 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / General / Dentistry / May 2005Regarding those Prop. 65 notices
Here on SMD, we have been repeatedly swamped with very, very old "news" regarding the appearance of amalgam on the California "Prop. 65" list. Much ballyhoo has been made of the appearance of amalgam on this list by certain individuals who claim that this appearance is somehow an official governmental recognition that amalgam should not be used. Nothing could be further from the truth. The Prop. 65 list denotes no such thing. What is particularly ironic is the fact that these same SMD swamp-posters claim that composite resin is a "SAFE ALTERNATIVE" to the use of amalgam. Some have gone so far to repeat tales regarding their own massive filling replacements -- trading amalgam for "safe" composite. Never mind the fact that the act of amalgam replacement would release more trace mercury than leaving them alone. Just check out this bit of "old" news (dating back to 2002) that these folks apparently missed: http://tinypic.com/54gaaa - dentaldoc I found some paper called dental fact sheet. It's about composite and amalgam. http://www.dentalwatch.org/basic/dentalfactsheet.pdf this states only that mercury is on this prop 65. Whatever this list is.  SignatureDr. Jochen Kulow |email: jochen.kulowNOSPAM Zahnarzt/Dentist | (at)dentalmail.de |remove NOSPAM |PGP: http://wwwkeys.de.pgp.net |HP: http://www.dr-kulow.de --------------------PGP-Fingerprint------------------- DAA3 468E 10FB 463D AE5C A135 6D6B 9250 7746 6FC7 ------------------------------------------------------ > I found some paper called dental fact sheet. > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > this states only that mercury is on this prop 65. The same document you reference clearly states that composite resins DO contain materials on the Prop. 65 list. Look under the "composite resin" column. Chemicals in composite resin are on the same Prop. 65 list as elemental mercury. It's misleading for certain posters to decry amalgam because one of its components appears on the "Prop. 65" list, when composite resins also have components on the very same list. - dentaldoc > The same document you reference clearly states that composite resins DO > contain materials on the Prop. 65 list. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > - dentaldoc What's wrong with all of you. My posting justified the posting above that said amalgam is not on Prop65. I did not want to start another "10,000 people ..." thread. But you thought right?! Btw. Whats is that prop65 anyways? Banned chemicals or what? SignatureDr. Jochen Kulow |email: jochen.kulowNOSPAM Zahnarzt/Dentist | (at)dentalmail.de |remove NOSPAM |PGP: http://wwwkeys.de.pgp.net |HP: http://www.dr-kulow.de --------------------PGP-Fingerprint------------------- DAA3 468E 10FB 463D AE5C A135 6D6B 9250 7746 6FC7 ------------------------------------------------------ > What's wrong with all of you. > My posting justified the posting above that said amalgam is not on Prop65. Dr. Kulow. I realize you regard amalgam as not a healthy substance but you should realized that: 1) Dentalwatch is run by a pro ADA moron who has stated among other things that amalgam is comparable to a salt. The site is 100% pro ADA. 2) The document you linked is put out by the ADA and as usual is full of misinformation and blatant lies regarding the safety of amalgam. 3) There is a long history as to this issue (prop 65) in California including the dental board was fired by Grey davis (Who was then "recalled" by Arnold Schwarzenagger) and sued for not putting out a fact sheet eariler. This information probably would not be referenced in the document you found at Dentalwatch. I forgot everything that has happeneed but you can find some of the history here at http://www.toxicteeth.net or try to google it. The issue is not so simple as it may seem and the dental board from what I read has done many unethical things to block the timely publication of a fact sheet and to prevent the publication of an accurate fact sheet. . I'm not an expert on Prop 65 but I belive it says that the public needs to be warned over exposure to any toxic product. Since we all know that free Hg leaks from amalgam, and that amalgam is the largest source of Hg in the population it seems obvious that Prop 65 requires dentists to notify the public about amalgam because of that fact alone, regardless of what deceptive semantics the ADA chooses to say that amalgam and Hg are never the same. > I did not want to start another "10,000 people ..." thread. > But you thought right?! [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > DAA3 468E 10FB 463D AE5C A135 6D6B 9250 7746 6FC7 > ------------------------------------------------------ > 2) The document you linked is put out by the ADA and as usual > is full of misinformation and blatant lies regarding the > safety of amalgam. This is shamefully false. The so-called "Dental materials fact sheet" was NOT put out by the ADA. It was written by an agency of the state government. I'm amazed at your posting this blatant falsehood. - dentaldoc > > 2) The document you linked is put out by the ADA and as usual > > is full of misinformation and blatant lies regarding the [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > was NOT put out by the ADA. It was written by an agency of the state > government. Read the first disclaimer in the box at the beggining. It was put out by "an agency of the state government"? Hah, It is the California dental board fact sheet composed of pro-amalgam dentists! Who cares if the ADA put it out or not. The same dentists with the same pro-amalgam views composed the fact sheet, which as the disclaimer notes, is soley their creation. So that is the actual fact sheet. (I'm not sure if a new one has since been put out). It was so full of propaganda I thought it was another ADA publicity press release. Also note how they say that "different opinions exist on the safety of amalgam" and are very careful to say that nowhere that it is proven safe. Amazing that that the dental organizations have to be sued for years just to get even that small bit of truth out. So what does that make the millions of dentists who say amalgam is safe? > I'm amazed at your posting this blatant falsehood. > > - dentaldoc > > > 2) The document you linked is put out by the ADA and as usual > > > is full of misinformation and blatant lies regarding the [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > was NOT put out by the ADA. It was written by an agency of the state > > government. > Read the first disclaimer in the box at the beggining. It was put out > by "an agency of the state government"? Absolutely. The Dental Board is an agency of the state government. >Hah, It is the California > dental board fact sheet composed of pro-amalgam dentists! Where do you get this false information? The Board has at least one anti-amalgam dentist. The other members are dentists who are neither pro- nor anti-amalgam (such as the periodontist and the oral surgeon), and has a dental assistant, a dental hygienist, (both of whom are notably anti-dentist in general) as well as politically-connected lawyers and former legislative assitants who were appointed as a favor to various members of the legislature. It sounds like you were unaware of the true composition of the Dental Board. > Who cares if the ADA put it out or not. Who cares? For starters, those of us who observe that such a claim was an absolute falsehood. And if you don't care yourself, why did you go to the effort to make such a false claim in the first place? > The same dentists > with the same pro-amalgam views composed the fact sheet, > which as the disclaimer notes, is soley their creation. False again. The fact sheet is the creation of the Dental Board. There are eleven members of the board. At LEAST EIGHT of the eleven do not even use amalgam -- and it's possible that the other three don't either, though that's not a matter of record. So the vast majority of the Board are NOT pro-amalgam dentists. If you had atttended the meeting of the Board, as I have, you would have known this. > So that is the actual fact sheet. (I'm not sure if a new > one has since been put out). Yes, the "new" one has been in daily use for nearly a year. > It was so full of propaganda > I thought it was another ADA publicity press release. That's funny. When the sheet first was published, it came under criticism as being just another anti-amalgam propaganda release! > Also note how they say that "different opinions exist > on the safety of amalgam" and are very careful to say > that nowhere that it is proven safe. Of course. NO materials on the sheet have been "proven safe" by the definitions of the anti-amalgamists. Not composite resin, certainly. Not even porcelain or gold, either. - dentaldoc . > >Hah, It is the California > > dental board fact sheet composed of pro-amalgam