Passive Aggression: The Other Toxic Waste in Croatia and the Hidden Accumulation of Civic Frustration

From illegal dumps and abandoned concrete to passive aggression, pessimism and the pollution we cannot measure in tonnes

▶️ Rave the World Radio

24/7 electronic music streaming from around the globe

Now Playing

Loading...

---

Rating: ---

Hits: ---

License: ---
🎵
0:00 / 0:00
🌍
Global Reach
50+ Countries
🎧
Live Listeners
Online
⏰
24/7 Streaming
Non-Stop Music

Perhaps the most important kind of toxic waste in Croatia is not the waste we can see.

Passive aggression is what frustration sounds like when nobody knows where to put it.

We can measure tonnes of industrial waste, contaminated soil, abandoned concrete and illegal dumps. We can map the locations, calculate remediation costs and argue about who should be responsible. But there is another kind of accumulation that is much harder to measure: frustration.

You can hear it in conversations in villages and small towns. It appears as pessimism, resignation, passive aggression and the feeling that everyday problems simply have to be tolerated. Someone walks a dog without a leash. Someone leaves dog waste behind. Someone drives while holding a mobile phone in one hand and the steering wheel in the other. None of these things, by themselves, explains a society. But together they can become symptoms of something deeper: a weakening sense that public space and other people deserve consideration.

This is where the metaphor of toxic waste becomes interesting.

When frustration accumulates, passive aggression can become another form of social pollution.

Physical waste accumulates when nobody takes responsibility for removing it. Social frustration can accumulate in much the same way. A problem appears, nothing changes, another problem arrives, and eventually people stop expecting solutions. What was once unacceptable becomes normal.

People know the landscape, they know the abandoned factory, the illegal dump, the unfinished building or the contaminated site. They also know the stories behind them. When something remains unresolved for years, it becomes part of the landscape — and eventually part of the collective mood.

And pessimism has plenty of fuel: there is inflation and the pressure of rising living costs. There is rapid automation driven by AI and the uncertainty surrounding increasingly capable systems. There are climate and environmental changes that can make the future feel less predictable. Even when these problems are global, people experience them locally — through their household budgets, their jobs, their farms, their health anxieties, their communities and their surroundings.

The numbers, separated

Location Quantity currently documented What the material is Status
Savica, Zagreb — Gudronske jame ~33,000 t claimed Gudron / petroleum-industry waste and other industrial contamination Historical contamination; quantity is being publicly cited, but I have not found an official 2026 state estimate confirming exactly 33,000 t
Gospić — former PPK Velebit ~44,000 t total Hazardous + non-hazardous illegally deposited waste Government remediation plan, September 2026
Gospić — buried material ~33,000 t Hazardous + non-hazardous waste mixed with soil/stone Buried at average ~2.9 m depth
Gospić — loose hazardous waste by silo ~4,500 t Hazardous mixed/mechanical-processing waste Removal planned; selected contractors
Gospić — bagged waste ~650 t Non-hazardous waste Being removed for treatment
Gospić — buildings/silo ~6,000 t Hazardous + non-hazardous waste Fourth remediation phase
Poznanovec, Bedekovčina ~13,200 t Plastic, packaging, tyres, mechanical-processing waste; some may contain hazardous substances Two locations; remediation contractor selected September 2026
Samobor, Vrbovec Samoborski 8,060 t ~¾ plastic; packaging, rubber, paper, cardboard, metals and mixed municipal waste State remediation project
Pazin, former Istraplastika ~13,000 t Mainly baled plastic, textiles and rubber State remediation project
Varaždin / former Mundus ~5,000 t Current reporting says ~5,000 t improperly deposited Removal and remediation are underway. By 14 September 2026, nearly 40% of the waste had reportedly been removed. Follow-up checks will determine whether the soil or water needs further remediation.
Senj ~2,600 t Frequently cited figure At least 2,600 t is cited in connection with a USKOK investigation into hazardous waste deposited at the landfill above Sveti Juraj. The source I found reports the investigation, not a remediation plan or cleanup status.
Štikada ~5,000 t Same Lovinac priority location — do NOT add again Cleanup status not confirmed. Reporting describes about 3,500 t at the site and says there is no remediation plan or timeline; an earlier report says Lovinac applied for funding to remediate the site.
Lički Osik ~1,000,000 t claimed Political/public claim about the wider area, not an independently established site inventory No verified site-specific remediation status found. The “~1,000,000 t” figure is a political claim about the wider area, not a confirmed inventory for Lički Osik.
Udbina No reliable tonnage found Cannot responsibly assign a number No verified status found for the alleged problematic waste site. The available official search results concerned the municipality’s regular Čojluk municipal landfill, so they don’t establish the status of the site in your row.
Otočac / Podum 6,112 t in 2024 Specifically waste classified KBO 19 12 12; not necessarily the entire problematic site No verified status found for the alleged problematic waste site. The available official search results concerned the municipality’s regular Čojluk municipal landfill, so they don’t establish the status of the site in your row.

