 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / General / Dentistry / March 2006Dental fillings adding mercury to wastewater
Danielle Samaniego, "Dental fillings adding mercury to wastewater", Contra Costa Times, February 21, 2006, Link: http://www.contracostatimes.com/mld/cctimes/news/local/states/california/13923211.htm While it may not seem like much in a mouth, amalgam teeth fillings are generating enough mercury in wastewater to raise the concerns of the Central Contra Costa Sanitary District -- and it plans to take action. The board wants to implement a mandatory program that would require nearly 300 central county dental practices to buy amalgam separators to filter the mercury out. The details still need to be hammered out and voted on by the board. If approved, dentists would have to comply by January 2007. The program has been discussed between the district and the dental community since 2003, according to district staff members. Amalgam is an alloy made up of mercury and other metals that give that silver filling its distinct coloring. When dentists dispose of those fillings, it is usually placed in traps and the refuse is taken out in special hazardous-waste containers. "We don't have a separator, but we have traps," said Julie Greenlaw-O'Toole, a Walnut Creek dentist who said she believes the program is going a bit overboard. "We do certain things already, it's just that the separators are kind of the next step." Based on district findings, mercury from dental practices is estimated to make up almost half of the mercury entering its wastewater treatment plant, which ends up being discharged in the San Francisco Bay. That mercury can be converted into methylmercury which is eaten by fish. "Because we need to protect the Bay, we need to keep that mercury out of our effluent and protect the fish," said Ann Farrell, director of engineering for the district. The amalgam program is part of a three-pronged approach the sanitary district is taking to tackle its mercury problem. The steps are necessary to keep the district in compliance with federal, state and regional regulations. "These are not new issues. They (dentists) know what's happening in other areas and we're one of the last districts in the Bay Area to do this," said Harriette Heibel, communications services manager for the district. Sanitary districts in San Francisco, Oakland and Palo Alto already have the program in place. The vacuum-like systems can run a dental practice up to $700 to purchase and $200 per year to maintain, according to sanitary district statistics. That could be on top of a possible $350 permit fee the Contra Costa district may also charge under one scenario. "I think we have a responsibility to be fair and equitable and I think we're also short-changing the dentists," said district board member Barbara Hockett. "They have a great social responsibility. They're savvy about this and I think they would jump at the opportunity." Right now about 35 out of 313 practices use amalgam separators. > Danielle Samaniego, "Dental fillings adding mercury to wastewater", > Contra Costa Times, February 21, 2006, [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > voted on by the board. If approved, dentists would have to comply by > January 2007. Did they figure that out all on their own, or did an AM radio announcer speak to them from inside their heads? http://cosmic.lifeform.org True, and some people are getting answers to unanswered health problems ...  SignatureJoel344 > Danielle Samaniego, "Dental fillings adding mercury to wastewater", > Contra Costa Times, February 21, 2006, > Link: > http://www.contracostatimes.com/mld/cctimes/news/local/states/california/13923211.htm sure blame the poor dentists when its likely some other industrial source. amalgam never hurt anyone. >> Danielle Samaniego, "Dental fillings adding mercury to wastewater", >> Contra Costa Times, February 21, 2006, >> Link: >> http://www.contracostatimes.com/mld/cctimes/news/local/states/california/13923211.htm > > sure blame the poor dentists when its likely some other industrial source. > amalgam never hurt anyone. I think we can safely assume you're an idiot. How many amalgam filling do you have? http://cosmic.lifeform.org >>> Danielle Samaniego, "Dental fillings adding mercury to wastewater", >>> Contra Costa Times, February 21, 2006, [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > How many amalgam filling do you have? amalgam never hurt anyone >>> amalgam never hurt anyone. >> I think we can safely assume you're an