dentists! [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > dentists who are neither pro- nor anti-amalgam (such as the > periodontist and the oral surgeon), Hah! your either for or against amalgam. No such thing as "neutral on amalgam". That is like being neutral on the death penalty or abortion. and has a dental assistant, a > dental hygienist, (both of whom are notably anti-dentist in general) as > well as politically-connected lawyers and former legislative assitants > who were appointed as a favor to various members of the legislature. > > It sounds like you were unaware of the true composition of the Dental > Board. It was posted before. How many (what percentage) of the dental board are dentists and dental professionals? Probably at least 50%. Right? How many votes needed to pass a resolution? Show me a board composed of scientists and members of the public and not dentists mutally bound by the threat of massive amalgam liablity and who are "not necessarily not against the anti-amalgam position" or "politically connected appointees" and then I will believe there is objectivity. I sure we could argue this all day and end up where we started so I agree that more specifics need to be posted. As I said in the other post when I get the chance I'll look into this a little more or if other people have more relevant information they can continue the discussion. > > Who cares if the ADA put it out or not. > > Who cares? For starters, those of us who observe that such a claim was > an absolute falsehood. So what the ADA holds as its official position has no influence on the dentists sitting on the dental board. Has a dental board ever contradicted the offical position of the ADA? > And if you don't care yourself, why did you go to the effort to make > such a false claim in the first place? I dont care if the dentists are officers of the ADA or sitting on the dental board. It's the same people from the same profession putting out the same false infromation to protect themselves from the mother of all suits. And obviously at minium the same information or misinformation about amalgam is circulated withing the dental community and the teaching school. Certainly most of those dentists on the board have placed amalgam in the last 10 years. What if amalgam was suddenly banned. EACH and every one of them would be potentially liable. Hell if I was a dentist and I had placed amalgam I wouldn't vote to ban amalgam either (just kidding, actually I would). I'm sure these facts are obvious to people reading the list but if you want to continue to pretend in the objectivity of the dental profession and the dental boards on this issue and make a complete fool of yourself go right ahead. That's all I can say on this specific issue. > > >Hah, It is the California > > > dental board fact sheet composed of pro-amalgam dentists! > > Where do you get this false information? > > > > The Board has at least one anti-amalgam dentist. The other members > are > > dentists who are neither pro- nor anti-amalgam (such as the > > periodontist and the oral surgeon), > Hah! your either for or against amalgam. No such thing > as "neutral on amalgam". That is like being neutral on the > death penalty or abortion. More false statements. Probably the vast majority of the world's population is neutral on amalgam. I know a number of people who are neutral on both the death penalty and abortion. > and has a dental assistant, a > > dental hygienist, (both of whom are notably anti-dentist in general) [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > It sounds like you were unaware of the true composition of the Dental > > Board. > I sure we could argue this all day and end up where we started so I > agree that more specifics need to be posted. As I said in the other [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > on the dentists sitting on the dental board. Has a dental board > ever contradicted the offical position of the ADA? Now you're changing your tune, since it has been exposed that your claim that the DMFS was "put out by the ADA" was completely false. The fact is that the state constituent of the ADA was OPPOSED to the DMFS and could NOT get its official position recognized in the writing of the document. The DMFS charted its own course and did not satisfy either the dental association or the anti-amalgamists. > > And if you don't care yourself, why did you go to the effort to make > > such a false claim in the first place? [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > same profession putting out the same false infromation to > protect themselves from the mother of all suits. False again! My suspicion that you just make this up as you go along is growing stronger. The vast majority of the dental board is made up of people who would have NO liability whatsoever even if such fanciful lawsuits were to occur! It is these non-liable people who decided on the content of the DMFS -- NOT what you fictionalize above. > Certainly most of those dentists on the board have placed > amalgam in the last 10 years. Certainly?? Where did you get that idea -- from imagination again? Wrong AGAIN! The fact is that the periodontist, the oral surgeon, the professor, and the anti-amalgam dentist on the board do NOT use amalgam. That's four out of six dentists we know do NOT use amalgam. And I don't have any information that the other two use amalgam either. You're just ASSUMING they do, with no information to support that. For all we know, they might be like myself -- dentists who haven't used amalgam for quite some time due to the appearance of other materials and techniques. But let's give you all the rope you need. Let's assume these other two dentists have indeed used amalgam in the last ten years. Let me know how the other two dentists, out of six, constitute "most of those dentists on the board." My old math teacher will love to hear your answer. What if amalgam was suddenly > banned. EACH and every one of them would be potentially > liable. Hell if I was a dentist and I had placed amalgam > I wouldn't vote to ban amalgam either (just kidding, actually > I would). > > I'm sure these facts are obvious to people reading the list "These facts?" You mean all the falsehoods from your imagination that you have posted the last two days? Try getting the facts straight before posting about something that you have no experience with or information about. > but if you want to continue to pretend in the objectivity > of the dental profession and the dental boards on this issue > and make a complete fool of yourself go right ahead. That's > all I can say on this specific issue. So when you say that MSDS is the same as DMFS, that the ADA controls the state Dental Board when the fact is that they are at odds with each other, that the "majority" of dentists on the board have used amalgam during the last ten years when that is demonstrably false, that the DMFS was written by the ADA when it is actually written by the Dental Board, that there is no such thing as being neutral on a subject (simply because you are unaware of such neutrality), then all these falsehoods give you more credibility on the subject? - dentaldoc As far as CZ is concerned: http://www.lostinspacetv.com/ART/download/Robot/DoesNotCompute.wav Signature~+--~+--~+--~+--~+-- Stephen [What's a Temporary?], D.D.S. Michigan, USA .................................................... This posting is intended for informational or conversational purposes only. Always seek the opinion of a licensed dental professional before acting on the advice or opinion expressed here. Only a dentist who has examined you in person can diagnose your problems and make decisions which will affect your health. ...................... > >> > >Hah, It is the California [quoted text clipped - 121 lines] > > - dentaldoc > So when you say that MSDS is the same as DMFS, that the ADA controls > the state Dental Board when the fact is that they are at odds with each [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > - dentaldoc One would think that after getting completely 'disrobed' in public, some of these people would be embarrassed to post anymore. Sad that usually isn't the case. They change the subject or just call you a liar. Fawks (like you, I haven't used amalgam for years) >> So when you say that MSDS is the same as DMFS, that the ADA controls >> the state Dental Board when the fact is that they are at odds with each [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > (like you, I haven't used amalgam for years) I still do, but a jug of capsules lasts me a couple of years. I still prefer it on the distal of third molars and temporary patches on PFM margins. > "Steven Fawks" <tuthjockey@earthlink.net> wrote in message > >> - dentaldoc [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > > > (like you, I haven't used amalgam for years) > I still do, but a jug of capsules lasts me a couple of years. I still > prefer it on the distal of third molars and temporary