Older official “nasty spots”

This is where the numbers become enormous — particularly Kutina.

Kutina — phosphogypsum

A 2025 environmental-impact document gives:

~8.5 million tonnes

of deposited non-hazardous solid phosphogypsum, plus more than 2 million m³ of process acidic water.

This is absolutely enormous, but it should not be described as 8.5 million tonnes of hazardous waste.

Biljane Donje — Black Hill

~140,000 tonnes

of ferrosilicon/ferroalloy slag was illegally deposited there. The government/HRT gives the same approximately 140,000-tonne figure. 

This is an important one because Biljane Donje has already been subject to remediation, so if you're calculating currently remaining waste, don't simply add the historical 140,000 t to the present-day inventory.

Sovjak near Rijeka

~40,000 tonnes

of liquid waste and soft tar are expected to be extracted during remediation.

This is one of the clearest old hazardous-waste tonnages.

Kosica

The official national waste-management plan gives the contaminated area as: 63,000 m² —not a tonnage. 

Therefore I would not invent a tonnage conversion.

Žitnjak / E-Kolektor

>10,000 tonnes

were reportedly left by E-Kolektor after the company went into bankruptcy.

Ježdovec

There is no defensible exact total that I found.

Recent reporting describes “tens of thousands of tonnes” buried in the Ježdovec forest.

So I would record it as:

≥10,000 t? — NO.

Even “10,000” would be an invented floor because “tens of thousands” does not establish that exact threshold for a particular measured inventory.

Passive aggression is the noise made by problems that were never resolved.

Kaštelanski zaljev slag dump

Again, the official plan gives:

~200,000 m²

over which ash and slag are distributed, not a tonnage. 

So this also cannot legitimately enter a tonnage grand total.

Botovo

The official documentation identifies oily sludge, but says further investigation is needed to establish the exact quantity and extent of contamination. 

Therefore:

No defensible tonnage.

Knin

The official plan identifies mazut contamination and three contaminated lagoons. A later description gives approximately:

  • 40 m³ of spilled mazut
  • 48,000 m² affected by the tank spill
  • 23,200 m² of lagoons
  • another 8,000 m² affected by secondary oil contamination.

Again, this is not a tonnage inventory.

Obrovac

The former alumina plant's red-mud and caustic/lye lagoons are unquestionably one of Croatia's historic environmental black spots, but I could not find a sufficiently authoritative current tonnage figure that I would be comfortable inserting into a national total.

The original national strategy identifies the Tvornica glinice Obrovac lagoons as a black spot. 

So what is the grand total?

Here's the important part.

If we take only the currently quantified figures that can reasonably be put into tonnes, we get a substantial number.

Featured · Waste in Croatia

“Croatia’s waste problem goes beyond illegal dumps: about 10 million tonnes of documented and estimated waste are associated with various sites — but this is not necessarily a total of toxic or hazardous waste. Meanwhile, tens of millions of tonnes of concrete may be embodied...”

Read the post on X →
So perhaps the question is not simply "How much toxic waste does Croatia have?” Perhaps the more important question is:

How much frustration can a community accumulate before it becomes another form of pollution? Like noise pollution from motorcycles?

The answer cannot be measured in tonnes, because this is a different unit entirely. A community can absorb frustration before it begins to pollute the social environment itself. That quantity may have no official unit, but people can feel it.