idiot. >> How many amalgam filling do you have? > amalgam never hurt anyone Of course your mercury addled brain believes that, it's damaged! http://cosmic.lifeform.org >sure blame the poor dentists when its likely some other industrial source. >amalgam never hurt anyone. Medical waste is an important source of mercury pollution. I know many hospitals are phasing out its use. As little as 10 years ago it was practice for a nurse to wipe up the mercury debris from a thermometer break and throw it in the waste basket. I don't know if the other metal binding agents in amagam prevent teh release of merccury >> Danielle Samaniego, "Dental fillings adding mercury to wastewater", >> Contra Costa Times, February 21, 2006, [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > sure blame the poor dentists when its likely some other industrial source. > amalgam never hurt anyone. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstra ct&list_uids=11822127 1: Ned Tijdschr Tandheelkd. 1993 Apr;100(4):179-82.Related Articles, Links [Amalgam. IV. Metabolism of mercury] [Article in Dutch] Gladys S, van Meerbeek B, Vanherle G, Lambrechts P. Afdeling Conserverende Tandheelkunde en Tandheelkundige Materialen, School voor Tandheelkunde, Mondziekten en Kaakchirurgie, Katholieke Universiteit te Leuven, Belgie. After absorption in the body by four ways, each type of mercury undergoes a specific metabolism. Elementary mercury as mercury vapour becomes rapidly oxidized to Hg2+ and, afterwards, is metabolized as an inorganic mercurial compound. From the blood circulation mercury reaches target organs like the kidneys, the central nervous system, the liver and the hypophysis, in which mercury accumulates. The retention time varies by organ and is longest in the brain. Mercury is mainly eliminated with urine and faeces, to a lesser degree with transpiration and mother's milk and sometimes by respiration. Publication Types: Review Review, Tutorial PMID: 11822127 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE] http://www.greenfacts.org/mercury/l-2/mercury-2.htm#2 .2 How are we exposed to mercury? The main source of elemental mercury vapour is dental amalgam (a tooth filling). http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstra ct&list_uids=11799732 1: Bull Group Int Rech Sci Stomatol Odontol. 2000 May-Dec;42(2-3):88-93.Related Articles, Links Salivary mercury levels in healthy donors with and without amalgam fillings. Pizzichini M, Fonzi M, Gasparoni A, Fonzi L. Department of Biomedical Science, University of Siena, Siena, Italy. Dental amalgam (AMG) is the most diffused dental filling material. Since it is constituted for at least 40-45% of Hg, many questions have raised about its safe use. Hg particles from dental amalgam dissolve in saliva and, being ingested, they reach the blood stream through the intestinal mucosa. It has been demonstrated that amalgam fillings continuously release Hg vapour and that there is detectable Hg in expired and inspired air of amalgam owners. It is not yet fully accepted that AMG fillings represent the principal source of Hg for man and the aim of this study was to evaluate if the mercury level in saliva: 1) was higher within people bearing dental amalgam restorations than in people with no restorations; 2) was different between males or females; 3) increased in relation to the surface of amalgam restorations. The results showed a correlation between number of fillings and salivary Hg, between amalgam surface and salivary Hg. The Authors could finally assert that AMG fillings represented the principal source of salivary Hg in the subjects studied. PMID: 11799732 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstra ct&list_uids=14651282 In vitro neurotoxic evaluation of root-end-filling materials. Asrari M, Lobner D. Department of Endodontics, Marquette University School of Dentistry, Milwaukee, WI 53233, USA. masrari@wi.rr.com Root-end-filling materials have been tested for toxicity on several cell types, but their toxicity has not been tested on neurons. In this study we evaluated the neurotoxicity in murine cerebral cortical cell cultures of four commonly used root-end-filling materials: mineral trioxide aggregate, amalgam, Super EBA, and Diaket. Standardized amounts of each material were placed on culture-well inserts, allowing the material to be exposed to the culture bathing media without causing physical disruption of the cells. Cell death was quantified by assaying release of the cytosolic enzyme lactate dehydrogenase. Exposure of cortical cultures