patches on PFM > margins. Amalgam has properties that are unmatched by any other material. StovePipe has posted pictures that show how it can be used to save the dentition when the alternative is toothlessness. The population and their dentists should have access to a wide range of dental materials. Let people make their own choices -- which is the current position of the California Dental Board and its DMFS. - dentaldoc > Amalgam has properties that are unmatched by any other material. > StovePipe has posted pictures that show how it can be used to save the > dentition when the alternative is toothlessness. But StovePipe is in the pocket of the ADA, the UAW, the Teamsters, MGM and ACDC. He is a LIAR. He is scum. Death to StovePipe and his heathen ways. SP SignatureFinally: take out the TRASHH > > So when you say that MSDS is the same as DMFS, that the ADA controls > > the state Dental Board when the fact is that they are at odds with each [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > One would think that after getting completely 'disrobed' in public, > some of these people would be embarrassed to post anymore. Hah, when the head of the dental associations declared for years that amalgam is perfectly stablek only admiiting after 30 years that was wrong I would say the emperor has no clothes so to speak! Sad that > usually isn't the case. They change the subject or just call you > a liar. > > Fawks I think brainwashing is a much larger part of being a dentist than I previously realized. Notice how Bill refused to answer specific questions about Chet Y and forgot to mention the fact that the first dental board had to fired because they refused to publish a dental fact sheet that complied with the law for many years. He also didn't bother do answer my specific question about the exact makeup of the current dental board. Though I do admit that the current dental board is more pro-amalgam than the previous one. > I think brainwashing is a much larger part of being a dentist > than I previously realized. We do it in the carwash once a month. The attendant has to sign for it before we get our licences back. SP SignatureFinally: take out the TRASHH > > Hah! your either for or against amalgam. No such thing > > as "neutral on amalgam". That is like being neutral on the > > death penalty or abortion. > > More false statements. Probably the vast majority of the world's > population is neutral on amalgam. Members of the dental board are dentists who have been exposed to the amalgam issue for years. most of the worlds population doesn't even realize Hg is in amalgam. .> > Now you're changing your tune, since it has been exposed that your > claim that the DMFS was "put out by the ADA" was completely false. I could care less, the point is the Data Material Fact Sheet, Not the Materal Safety DAta sheet is put out by "neutral" dentists (and a few paid off political appiontees) on the dental board instead of dentists at the ADA. > The fact is that the state constituent of the ADA was OPPOSED to the > DMFS and could NOT get its official position recognized in the writing > of the document. The DMFS charted its own course and did not satisfy > either the dental association or the anti-amalgamists. I do admit (from what I have heard). that appointing Chet Y to the dental board is a big step in the right direction. Obviously the last dental board was pro-amalgam. Where this dental board stands is a good question. This data sheet also seems to be a big improvement. > False again! My suspicion that you just make this up as you go along is > growing stronger. The vast majority of the dental board is made up of > people who would have NO liability whatsoever even if such fanciful > lawsuits were to occur! Oh, really, your contention is that if amalgam was banned tommorrow then the dental profession would incur no liablity? > Wrong AGAIN! The fact is that the periodontist, the oral surgeon, the > professor, and the anti-amalgam dentist on the board do NOT use > amalgam. > > That's four out of six dentists we know do NOT use amalgam. And I don't > have any information that the other two use amalgam either. And what have these professional been taught in dental school about amalgam? Incorrect information? How many on the dental board total 12? Some of the other members undoubtedly, such as the political appointees and the hygenists are also tied to the dental profession. The point is the dental profession still has a tremedous sway and apparent majority on the dental board. What business do dentists have determining the safety of amlagam anyway. That is insane. Only scientists have the training to do that. Would you listen to a panel conclusion on cigarrettes made of ex-employees from cigarret companines. It is good that this sheet admist there is controversy on the issue and this board does seem better but they still did try to fire Chet whose job it was to compose the MSDS sheet and no profession can regulate itself. too much conflict of interest professional ties and indoctrinatin from the schools. You're just > ASSUMING they do, with no information to support that. For all we know, > they might be like myself -- dentists who haven't used amalgam for [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > how the other two dentists, out of six, constitute "most of those > dentists on the board." How many on the dental board? 12? So 5 are dental proffesional who on selection did not say they were opposed to amalgam and I assume there are two hygenists from what you said. That is a majority right there with likely pro amalgam leanings. Only 1 appointee upon appointment said they had strong reservations about amalgam out of 12. By the way the professor who you implied was a dentist likely was teaching a certain view on amalgam for years. Suppose I conviened a board on the death penalty issue and out of 12 people appointed only 1 said they where against the death penalty in all the years prior to the appointement even though all the members had worked in law/enforcement or the judicial system! Do you think that comitte would vote AGAINSt the death penalty. Another problem is that many of the dentist probably belong to the generation where amalgam was accepted. Show me a dental board with half scientists, more than one anti-amalgam dentist and an average age < 40 and maybe you will get some objectivity. > > My old math teacher will love to hear your answer. > > "These facts?" You mean all the falsehoods from your imagination that > you have posted the last two days? I could have easily posted the whole sad history of the dental board on this issue including what I saw on TT.net about the shennagins with Chet. I'm just some idiot who got poisoned by his dentists and will lose half his jaw too because of resulting OM. You want me to do your job for you too. Your the professional. > So when you say : 1) MSDS is the same as DMFS, In the context it is clear what I meant. The point is it is a material facts sheet. 2) that the ADA controls the state Dental Board when the fact is that they are at odds with each That statement has not been proven at all, that the dentists on the dental board are opposite the ADA. The board itself, probably because of the appointment of Chet for one and some other appoints just isn't completely in the back pocket of the ADA anymore. 3) other, that the "majority" of dentists on the board have used amalgam> during the last ten years when that is demonstrably false, that the Is an oral surgeon or profsseor really a dentist to member of the public? at any rate all of them have used amalgam in dental school and taught it is safe. Also , they can be sued for malpractice (except the professor). They don't want to rock the boat among their collegues by suddenlty declaring amalgam unsafe! Suppose the OS singlehandledly caused the state to declare amalgam was a highly toxic material tommorrow and went against everyone else. Not a comfortable postion to be in for a dental professinal. Otherwise these committes composed of dental professionals are like a school of fish. They form under seemingly random conditions but still follow the leader once formed. I also bet that if I scrutinzed the backgrounds closely they would have used amalgam far more than you say, not that this dental board does not appear to be a big improvement over the last > DMFS was written by the ADA when it is actually written by the Dental > Board, that there is no such thing as being neutral on a subject > (simply because you are unaware of such neutrality), then all these > falsehoods give you more credibility on the subject? If i wanted credablilty I'd just post my scan so you can see what a leaking amalgam does to the jaw by causing OM. I'm more curios to see where peoples reasoning process goes wrong when it comes to these issues > - dentaldoc As a person who has received dental care both good and atrocious during my lifetime, the last thing I, personally, am concerned