We can remove contaminated material from the ground. We can demolish abandoned buildings and recycle their concrete. We can clean illegal dumps. But if the underlying feeling of resignation remains, another kind of waste continues to accumulate — in conversations, relationships, public spaces and expectations about the future.

That is the real crux of the story.

Croatia's environmental waste is visible. Its accumulated civic frustration is not. And perhaps dealing with one requires us to start talking seriously about the other.

References


The Deep Dive

Why Industrial Waste Breeds Social Pollution
00:00 / 00:04:36

Mercury in Dental Fillings: Evaluating the Medical, Environmental, and Scientific Debate Surrounding Dental Amalgam in Modern Dentistry

Understanding the Real Health Risks, International Regulations, Safer Alternatives, and What Patients Should Know Before Removing Existing Fillings

▶️ Rave the World Radio

24/7 electronic music streaming from around the globe

Now Playing

Loading...

---

Rating: ---

Hits: ---

License: ---
🎵
0:00 / 0:00
🌍
Global Reach
50+ Countries
🎧
Live Listeners
Online
⏰
24/7 Streaming
Non-Stop Music

This source examines the longstanding debate regarding mercury in dental amalgam, weighing its clinical benefits against health and environmental risks. While acknowledging that these silver fillings release minor amounts of mercury vapor, the text emphasizes that scientific research generally finds these levels safe for most adults. Beyond individual health, the article highlights global environmental regulations, such as the Minamata Convention, which aim to reduce mercury pollution by transitioning to modern resin alternatives. Special precautions are recommended for vulnerable populations, including pregnant women and children, though the routine removal of intact fillings is discouraged due to potential exposure spikes. Ultimately, the text presents a balanced view of how restorative dentistry is evolving toward mercury-free materials while maintaining that existing restorations do not pose an immediate threat to the general public.

Intro

For more than 180 years, silver-colored dental fillings—known as dental amalgam—have restored damaged teeth for hundreds of millions of people. They have long been considered one of dentistry's most durable and affordable restorative materials. Yet they have also been the subject of one of the profession's longest-running controversies because approximately half of dental amalgam is elemental mercury by weight.

Mercury is widely recognized as a toxic heavy metal capable of damaging the nervous system, kidneys, and developing fetus when exposure is sufficiently high. This naturally raises an important question: if mercury is dangerous, why has it been intentionally placed inside human teeth?

When a substance is known to cause rare but serious illnesses at high doses, even very small everyday exposures deserve careful scientific scrutiny rather than fear or dismissal.

The answer is surprisingly complex. Scientific evidence accumulated over decades shows that dental amalgam releases very small amounts of mercury vapor, particularly during chewing, tooth brushing, or grinding. However, the overwhelming majority of medical research has found that these exposures remain below levels considered harmful for most healthy adults. At the same time, growing environmental concerns and precautionary public health policies have encouraged many countries to reduce or phase out amalgam use—not necessarily because it has been proven dangerous to patients, but because mercury pollution can affect ecosystems on a much larger scale.

Understanding this distinction is essential. Discussions about mercury in dentistry often become polarized, with some claiming amalgam is perfectly harmless and others suggesting it causes numerous chronic illnesses. The scientific reality lies somewhere in between. Mercury is unquestionably toxic at sufficiently high exposure levels, but the amount released from properly placed amalgam fillings is generally considered too low to produce measurable disease in most individuals.

This essay examines the history of dental amalgam, how mercury behaves inside fillings, what current scientific evidence says about health risks, why governments are reducing its use, and whether existing fillings should be removed.

A Brief History of Dental Amalgam

Dental amalgam first became widely used during the nineteenth century because it solved a major problem in restorative dentistry. Earlier filling materials—including gold foil, lead, and various cements—were expensive, technically difficult to place, or lacked durability.

Amalgam is created by mixing liquid elemental mercury with powdered metals including silver, tin, and copper. During mixing, these metals react chemically to form a hard, stable material that can withstand years of chewing forces.

Because amalgam was inexpensive, easy to shape, resistant to moisture during placement, and remarkably durable, it quickly became one of the world's most widely used restorative materials.

