Re: What Toxicologists and Researchers Say About Amalgams

Thread view:

Enable EMail Alerts

Start New Thread

Thread rating:

Jan - 10 Oct 2004 22:31 GMT

Not Dentists, TOXICOLOGIST AND RESEARCHERS!

> What toxicologists and medical researchers say about amalgam
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ------
>
> A 1995 symposium report sums up the scientific controversy over amalgam in

this

> way:
>
> The controversy concerning the safety of dental amalgam has intensified in
> recent years. While proponents continue to reaffirm its safety by pointing to
> the millions of dental cavities that are annually being filled with amalgam
> without (apparently) causing any ill effects, opponents are demanding the
> immediate ban of dental amalgam, citing studies which demonstrate that
> substantial amounts of mercury from such fillings are released and absorbed,
> causing mercury to accumulate in organs and tissues, in pregnant women even

> the fetus.
> Although the health consequences of the accumulation of mercury in the human
> body are not yet fully understood, mercury is receiving increasing attention

> an immunotoxic element and for this reason it is suspected to play a role in
> the development of a variety of chronic diseases.
> Proponents of amalgam consider these claims to be largely unproven. They also
> point out that many of the symptoms attributed to chronic mercury exposure

from

> amalgam fillings are too non-specific to be relevant, and they further argue
> that, in the absence of a suitable low-cost replacement, a ban of amalgam

would

> have serious practical and fiscal consequences.
> However, in veiw of the mounting opposition against the use of amalgam,

dental

> professionals in many countries are increasingly revising their previous
> positions and public officials are preparing regulations for the restricted

use

> and eventual ban of all amalgam-based dental materials. [1]
> The following quotes are mostly from researchers who have contributed
> significantly to current knowledge about the health risks of amalgam. All of
> them are skeptical or negative to amalgam. There are many sources for the
> opposite point of view, but the vast majority of them are from dental
> organizations or researchers. These have done little relevant research of

their

> own, perhaps thinking that criticizing the work of others is sufficient. One
> pro-amalgam source that is not dentistry-based is the 1994 report from an
> expert group appointed by the Swedish National Board of Health and Welfare. I
> find this document strongly biased in its coverage of the scientific
> literature. Unfortunately, you must be able to read Swedish to form an
> independent opinion on that, since only the summary has been translated into
> English.
>
> Lars Friberg
> Lars Friberg is the author of the 1991 WHO report on inorganic mercury and

has

> contributed to the standard texts on metal toxicology. In the concluding
> remarks to the above-mentioned symposium, he says:
>
> My own conclusion is that already in individuals with bruxism, which is

common

> in the population, exposure may well be compared with industrial exposure

that

> has given rise to effects. Furthermore, despite negative results in
> epidemiological studies, the statistical power is not high enough to exclude
> the occurrence of effects in a few percent of the population at still lower
> exposure levels. As amalgam is used so widely already, an effect in a few
> percent of the exposed population would mean that very large population

groups

> could be affected.
> The evidence from experimental and human studies at higher exposure levels
> clearly indicates that mercury from the toxicological point of view is an
> unsuitable element to use in dentistry. It is my opinion that it is prudent

> conclude that mercury from dental amalgam is not safe to use for everyone.

[2]

> Mats Berlin
> Mats Berlin is also one of the "old guard" of metal toxicology. His
> publications are quoted no less than 5 times in Casarett and Doull's
> Toxicology. In a 1992 article, although he still supports the continued use

> amalgam, he adds:
>
> Such a decision [to continue using amalgam] should not be accompanied by a
> smoke screen in the form of a general statement that amalgam is safe, which

> an untruth that only demonstrates deficient knowledge of fundamental

principles

> of environmental medicine... [3]
> Recent risk assessments
> A risk assessment by G. Mark Richardson and Margaret Allan was recently
> published in a peer-reviewed risk assessment journal [4]. The authors

calculate

> a Tolerable Daily Intake (TDI) for mercury vapor, and find that it

corresponds

> to two (2) or (4) fillings using either of two different exposure

calculations.

> They also compare the two models to exposure limits from risk assessments by
> the ATSDR (Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry a branch of the

> Public Health service) and the USEPA. This works out to (0) mercury fillings
> for the USPHS Standard, nine (9) and eleven (11) mercury fillings for the

USEPA

> Standard. They conclude:
>
> It is apparent, therefore, that there is uncertainty in what constitutes a
> level of Hg vapor exposure that is acceptable, tolerable, or of minimal risk.
> Subsequently, there is uncertainty in the precise number of amalgam-filled
> teeth that can be considered acceptable, tolerable, or of minimal risk.
> However, it is also apparent that the continued unconditional and unlimited

use

> of amalgam as a dental restorative material, the placing of up to 25 amalgam
> fillings in one individual, is not supported by the available risk

information.

> Lorscheider, Vimy and Summers
> Three medical researchers, Lorscheider, Vimy and Summers, were asked by the
> FASEB Journal to review recent scientific findings on amalgam. The FASEB
> Journal is one of the world's most prestigious scientific publications.They
> state that "research evidence does not support the notion of amalgam
> safety", and conclude:
>
> The experimental evidence indicates that amalgam Hg has the potential to

induce

> cell or organ patophysiology. At the very least, the traditional dental
> paradigm, that amalgam is a chemically stable tooth restorative material and
> that the release of Hg [mercury] from this material is insignificant, is
> without foundation. [5]
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ------
>
> 1) Friberg LT, Schrauzer GN. Preface. In: Friberg LT, Schrauzer GN. Status

Quo

> and perspectives of amalgam and other dental materials. International

symposium

> proceedings. G. Thieme Verlag Stuttgart, 1995.
>
> 2) Friberg LT. Concluding remarks. In: Friberg LT, Schrauzer GN. Status Quo

and

> perspectives of amalgam and other dental materials. International symposium
> proceedings. G. Thieme Verlag Stuttgart, 1995: 134-136.
>
> 3) Richardson GM, Allan M: A Monte Carlo Assessment of Mercury Exposure and
> Risks from Dental Amalgam. Human and Ecological Risk Assessment 1996; 2 (4):
> 709-761.
>
> 4) Berlin M: Är amalgam i tandfyllningar en hälsorisk? [Is amalgam in dental
> fillings hazardous to health?]. Lakartidningen 1992; 89 (37): 2918-23. [My
> translation from the Swedish]
>
> 5) Lorscheider F, Vimy MJ, Summers AO: Mercury exposure from "silver" tooth
> fillings: emerging evidence questions a traditional dental paradigm. FASEB
> Journal 1995; 9: 504-8 .