about is the effect/s of the use of amalgam in restorations. I live with the effects of defective material that was placed without my knowledge in both of my temporomandibular joints. The *fact* that the material was found to be defective was shocking to me as a patient. The *fact* that a surgeon told me that he was not using a material that was beginning to be questioned by the profession and one that I would not have agreed to using in my body **at that point in time** was beyond shocking when I learned several years later that the surgeon had used that "material" and never told me he had ... now that was shocking. I would allow amalgam to be used today if my dentist thought it was the best solution for *my* needs. I would not expect anyone to offer to use Proplast in my TMJs for *any reason whatsoever*. I am not an expert in this subject. I am just a person who still has teeth (amazingly so). Webby > As a person who has received dental care both good and atrocious during > my lifetime, the last thing I, personally, am concerned about is the > effect/s of the use of amalgam in restorations. Webby, see my new post on defective capsules. It is important to realize that not all amalgam behaves the same is mixed the same or subjected to the same conditions. Furthermore amalgam or Hg leakage need not always have the same results. Hg leakage can damage bone because it is a toxin just as any other defective material can. There is the temptation to believe that every case is the same and that if this didn't happen this way to me it couldn't happen to anyone else, but the reality is every case is different and it is very important to remember that. > I live with the effects of defective material that was placed without my > knowledge in both of my temporomandibular joints. The *fact* that the > material was found to be defective was shocking to me as a patient. The > I would allow amalgam to be used today if my dentist thought it was the > best solution for *my* needs. I would not expect anyone to offer to use > Proplast in my TMJs for *any reason whatsoever*. Again as you can see in my post on mixtures it is no guarantee that all amalgam is even mixed the same. There is the temptation to classify amalgam as an inert substance but this is false. I hate to even talk about amalgam like a material because after 10 years different amalgam is not the same especially at the surface so there is a wide variatian in the characteristics of the material called amalgam which we are talking about like it is all the same. My best guess is that many people have an idealized model in their mind of what amalgam is which is correct in some ways but still incorrect overall and does not allow for all the degrees of freedom a realistic physical model of amalgam should have. For example the phases of amalgam do change thoughout time releasing Hg. I would never say that I thought a given amalgam couldn't be relatively stable (All do leak measurebale amounts of Hg) and I hope people have the same openmindedness when they consider the fact that amalgam can leak Hg and the Hg can be methylized under certain conditions. >> As a person who has received dental care both good and atrocious > during [quoted text clipped - 44 lines] > openmindedness when they consider the fact that amalgam can > leak Hg and the Hg can be methylized under certain conditions. Webby is nothing but a suck up to the dentists, period. LL/Jan > Webby is nothing but a suck up to the dentists, period. > > LL/Jan What other explanation could there be for whatever this explains? (Only a rhetorical question.) Webby In article <nospamattmjiatroepidemicnospam-1B7036.16515419052005@news-rdr-03.socal. rr.com>, > > Webby is nothing but a suck up to the dentists, period. > > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Webby It seems I should wonder, just a little, what it could possibly be that I would have to gain by the use of such insincerity in a "place" such as this. .... Webby > > Webby is nothing but a suck up to the dentists, period. > > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Webby You know.... this... 'Individual' (SWNMNBM) seems to have gotten Joel's ISP to remove him for less than this. I think you should complain that SWNMNBM has been denigrating you for years about this subject and that action must be taken. JMO SP Path: news20.bellglobal.com!nf1.bellglobal.com!nf3.bellglobal.com!border2.nntp .dca.giganews.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!wns14f eed!worldnet.att.net!attbi_s72.POSTED!53ab2750!not-for-mail From: "LadyLollipop" <LadyLollipop@insightbb.com> Newsgroups: sci.med.dentistry References: <1116274126.472987.289100@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <d6b1hb$2086$1@ulysses.news.tiscali.de> <1116350572.613540.175810@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <d6dns4$2jid$1@ulysses.news.tiscali.de> <1116417500.353067.198440@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <1116429470.271008.55970@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <1116430694.255378.315670@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <1116435870.009069.326310@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com> <1116448822.356361.190420@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <1116527401.699821.65430@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com> <1116540680.301083.10570@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com> <nospamattmjiatroepidemicnospam-D98091.15240419052005@news-rdr-03.socal. rr.com> <1116542970.664550.297660@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com> Subject: Re: Regarding those Prop. 65 notices Lines: 62 Organization: insightbb.com X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.2527 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2527 X-RFC2646: Format=Flowed; Original Message-ID: <Dh9je.8433$V2.4379@attbi_s72> NNTP-Posting-Host: 12.210.98.44 X-Complaints-To: abuse@asp.att.net X-Trace: attbi_s72 1116545251 12.210.98.44 (Thu, 19 May 2005 23:27:31 GMT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 19 May 2005 23:27:31 GMT Date: Thu, 19 May 2005 23:27:31 GMT Xref: nf1.bellglobal.com sci.med.dentistry:293006 SignatureFinally: take out the TRASHH > > > Webby is nothing but a suck up to the dentists, period. > > > [quoted text clipped - 47 lines] > Date: Thu, 19 May 2005 23:27:31 GMT > Xref: nf1.bellglobal.com sci.med.dentistry:293006 Your thought is something worthy of my serious consideration. Thank you for the post. Webby >> > Webby is nothing but a suck up to the dentists, period. >> > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > JMO > SP Sabra Broock Aug 3 2002, 10:23 am Newsgroups: sci.med.dentistry From: s...@mesadrive.com (Sabra Broock) Date: Sat, 03 Aug 2002 14:27:37 GMT Local: Sat,Aug 3 2002 10:27 am Subject: Our very own Jan Drew in a former life =================== From: Chas (c...@nochange.com) Subject: Re: Jan Drew View: Complete Thread (139 articles) Original Format Newsgroups: sci.med.dentistry Date: 2002-08-03 11:01:17 PST *My goodness! You really ARE a stalker! *Jan - report this bitch to her ISP: * a...@mesadrive.com "Sabra Broock" <s...@mesadrive.com> wrote in message news:3d4c0b06.14555656@news.mesadrive.com... > http://www.1stcong.sarasota.fl.us/bulletin/bulletin.h MID HI IS WILLING TO WORK FOR YOU! >>The MID HI would like to remind everyone the RENT-A-KID program is still >>in >>existence. It includes babysitting, housecleaning, yard work, and lawn >>mowing. Contact Nancy Kavanagh or Jan Drew for more information; please >>allow one to two weeks lead time. Thanks to everyone for your support >>before, now and in the future! >This is a nosey biddy body who is a trouble maker, and has no regard for an >innocent person. I called the church to protect this lady and let them know stories were being made up about her that could damage her reputation. =========== Plus a few threats: She would feel more comfortable but she might be having a few problems Just a note: I own the following domain: scimeddentisty.com *and* I intend to utilize it. You should think about why. LL/Jan > Path: > news20.bellglobal.com!nf1.bellglobal.com!nf3.bellglobal.com!border2.nntp [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > Date: Thu, 19 May 2005 23:27:31 GMT > Xref: nf1.bellglobal.com sci.med.dentistry:293006 Nothing worthy of the time to read. >> > Webby is nothing but a suck up to the dentists, period. >> > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > You know.... this... 