Millions of dentists appreciated another practical advantage: amalgam often lasts 10–20 years or even longer under favorable conditions.

What Exactly Is Mercury?

Mercury exists in several chemical forms.

Elemental mercury is the shiny silver liquid familiar from old thermometers. Organic mercury compounds, such as methylmercury, accumulate in fish and seafood and are generally considered more toxic because they are readily absorbed into body tissues.

Dental amalgam contains elemental mercury bound within a metal alloy rather than free liquid mercury. Once hardened, the material becomes considerably more stable.

Nevertheless, tiny amounts of mercury vapor continue to be released throughout the lifetime of the filling.

This fact has never been disputed.

The real scientific question has always been whether those extremely small releases are sufficient to damage human health.

Mercury Release from Dental Fillings

Numerous laboratory and clinical studies demonstrate that mercury vapor is released from amalgam restorations.

The release increases during:

  • chewing food

  • drinking hot beverages

  • tooth brushing

  • teeth grinding (bruxism)

  • polishing by dentists

Most people with amalgam fillings absorb only a few micrograms of mercury per day.

For comparison, diet—especially consumption of certain fish species—often contributes comparable or even greater mercury exposure depending on dietary habits.

Modern analytical techniques can detect extremely tiny amounts of mercury in blood, urine, saliva, and exhaled air, confirming that amalgam does contribute to total body mercury exposure.

However, detecting exposure is not the same as demonstrating disease.

This distinction is central to interpreting the scientific literature.

Scientific Evidence on Health Risks

Over several decades, researchers have conducted large epidemiological studies involving children, adults, and older individuals.

Major scientific organizations—including the World Health Organization (WHO), the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and many national dental associations—have concluded that existing evidence does not demonstrate significant health risks for the general population from properly maintained dental amalgam.

Clinical trials comparing children who received amalgam fillings with those receiving composite resin fillings found no significant differences in intelligence, memory, kidney function, or neurological development over several years of follow-up.

Likewise, studies involving adults have generally failed to identify convincing links between amalgam and conditions such as Alzheimer's disease, Parkinson's disease, multiple sclerosis, chronic fatigue syndrome, or autoimmune disorders.

This does not mean mercury is harmless.

Rather, it suggests that exposure from dental fillings is usually too low to produce these diseases in healthy individuals.

Scientists distinguish between hazard and risk.

Mercury is unquestionably hazardous.

Risk depends upon dose.

As the toxicological principle states:

"The dose makes the poison."

Even water, oxygen, and essential minerals become dangerous at sufficiently high doses.

Who May Be More Vulnerable?

Although most healthy adults appear unlikely to experience measurable health effects, some individuals deserve additional consideration.

These include:

  • pregnant women

  • breastfeeding mothers

  • young children

  • people with severe kidney disease

  • individuals with rare mercury allergies

Developing fetal brains are particularly sensitive to mercury exposure.

Although evidence has not shown dental amalgam to cause developmental disorders, many health authorities recommend minimizing new amalgam placement during pregnancy whenever suitable alternatives are available.

Similarly, children increasingly receive tooth-colored composite restorations rather than amalgam.

These recommendations represent precautionary public health measures rather than evidence of proven harm.

Mercury Allergy

True mercury allergy is uncommon.

Some patients may develop localized reactions including redness, irritation, or inflammation of tissues adjacent to amalgam restorations.

When allergy is confirmed through appropriate medical evaluation, replacement with alternative restorative materials may be justified.

Fortunately, such reactions remain rare.

Environmental Concerns

One of today's strongest arguments for reducing dental amalgam is environmental rather than medical.

Mercury released into wastewater, crematoria, and industrial waste eventually enters rivers, lakes, and oceans.

Microorganisms convert elemental mercury into methylmercury, which accumulates in fish and progressively concentrates up the food chain.

Large predatory fish—including tuna, swordfish, and shark—may therefore contain elevated mercury concentrations.

Unlike dental exposure, dietary methylmercury represents one of the major sources of mercury entering human populations worldwide.

Because mercury circulates globally through air and water, reducing emissions benefits ecosystems far beyond the original source.

International Regulations and the Minamata Convention

Growing environmental concerns led to one of the world's most important mercury agreements.

