You can say the same thing about almost anything.

Signature
Roy
rem NADA to reply
| After reading hundreds of points the following point needs
| to be made. Typically an amalgam argument will go like this:
[quoted text clipped - 13 lines]
| That way everybody is talking about the same thing and the risks
| can more clearly be defined. JMO
Jan - 24 Dec 2004 06:56 GMT
>Subject: Re: Regarding Amalgam...
>From: "Roy Brown" roybrown@sympatico.caNADA
>Date: 12/23/2004 8:53 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <ihNyd.20153$Z%3.993899@news20.bellglobal.com>
>
>You can say the same thing about almost anything.
>Regarding Amalgam..
ChuckMSRD - 24 Dec 2004 12:19 GMT
>You can say the same thing about almost anything.
I do not accept that thinking at all! "There are toxins everywhere me go and
breathe, so whats da problem with a lil chronic mercury release in the mouth".
That is absurd, but widespread reasoning IMO.
Chuck
clintonz@prodigy.net - 24 Dec 2004 12:49 GMT
That's a perfect example! the same thing about the very lowest exposure
or
the very highest exposure? To pretend that the everyone gets the same
amount of Hg from amalgam is ludicrous. These kinds of broad statements
lose their appeal if preceded by a qualifying statement such as, those
receiving 10-15 ug per day are not at risk, or those receiving over
100ug
per day are not at risk.
However, at the "low end", we know that an average person could receive
1-15 ug from a single amalgam. To put that in perspective 10ug/decliter
of lead is considered hazardous.
Maybe I'll write a computer simulation, that seems to be the best way
to settle arguments lately...