'Individual' (SWNMNBM) seems to have gotten Joel's > ISP to remove him for less than this W R O N G. Joel has now had three accounts closed. Get a clue. His account was closed based own his own L Y I N G words. LL/ Jan . I think you should complain that > SWNMNBM has been denigrating you for years about this subject and that > action must be taken. [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] > Date: Thu, 19 May 2005 23:27:31 GMT > Xref: nf1.bellglobal.com sci.med.dentistry:293006 > It's misleading for certain posters to decry amalgam because one of its > components appears on the "Prop. 65" list, when composite resins also > have components on the very same list. > > - dentaldoc Is dental quality gold on that list? SP SignatureFinally: take out the TRASHH >> It's misleading for certain posters to decry amalgam because one of its >> components appears on the "Prop. 65" list, when composite resins also >> have components on the very same list. >> >> - dentaldoc Bill has some nerve in speaking of misleading, after all of his *misleading* and added words in trying to discredit DR. Jacobson. LL/Jan > Is dental quality gold on that list? > SP > Here on SMD, we have been repeatedly swamped with very, very old "news" > regarding the appearance of amalgam on the California "Prop. 65" list. [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > - dentaldoc Bill: What was banned in Propositions 1 through 64? Steve SignatureMark & Steven Bornfeld DDS http://www.dentaltwins.com Brooklyn, NY 718-258-5001 > What is particularly ironic is the fact that these same SMD > swamp-posters claim that composite resin is a "SAFE ALTERNATIVE" to the > use of amalgam. Really, who calimed composite is "Safe" i don't recall anyone saying that. It's obvious (to me at least) that as a material it has to be evaluated indepedently for safety from amalgam. One thing really isn't dependent on the other. Some have gone so far to repeat tales regarding their > own massive filling replacements -- trading amalgam for "safe" > composite. > > Never mind the fact that the act of amalgam replacement would release > more trace mercury than leaving them alone. That is a shamlessly false statement to imply that is always the case. Would you like to bet $5000 on that statement? The answer is no. Why waste everytimes with the same scientificly false assertions. Man, dont you get it yet? Amalgam is not an alloy. the Hg Can come out under the right conditions. Why don't you tell me what the maximum rate of release of Hg from a single amalgam is right now in the US, and by the way can you state the upper limit for mehtylization of released amalgam Hg as well. How come so many PHD's DDS, MS, on this list and no one can answer that simple question...? clint...@prodigy.net wrote: > Man, dont you get it yet? Amalgam is not an alloy. the Hg Can > come out under the right conditions. Why don't you tell me what the > maximum rate of release of Hg from a single amalgam is right now in the > US, and by the way can you state the upper limit for mehtylization of > released amalgam Hg as well. How come so many PHD's DDS, MS, on this > list and no one can answer that simple question...? Man, don't you get it yet? Composite is not an alloy. The organic compounds can come out under the right conditions. Why don't you tell me what the maximum rate of release of organic compounds from a single composite is right now in the US, and by the way can you state the upper limit of estrogenic response to these released compounds as well. How come so many pro-composite anti-amalgamists post on this list and no one can answer that simple question...? > clint...@prodigy.net wrote: > > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > me what the maximum rate of release of organic compounds from a single > composite is right now in the US, and by the way can you state I don't know why you think I said composite was safe or an alloy. In fact I haven't even thought about its relative safety as a material or its worst case decomposition. If someone told me that under some circustances composite could decompose however, I would not (GASSSPP) seem so shocked. > How come so many pro-composite anti-amalgamists post on this list and > no one can answer that simple question...? The safety or potential lack of safety of composite is not related to the safety of amalgam. There seems to be a logical flaw in your reasoning process here. > The safety or potential lack of safety of composite is not related > to the safety of amalgam. There seems to be a logical flaw > in your reasoning process here. You seem to have missed the point entirely: The problem with the reasoning process lies with those persons who decry amalgam because one of its components appears on the Prop. 65 list. Those same persons ignore the fact that some chemicals in composite resin also appear on the Prop. 65 list. If those persons continue to claim that amalgam is a danger BECAUSE it appears on the Prop. 65 list, they would have to apply the same "reasoning process" to composite resin. But they don't. - dentaldoc > You seem to have missed the point entirely: > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > appears on the Prop. 65 list, they would have to apply the same > "reasoning process" to composite resin. I don't think anyone on this list ever claimed that the law regarding Prop 65 (which I admit I haven't really scrutinized) "proves" in and of itself that amalgam is dangerous. Also I don't know who declared according to you that composite resin is "safe" or should not be included on the list (especially if some ingredients can cause cancer), although its obvious that the short term toxicity of Hg is much greater than any ingredient in composites so that the two scenarios are inherently unequal. Clearly from a moral standpoint it is the burden of the Dental Board to prove safety in their MSDS sheet once notification has been made of potential danger of Hg leaking from amalgam. It's obvious that this burden of (lack of much greater potential toxicity) has not been met regardless of whether it has been met in the less extreme case of composites. > Clearly from a moral standpoint it is the burden of the Dental Board to > prove safety in their MSDS sheet once notification has been made of > potential danger of Hg leaking from amalgam. It's obvious that this > burden of (lack of much greater potential toxicity) has not been met > regardless of whether it has been met in the less extreme case of > composites. It's not a "MSDS" sheet. It's called the "DMFS" by the Dental Board. The Dental Board cannot "prove safety" of ANY of the many dental materials discussed! Such a requirement would result in a world with NO dental materials whatsoever. - dentaldoc >It's not a "MSDS" sheet. It's called the "DMFS" by the Dental Board. > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > >- dentaldoc Not even cold steel and sunshine ? Egads ! -- W_B Take out the G'RBAGE wubbabubbazG@RBAGEyahoo.com > > Clearly from a moral standpoint it is the burden of the Dental Board > to [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > Such a requirement would result in a world with NO dental materials > whatsoever. Ridiculous. peer scientific reviewed papers have even been posted on this list of High Hg blood levels linked directly to amalgam and many other sceintific papers showing sever toxicity problems with amalgam. The dental board is ignoring clear proof of amalgam toxicity. As you well know the NIDCR has never bothered to fund a large scale study of amalgam safety and FDA devices refused to test amalgam for safety in front of congress. This is not about setting unobtainable goal of absolute proof. You can argue semantics all you like but when the dental board says in their own fact sheet that there is a "divergence of scientific opinion on the safety of amalgam" but look here- something in composite may be a carcinogen or something they and their high paid lawyers aren't following anyone. > - dentaldoc clint...@prodigy.net wrote: > > > Clearly from a moral standpoint it is the burden of the Dental > Board [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > something in composite may be a carcinogen or something they and their > high paid lawyers aren't following anyone. That is , they aren't fooling anyone. clint...@prodigy.net wrote: > > You can argue semantics all you like It's not "semantics" when false information is posted, it's just false information. > > but when the dental board > > says in their own fact sheet that there is a "divergence of [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > That is , they aren't fooling anyone. WHAT "high paid lawyers?" The dental board doesn't get to hire any highly-paid lawyers. Where do you get this false information? I hope you aren't just making it up as you go along -- though that may be possible, considering all the inaccurate claims made about the dental board and its publication of the DMFS. - dentaldoc > clint...