 2012, 54 pages.

Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra, UK) (2012), Process Guidance Note 5/2 (12) . Statutory Guidance for Crematoria , February 2012, 52 pages. at http://archive.defra.gov.uk/environment/quality/pollution/ppc/localauth/pubs/guidance/notes/ pgnotes/documents/pg5-02.pdf

Dummer, T J B, Dickinson, H O, and Parker, L, “Adverse Pregnancy Outcomes around Incinerators and Crematoriums in Cumbria, north west England, 1956-93″ Journal of Epidemiology & Community Health, Vol. 57, No.6, June 2003.

Edwards, Rob, “Your fillings will live on after your death … to kill the environment” Sunday Herald Online (in the UK), February 11, 2001,  


Available on the Internet for purchase through http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/smgpubs/

Environmental Protection Agency, http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/le/mercury.pdf

(official document on mercury vapors)

EPA , “Mercury in Dental Amalgams” (2010) http://www.epa.gov/mercury/dentalamalgam.html#crematoria

EPA (1997a), “9.0 Source Test Procedures”, in Locating And Estimating Air Emissions From Sources of Mercury and Mercury Compounds, EPA-454/R-97-012, 1997, 72 pages on the Internet at http://www.epa.gov/ttnchie1/le/mercury3.pdf.

EPA (1997b), Mercury Study Report to Congress Volume II: An Inventory of Anthropogenic Mercury Emissions in the United States, EPA-452/R-97-004, 1997. On the Internet at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/112nmerc/volume2.pdf.

EPA, (1997), Mercury Study Report to Congress, Volume VII: Characterization of Human Health and Wildlife Risks from Mercury Exposure in the United States


EPA (1999), Emission Test Evaluation of a Crematory at Woodlawn Cemetery in The Bronx, NY, September 1999, EPA-454/R-99-049, 3 volumes, 1355 pages.

Great Lakes Regional Pollution Prevention Roundtable, “Great Lakes Mercury Emission Reduction Strategy” December 7, 2010, 133 pages at http://www.glrppr.org/glmst/Mercury-Emissions- Reduction-Strategy.pdf

Künzler and Andrée, M, “More Mercury From Crematoria” Nature Vol. 349, February 28, 1991, pages 746-747.

Maccabee, Paula. “Testimony in Support of Minneapolis Ordinances to Reduce Mercury Emissions, Spills and Discharges” Just Change Consulting for Environmental Justice Advocates of Minnesota, May 1, 2006.

Mills, Allan, “Mercury and Crematorium Chimneys” Nature Vol. 346, August 16, 1990.

Nieschmidt, A. K. and Kim, N. D., “Effects of Mercury Release from Amalgam Dental Restorations during Cremation on Soil Mercury Levels of Three New Zealand Crematoria” Bulletin of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology, Vol 58, No. 5, 1997.

Reindl, John. (compiler) “Summary of References on Mercury Emissions from Crematoria”
January 12, 2015. Retired P.E.from Dane County Department of Public Works, Madison, Wisconsin. john.reindl@att.net 

Reuter News, “Pull Mercury From Mouths of Dead [Proposal of the Swedish National Chemical Inspectorate For the Removal of Teeth Prior To Cremation.] May 21, 2004. And KEMI, “The Swedish Chemicals Inspectorate has not Proposed to have the Teeth of Deceased Persons Extracted”, May 25, 2004.

Weier, Anita, “Cremation Adds to Mercury Load” The Capital Times page 4A, May 31, 2004

World Health Organization, Internet page on mercury,

References on Mercury in Deathcare Workplaces

Arenholt-Bindslev, D., “Dental Amalgam – Environmental Aspects” Advances in Dental Research September 1992, pages 125-130.

Basu, M. K., and Wilson, H. J., “Mercury Risk from Teeth” Nature Vol 349, Jan. 10, 1991, page 109.

Bender, Michael, “Testimony to the Domestic Policy Subcommittee of the Oversight and Government Reform Committee Hearing on ‘Assessing EPA’s Efforts to Measure and Reduce Mercury Pollution from Dentist Offices’ “. Mercury Policy Project/Tides Center, May 26, 2010, 8 pages.