The Minamata Convention on Mercury, adopted in 2013, seeks to reduce global mercury pollution.

Named after the Japanese city devastated by industrial mercury poisoning during the twentieth century, the treaty addresses mercury mining, industrial emissions, consumer products, and dental amalgam.

Importantly, the Convention does not require immediate removal of existing fillings.

Instead, it encourages countries to gradually reduce amalgam use by:

  • promoting prevention of tooth decay

  • increasing use of mercury-free restorative materials

  • improving dental education

  • strengthening waste management

  • protecting vulnerable populations

Many European countries have already restricted amalgam use in children and pregnant women.

Several are moving toward complete phase-outs.

Modern Alternatives

Dentistry has changed dramatically over recent decades.

Composite resin fillings have become the preferred restorative material for many patients because they closely match natural tooth color.

Advantages include:

  • excellent aesthetics

  • mercury-free composition

  • conservative tooth preparation

  • continual improvements in durability

Other restorative materials include:

  • glass ionomer cement

  • resin-modified glass ionomers

  • ceramic inlays

  • porcelain restorations

  • gold restorations

Each material has strengths and limitations involving cost, longevity, wear resistance, and suitability for different clinical situations.

Composite materials continue improving every year, although they may remain somewhat less durable than amalgam in certain high-stress chewing areas.

Should Existing Fillings Be Removed?

Perhaps the most common question patients ask is whether old amalgam fillings should be removed simply because they contain mercury.

For most healthy individuals, professional organizations advise against routine removal.

Ironically, drilling out intact amalgam temporarily releases considerably more mercury vapor than leaving the restoration undisturbed.

Removal may be appropriate when:

  • the filling is cracked

  • recurrent decay develops

  • structural failure occurs

  • replacement is already clinically necessary

  • confirmed mercury allergy exists

Otherwise, unnecessary replacement exposes patients to additional drilling, possible tooth damage, increased costs, and temporary mercury exposure.

Patients concerned about their fillings should discuss individual circumstances with a qualified dentist rather than relying on alarming claims circulating online.

The Future of Restorative Dentistry

The future appears increasingly mercury-free.

Advances in adhesive dentistry, biomaterials, nanotechnology, and preventive oral care continue reducing dependence on traditional amalgam.

Researchers are developing stronger composite materials, bioactive cements capable of releasing beneficial minerals, and regenerative therapies that may eventually repair damaged teeth rather than merely filling cavities.

Meanwhile, improved oral hygiene, fluoride, healthier diets, and regular dental examinations reduce the need for restorative treatment altogether.

The best filling remains the one that never becomes necessary.

Conclusion

Mercury in dental fillings remains one of modern dentistry's most discussed topics, but decades of scientific research provide an increasingly clear picture. Dental amalgam does release measurable amounts of mercury vapor, yet extensive evidence indicates that these exposures are generally too low to cause significant health problems in healthy adults.

Nevertheless, mercury is a toxic element, and reducing unnecessary environmental releases remains an important global objective. For this reason, many governments are encouraging a gradual transition toward mercury-free restorative materials while avoiding unnecessary removal of functioning amalgam fillings.

Patients should base decisions on evidence rather than fear. Individuals with existing, intact amalgam restorations usually do not require replacement solely because mercury is present. When restorations eventually need replacement for ordinary dental reasons, modern mercury-free alternatives provide excellent treatment options.

Ultimately, maintaining good oral hygiene, preventing tooth decay, and seeking regular dental care remain far more important for long-term health than the choice between two well-established filling materials.

References

  • World Health Organization (WHO). Mercury and Health.

  • World Health Organization. Future Use of Materials for Dental Restoration.

  • U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Dental Amalgam.

  • FDI World Dental Federation. Policy Statement on Dental Amalgam.

  • European Commission. Mercury Regulation.

  • United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). Minamata Convention on Mercury.

  • National Institute of Dental and Craniofacial Research (NIDCR). Dental Fillings.

  • Scientific Committee on Emerging and Newly Identified Health Risks (SCENIHR). The Safety of Dental Amalgam.


The Deep Dive

Why Mercury Fillings Are Being Banned
00:00 / 42:33