@prodigy.net wrote: > WHAT "high paid lawyers?" The dental board doesn't get to hire any > highly-paid lawyers. Where do you get this false information? You are saying that no dentist on the dental board or representative of the ADA etc has ever consulted a lawyer on these matters? I find that hard to believe considering they were sued. In fact didn't the ADA which shares it's infromation with the dental community sue Kohhorami(sp). did they file the papers in court themselves? Also how would the dental board even know they are even complying with the law (prop 65) without consulting a lawyer. This doesn't pass the commonsense test. It was also posted on maybe toxicteeth.net or somewhere that Chet Y was supposed to be involved with the "new" fact sheet and then was suddenly dismissed from his position when a new pre-made fact sheet suddenly "appeared", all while the dental board kept stalling saying they need more time to publish Chets sheet, and insisting they would come out with the new fact sheet soon. Is that information correct or incorrect? I see on your other post that you said something about attending dental board meetings. Are you saying you advise them or something? This issue is definitely worth disscussing in more detail if that is the case. I haven't been following it that closely and have second hand information from the internet so I may be wrong on some points but I will definitely now take a close look at the "new" fact sheet and see what it says and what the exact history was. Then I may have some more specific questions for you. > You are saying that no dentist on the dental board or representative of > the ADA etc has ever consulted a lawyer on [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > they are even complying with the law (prop 65) without consulting a > lawyer. This doesn't pass the commonsense test. I retained Atticus Finch for a while way back when... SP SignatureFinally: take out the TRASHH > > clint...@prodigy.net wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > these matters? I find that hard to believe considering they > were sued. The Dental Board is just an agency of the state. If anyone sues the Board, in essence he is suing the state, so the state attorney general's lawyers dispense with the case. Look up the legal concept of "respondeat superior" to obtain a better understanding of why the members of the state's dental board don't hire lawyers, high-priced or otherwise. > In fact didn't the ADA which shares it's infromation with > the dental community sue Kohhorami(sp). did they file the > papers in court themselves? It sounds again like you're confusing the ADA in Chicago with the independent California Dental Board. They have nothing to do with each other. As I've mentioned before, the ADA and the Dental Board disagree on the DMFS and a number of other issues, as neither one controls the other. > Also how would the dental board even know > they are even complying with the law (prop 65) without consulting a > lawyer. This doesn't pass the commonsense test. The Dental Board cannot even hold a meeting unless a lawyer from the state attorney general's office is present (and is essentially overseeing the whole meeting). The state government, through its lawyer, then tells the board what it can and cannot do at each meeting, within the parameters of state law. The whole concept of "consulting a lawyer" is silly when the state's lawyer is overseeing the entire meeting! In addition, most of the board's actions cannot even take effect until reviewed and approved by the state's Office of Administrative Law and/or the Consumer Affairs Department. > It was also posted on maybe toxicteeth.net or somewhere that > Chet Y was supposed to be involved with the "new" fact > sheet and then was suddenly dismissed from his position Hogwash. I'm amazed at this made-up baloney. > when a new > pre-made fact sheet suddenly "appeared", Baloney again! The "fact sheet" first presented to the board in 2003 was the one written by Chet! Dr. Terlet, the only other member of Chet's two-person committee, also wrote another suggested "fact sheet." So the two-person committee submitted two suggested documents. Neither one was approved by the Board. > all while the dental > board kept stalling saying they need more time to publish > Chets sheet, Nonsense! The board NEVER said they "needed more time" to "publish Chet's sheet!" Who wrote this fiction that you're giving credence to?? > and insisting they would come out with the > new fact sheet soon. Is that information correct or incorrect? It's incorrect, as I pointed out above. In accordance with state law, the board had to hold open meetings for public comment before writing and approving a new "fact sheet." The public hearings were held OVER a year ago. (I was amused at the childish antics of one notorious anti-amalgam agitator, who, being unsatisfied with being given the SAME amount of time that every other person received, started shouting from the back of the room and was temporarily removed by the security personnel.) > I see on your other post that you said something about attending > dental board meetings. Yes, board meetings are given legal notice to the public, and are open to the public where appropriate under the law. > Are you saying you advise them or something? I'm saying that I attend the meetings. You can too. > This issue is definitely worth disscussing in more detail if that > is the case. I haven't been following it that closely and have > second hand information from the internet That certainly explains it! Much of the second-hand "information" you've been posting is so inaccurate or blatantly wrong that it's difficult to categorize it as "information" -- because it's wrong. Of course, that says a lot about the credibility of the websites that post such fictional "information." > so I may > be wrong on some points YES, indeed. I'm able to correct these points, but the constant correction of so many repeated inaccuracies and outright falsehoods is getting to be repetitious and redundant . . . > but I will definitely now take a close look > at the "new" fact sheet and see what it says and what the > exact history was. The "exact history" will be hard to find. For the reasons above, I can't recommend trusting the same websites that published the fiction you had mentioned above. Nobody publishes "exact histories" of each meeting or of the antics of the anti-amalgam agitators; you have to be in attendance to see it. All they really publish is the final product. It is far more interesting to see the evolution of the product than just to read what comes out at the end. I recommend that you attend in person. > Then I may have some more specific questions for > you. Let me know. If it's much later, or on a different thread, I may miss it entirely, so let me know. - dentaldoc > > > clint...@prodigy.net wrote: > > > > > WHAT "high paid lawyers?" The dental board doesn't get to hire any > > > > highly-paid lawyers. Where do you get this false information? I guess the central point is what happened with Chet which is probably a very interesting story. No I wasn't there and from what you say he was part of a 2 person committe assigned to formulate a "new" fact sheet draft along with Dr. T. Apparently Chets formulation was more anti-amalgam than Dr. T's and neither was adopted as it was written. It would be very interesting to see what Chets draft said. IIRC what I read on the internet implied that Chet was given a mandate by gov davis to formulate the new fact sheet and that he himself was under the impression that his final draft would be implemented as the new fact sheet, when, much to his surprise, a dental board mutiny occured (at least from his or somebodey elses's viewpoint) and a professionally done, alternate fact sheet, apparently created with the help of outside consultation (outside the dental board) suddenly appeared at the 11th hour... Anyway regardless of whose versions of events are correct, and I agree that if 50 people attend the same meeting there are 50 different versions of events, it is clear that the new fact does not refelect the views of the anti-amalgamists nor the pro-amalgamists but is some kind of a compromise. > The Dental Board is just an agency of the state. If anyone sues the > Board, in essence he is suing the state, so the state attorney > general's lawyers dispense with the case. Are any of the dentists on dental boards also memebers of the ADA. Do they read policy statements put out by the ADA, attened ADA meetings and talk with other dentists who are ADA members? > > In fact didn't the ADA which shares it's infromation with > > the dental community sue Kohhorami(sp). did they file the [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > independent California Dental Board. They have nothing to do with each > other. I said the ADA sued Kohhorami. i'm not confusing anything. If the ADA is not linked to formulating dental policies which impact the views of the dentists on the state boards then why tell the media amalgam is safe and why sue anti-amalgamists. It is awful convienent to have an agency with no legal liability for amalgam setting out policy opinion statements on amalgam and attacking anti-amalgists. Very convienent indeed. If what you say was true the ADA should not issue any opinion at all on amalgam, not make any attempt to set policy