City of Palo Alto, CA, “Dental Offices and Mercury”, specifically, “Dental Mercury: A Comparison of Waste Management Practices for the Dental Office”  http://www.city.paloalto.ca.us/cleanbay/dental.html

Doughty, Caitlin. Smoke Gets In Your Eyes & Other Lessons from the Crematory. W.W. Norton Publishers, 2014. Pages: 22, 49, 106, 108, 112, and page 221 (The Art of Dying chapter).

Maloney, Susan R., Phillips, Carol A., and Mills, Allan. “Mercury in the Hair of Crematoria Workers” The Lancet Vol. 352, November 14, 1998.

Vandeven, Jay, “Mercury Use in the Dental Industry”, ENVIRON International Corporation, Environmental Law Institute January 2005.

Warwick, R., O’Connor, A. & Lamey, B. “Mercury vapor exposure during dental student training in amalgam removal” J Occup Med Toxicol 8, 27 (2013). 

References on Mercury in The Environment and Mammals:

Ackerman, J.T et al. “Mercury Contamination In Resident and Migrant Songbirds and Potential Effects on Body Condition. Environ Pollution. Vol. 246, 2019.

Ali, Hazrat, Khan, E. and Ilahi, I. “Environmental Chemistry and Ecotoxicology of Hazardous Heavy Metals: Environmental Persistence, Toxicity, and Bioaccumulation” Journal of Chemistry 2019.

Bank, M. S., Crocker, J. B., Connery, B. & Amirbahman, A. “Mercury bioaccumulation in green frog and bullfrog tadpoles from Acadia National Park” Environ. Toxicol. Chem. Vol. 26 2007.

Bechshoft, T., et al. “Hair Mercury Concentrations in Western Hudson Bay Polar Bear Family Groups” Environ. Sci. Technol. Vol. 50, 2016.

Cossaboon, Jennifer et al. “Seal Molting Alters Nearshore Mercury Cycling” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. Vol 112, No. 39, Sept 2015.

Durkalec, Maciej et al. Jan. “Bioaccumulation of Lead, Cadmium and Mercury in Roe Deer and Wild Boars from Areas with Different Levels of Toxic Metal Pollution” International Journal of Environmental Research Vol. 9, 2015.

May, Jason, et al.Mercury Bioaccumulation in Fish in a Region Affected by Historic Gold Mining”  US Geological Service, 1999.

Newman, J., Zillioux, E., Rich, E., Liang, L. & Newman, C. “Historical and Other Patterns of Monomethyl and Inorganic Mercury in the Florida Panther (Puma concolor coryi)”. Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. Vol. 48, 2004.

Noël, M. et al. “Grizzly Bear Hair Reveals Toxic Exposure to Mercury through Salmon Consumption” Environ. Sci. Technol. Vol. 48, 2014.

Obrist, D. et al. “Tundra uptake of atmospheric elemental mercury drives Arctic mercury pollution.” Nature Vol. 547, 2017.

Phillips, Carol, Gladding, Toni, and Maloney, Susan “Clouds with a Quicksilver Lining” Chemistry in Britain 656, 1994.

Ritchie, C. D., et al. “Mercury in fog on the Bay of Fundy (Canada)” Atmos. Environ. Vol. 40, 2006.

Swaddle, J. et al. “Exposure To Dietary Methyl-Mercury Solely During Embryonic and Juvenile Development Halves Subsequent Reproductive Success in Adult Zebra Finches.” Journal of Environmental Science and Technology Vol. 52, 2018.

Weiss-Penzias, P.S., et al. “Marine fog inputs appear to increase methylmercury bioaccumulation in a coastal terrestrial food web” Scientific Reports Vol 9, 2019.

Wolfe, M. F., Schwarzbach, S. & Sulaiman, R. A. “Effects of mercury on wildlife: A comprehensive review” Environ. Toxicol. Chem. Vol. 17, 1998.

References on Greenwashing in the Death Industry

Doughty, Caitlyn. Smoke Gets In Your Eyes: And Other Lessons From the Crematory. New York: W.W. Norton Publishers, 2015.

Greenspan, Miriam. Healing Through the Dark Emotions: The Wisdom of Grief, Fear, and Despair“Global Healing In a Brokenhearted World” Boston: Shambhala, 2004, 242-265.