direction on amalgam for the dental community at large and refuse to have it's members discuss policy issues with dentists from state boards. The ADA should also refuse to discuss that issue with the media if it is truly only a trade association. you can't have it both ways. Also, the reality is that the public itself does not make a distinction between the ADA and the dental boards. many denitists on this group too seem to get their information from the ADA and repeat verbatim various pro-amalgam statements made on the ADA website. In "reality" the ADA has had a strong influence in setting public policy and doing the legal dirtywork for the dental profession. It also seems to influence what is taught in dental schools. As I've mentioned before, the ADA and the Dental Board disagree > on the DMFS and a number of other issues, as neither one controls the > other. Maybe in a few cases, suchs as the CA dental board and that is only very recent. What was the position of the ADA 7 years ago. > The whole concept of "consulting a lawyer" is silly when the state's > lawyer is overseeing the entire meeting! Not really. I am not saying this is how it does or does not happen, but the ADA is free to consult with lawyers, correct. Well suppose suddenly the ADA comes out with a new publication on amalgam safety with very careful wording. Dr. X from the ADA happens to be talking with DR. Z from the dental board at a dental convention and say's, "Say its outrageous what those anti-amalgamists are saying, that amalgam is the largest source of hg in the population, they are going to scare the public silly!" "Say.. have you seen the new ADA statement on amalgam safety at their website. Excellent document. Very excellent document. I highly recommend reading it..and if you need any technical advice on some of the more complex issues regarding formulating a fact sheet on amalgam, feel free to call me anytime. It's the least i can do to help insure the public safety" > Baloney again! The "fact sheet" first presented to the board in 2003 > was the one written by Chet! Dr. Terlet, the only other member of > Chet's two-person committee, also wrote another suggested "fact sheet." > So the two-person committee submitted two suggested documents. Neither > one was approved by the Board. I think the posters of the account felt that Chet was supposed to get a stamp of approval for his final sheet, since he was appointed by Gov Davis. I also am not sure why his sheet wasn't "approved". sounds like a lot of "neutral" dentists retreated at least partialy to the same old stance that plagued the last dental board. It is also impossible to know who said what to who and what assurances where or where not given about who would have the final say on the fact sheet or what sheet was going to be approved. Obviously the dental board found a "reason" not to approve either sheet. > > and insisting they would come out with the > > new fact sheet soon. Is that information correct or incorrect? [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > and approving a new "fact sheet." The public hearings were held OVER a > year ago. I searched for that account briefly but couldn't find it. if I have time I'll look again and post it. (I was amused at the childish antics of one notorious > anti-amalgam agitator, who, being unsatisfied with being given the SAME > amount of time that every other person received, started shouting from [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > the anti-amalgam agitators; you have to be in attendance to see it. All > they really publish is the final product. So you attended every dental board meeting? Otherwise how do you know the exact history yourself? It is far more interesting to > see the evolution of the product than just to read what comes out at > the end. I recommend that you attend in person. In fact i attended the DC Hg hearings. I agree that these meetings are very interesting to attended, also even the accounts published by the media cannot capture the essence of what goes on in these meetings. You really have to see it for yourself! ClintZ wrote: I think the posters of the account felt that Chet was supposed to get a stamp of approval for his final sheet, since he was appointed by Gov Davis. EVERYBODY on the board was appointed by Gov. Davis. Nothing special about Chet! - dentaldoc > ClintZ wrote: > > I think the posters of the account felt that Chet was supposed to I mean as an anti-amalgamist and I got the distinct impression (though maybe I misread or misunderstood) with a mandate to oversee or create the fact sheet. Like I said I wasn't there during the meetings or closely following the appointments. Of course what one person or group considers a mandate another interperts as something quite different. I do believe that if Chet had soley created the fact sheet however, it would be more accurate than the current version. > Let me know. If it's much later, or on a different thread, I may miss > it entirely, so let me know. > > - dentaldoc I found one of the references and posted it in another thread under a new subject. According to this source : 1) The dental board did fire Chet Y from his duty to compile a fact sheet 2) Dr. Terlit is pro-amalgam 3) The dental board consisted of many re-apponites from the previous dental board which refused to publish a fact sheet for many years. 4) The CDA did have substantial involvemnet with the dental even brining in an expert witness to provide pro-amalgam testimony against prop 65. Arline Terlit also suddenly and mysteriously produced a new fact sheet similar to the CDA's position. 5) None of the supposedly "amalgam neutral" dental board members where able to find time to testify in hearings held by congressman Burton and Watson, the exception being Dr. Chet Yokoyama. 6) Finally another link on TT.net states that Terlit also took steps to thwart the distribution of the new fact sheet and judging from her actions is very much under the influence of the CDA association. > It's not a "MSDS" sheet. It's called the "DMFS" by the Dental Board. > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > - dentaldoc Hell.... one can't even prove the innocuous-ity of DiHydroMonoxide. SP SignatureFinally: take out the TRASHH >> It's not a "MSDS" sheet. It's called the "DMFS" by the Dental Board. >> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >Hell.... one can't even prove the innocuous-ity of DiHydroMonoxide. >SP Hydric Acid ?!?! Perish the thought ! -- W_B Take out the G'RBAGE wubbabubbazG@RBAGEyahoo.com > >> It's not a "MSDS" sheet. It's called the "DMFS" by the Dental Board. > >> [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > Hydric Acid ?!?! Perish the thought ! > -- Hydrogen hydroxide! Leach. Signature-History of fluorine, fluoride and fluoridation-: --- http://www.fluoride-history.de/index.htm --- ---------------------------------------------------- > I don't think anyone on this list ever claimed that the > law regarding Prop 65 (which I admit I haven't really > scrutinized) "proves" in and of itself that amalgam is > dangerous. If you now say that 'amalgams haven't been proved dangerous in and of themselves according to this proposition, then goodGodandJesusChristOn-a-bicycleOnCalvaryInTheSpring, man: just what in the hell _can_ you say? I'll tell you what _I_ see regarding where you are on the issue of Amalgams: For you, this is a _gut level_ emotional issue, supported by whatever science that you can grab, and this will not change. _I_ am posessed by a _gut level_ need to patch teeth as early as I can, and I don't give a rat's putootie about the 'potential immediate' toxicity of my fillings. I'll assume that my Am fillings are safe in this or that particular patient untill things have been demonstrated otherwise. I will have caused less stress on my (often already medically compromised) patients then if I insisted that 'composites on those big holes in the back teeth' is a better choice. They will be back in two years' time and there will be more routine maintenence on those composites than there will be on those amalgam fillings. SignatureFinally: take out the TRASHH > > I don't think anyone on this list ever claimed that the > > law regarding Prop 65 (which I admit I haven't really [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > goodGodandJesusChristOn-a-bicycleOnCalvaryInTheSpring, man: just what in > the hell _can_ you say? No, I didn't say that there isn't science proving that amalgam is a dangerous material. I said that Prop 65 from what I hear doesn't prove that amalgam is dangerous, because the only requirement is, that a toxic material be present in a product. It is meant to warn the consumer of any potential danger and probably obtain clarification from the manufacturer. I'll tell you what _I_ see regarding where you > are on the issue of Amalgams: > > For you, this is a _gut level_ emotional issue, supported by whatever > science that you can grab, and this will not change. The fact of the matter is that there is much more science supporting the fact that amalgam can leak high levels of Hg then not. Science is on the side of the anti-amalgamists. The problem is that dentists and a lot of the public have these pet theories about how an amalgam behaves which are not scientifically valid. Aslo coming from a physics background I KNOW how much we don't know about metals. Dentists and the public seem to think that science of amalgam is well understood and solved like an algebra equation where you can solve for x. That is INCORRECT. > > > I don't think anyone on this list ever claimed that the > > > law regarding Prop 65 (which I admit I haven't really [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > It is meant to warn the consumer of any potential danger and > probably obtain clarification from the manufacturer. Then I'll stop taking my meds... > I'll tell you what _I_ see regarding where you > > are on the issue of Amalgams: [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > supporting the fact that amalgam can leak high levels of > Hg then not. Science is on the side of the anti-amalgamists. The Epidemiology is on the side of the dentists, and those patients who want a cheap and quite fool-proof filling material. Cheers SP SignatureFinally: take out the TRASHH > I don't know why you think I said composite was safe or an alloy. > In fact I haven't even thought about its relative safety as a material > or its worst case decomposition. > > If someone told me that under some circustances composite could > decompose however, I would not (GASSSPP) seem so shocked. Yet, you are not upset at the potential damage that composites can do to teeth and surrounding tissues. Your only beef is with the evils of AMALGAM, whilst most of the others here are concerned with the overall health in the mouth and surrounding structures, including the a.shole. SP SignatureFinally: take out the TRASHH > > I don't know why you think I said composite was safe or an alloy. > > In fact I haven't even thought about its relative safety as a material [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > teeth and surrounding tissues. Your only beef is with the evils of > AMALGAM, whilst most of the others here are concerned with the Want to bet on that? I never said anything about the safety of composites, that is only your ASSumption. Originally the reason I thought fillings were safe was becuause niavely I thought they were made of some type of stainless steel and ingesting very small amounts couldn't be harmful. Since then I've learned that nickel can be a carcinogen and that copper can be toxic as well. If when I had my fillings placed , if I knew that they contained mercury OR any potential harmful compounds in composites I would have to think about that very carefully. If a filling material was made that contianed silver combined with some other safe, inert metal I would probably favor that over composites to be honest since I'd rather ingest a couple micrograms of Ag rather than biosphenyl-A or whatever else is in these resins. overall > health in the mouth and surrounding structures, including the a.shole. > SP > If when I had my fillings placed , if I knew that they contained > mercury OR any potential harmful compounds in composites I would [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > I'd rather ingest a couple micrograms of Ag rather than > biosphenyl-A or whatever else is in these resins. Then your best bet for future dental repairs, IMO, is gold; either foil hammering or cast. SP SignatureFinally: take out the TRASHH > Man, don't you get it yet? Composite is not an alloy. The organic > compounds can come out under the right conditions. Why don't you tell [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > How come so many pro-composite anti-amalgamists post on this list and > no one can answer that simple question...? To answer this question, one would have to place composites with radioactive carbon tags in them, and see where they go over the course of a few years. ................ Any volunteers? .................. SP SignatureFinally: take out the TRASHH > Man, dont you get it yet? Amalgam is not an alloy. the Hg Can > come out under the right conditions. Why don't you tell me what the > maximum rate of release of Hg from a single amalgam is right now in the > US, and by the way can you state the upper limit for mehtylization of > released amalgam Hg as well. How come so many PHD's DDS, MS, on this > list and no one can answer that simple question...? Man, don't you get it yet? Some people want to save their teeth even in non ideal conditions. To truly do this methylization question, I believe that one would have to place Am with radiocative Hg tags in it and see where it goes over the course of a few years. ............... Any volunteers?...................... SP SignatureFinally: take out the TRASHH > > Man, dont you get it yet? Amalgam is not an alloy. the Hg Can > > come out under the right conditions. Why don't you tell me what the [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > ............... Any volunteers?...................... Basically we agree. The testing on this has not been done! I never meant that amalgam should never be used, even though I said it should be banned. The patient should be made aware of the risks though in every case. This is about informed consent. As I already stated I haven't even made an evalution of the risks of composites so I couldn't even compare the exact risks of composites vs amalgam vs gold > Basically we agree. The testing on this has not been done! The Epidemiology HAS been done. Most patients tolerate this evil poison very well; better, say, then they do complete dentures, which are made out of PLASTIC resins and chrome-cobalt metal > I never meant that amalgam should never be used, even though > I said it should be banned. The patient should be made aware > of the risks though in every case. This is about informed consent. Then you say you haven't evaluated composites. At the end of it all, you will have to extract all your teeth and have a set of cast gold dentures made. Do you see why I get so upset with your University Ivory Tower pedantics? Your theories are not based on the majority of daily observations in the real world using real (and imperfect) materials to solve real world problems. CZ, you must be a riot to live with... I bet you read every label of every product you put in your food basket at the grocery. Then, I bet you wonder why your wife doesn't want you to tag along when she does the grocery shopping. You remember Bill Clinton? In theory, he should be impeeched. In practice people didn't give a damn, as long as he did his job. I would argue the same thing re: Am. Why don't you attack car emissions and global warming? At the rate the planet is deteriorating, my kids won't have to care if we put Am or Comp or Au or whatever for the rest of their lives.... 'Scuse me... Bill is on the 'phone... SP SignatureFinally: take out the TRASHH > > Basically we agree. The testing on this has not been done! > > The Epidemiology HAS been done. Most patients tolerate this evil poison > very well; Thats incorrect, no large scale studies with the statistical power to assess chronic long term effects in even the 10% most affected. that according to the swedish report! I do agree that many people tolerate amalgam fairly well and that if one is considering the worst cases, the average effects of an average amalgam (however that can be defined) would be much more favorable. Amalgam in my opinion is a "wicked" substance and like Hg itself has many different faces. > Then you say you haven't evaluated composites. At the end of it all, you > will have to extract all your teeth and have a set of cast gold dentures > made. Not really, I have composites in now. Do you see why I get so upset with your University Ivory Tower > pedantics? Your theories are not based on the majority of daily > observations in the real world using real (and imperfect) materials to > solve real world problems. The facts are what they are. Just because we think, or feel sorry for ourselves that it difficult or impossible to know what is always the right decision doesn't change that fact. Reality is brutal. There is still only one right decision and one wrong answer for every case-Dr. House > CZ, you must be a riot to live with... I bet you read every label of > every product you put in your food basket at the grocery. Actually, I'm not like that at all. Most people would consider me to be on the sloppy side. In fact I was a very laid back as a dental patient and barely spoke at all during appointments. The complete opposite of the informed, discerning consumer I appear to be on the list. Trouble came and found me, in the form of Hg toxicity. I didn't go looking for it. You see, after you get poisoned i |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message