to freshly mixed or 7-day-old MTA did not cause significant neuronal death, whereas exposure to freshly mixed or 7-day-old amalgam, Super EBA, and Diaket resulted in significant neuronal death (p < .05). Thus, each material, except for mineral trioxide aggregate, can induce neurotoxicity, even when allowed to set thoroughly. PMID: 14651282 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstra ct&list_uids=12018634 Mercury in dental restoration: is there is risk nephrotoxicity? Mortada WL, Sobh MA, El-Defrawy MM, Farahat SE. Urology and Nephrology Center, Mansoura University, Faculty of Science, Egypt. BACKGROUND: Concern has been voiced about exposure to mercury (Hg) from dental amalgam fillings, and there is a need to assess whether this leads to signs of nephrotoxicity. METHODS: A total of 101 healthy adults (80 males and 21 females) were included in this study. The population as grouped into those having amalgam fillings (39 males and 10 females) and those without (41 males and 11 females). Hg was determined in blood, urine, hair and nails to assess exposure. Urinary excretion of beta2-microglobulin (beta2M), N-acetyl-beta-D-glucosaminidase (NAG), gamma-glutamyltransferase (gammaGT) and alkaline phosphatase (ALP) were determined as markers of tubular damage. Albuminuria was assayed as an early indicator of glomerular dysfunction. Serum creatinine, beta2M and blood urea nitrogen (BUN) were determined to assess glomerular filtration. RESULTS: Hg levels in blood and urine were significantly higher in persons with dental amalgam than those without; in the dental amalgam group, blood and urine levels of Hg significantly correlated with the number of amalgams. Urinary excretion of NAG, gammaGT and albumin was significantly higher in persons with dental amalgam than those without. In the amalgam group, urinary excretion of NAG and albumin significantly correlated with the number of fillings. Albuminuria significantly correlated with blood and urine Hg. CONCLUSION: From the nephrotoxicity point of view, dental amalgam is an unsuitable filling material, as it may give rise to Hg toxicity. Hg levels in blood and urine are good markers of such toxicity. In these exposure conditions, renal damage is possible and may be assessed by urinary excretions of albumin, NAG, and gamma-GT. PMID: 12018634 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE] Summary Brief Abstract Citation MEDLINE ASN.1 XML/SGML LinkOut Related Articles Protein Links Nucleotide Links Popset Links Structure Links Genome Links OMIM Links Structure Domains Links 1: Stomatologiia (Mosk) 1997;76(4):9-11 Related Articles, Books[Patterns of mercury release from amalgam fillings into the oral cavity].[Article in Russian]Motorkina AV, Barer GM, Volozhin AI. Seventy-five subjects aged 20 to 57 with 1 to 15 fillings of silver amalgam were examined. The level of mercury vapors in the oral cavity was assessed using an AGP-01 device and the method developed by the authors. Emission of mercury vapors in the oral cavity increased with the number of fillings. The concentration of mercury in the oral cavity depends largely on the number of silver amalgam fillings and less so on these fillings' length of service.AdvDent Res 1992 Sep;6:110-3 Related Articles, Books, LinkOut Side-effects: mercury contribution to body burden from dental amalgam.Reinhardt JW.Department of Operative Dentistry, University of Iowa College of Dentistry,Iowa City 52242. The purpose of this paper is to examine and report on studies that relate mercury levels in human tissues to the presence of dental amalgams, giving special attention to autopsy studies. Until recently, there have been few published studies examining the relationship between dental amalgams and tissue mercury levels. Improved and highly sensitive tissue analysis techniques have made it possible to measure elements in the concentration range of parts per billion. The fact that mercury can be absorbed and reach toxic levels in humantissues makes any and all exposure to that element of scientific interest. Dental amalgams have long been believed to be of little significance as contributors to the overall body burden of mercury, because the elemental form of mercury is rapidly consumed in the setting reaction of therestoration. Studies showing measurable elemental mercury vapor release from dental amalgams have raised renewed concern about amalgam safety. Mercury vapor absorption occurs through the lungs, with about 80% of the inhaled vapor being absorbed by the lungs and rapidly entering the bloodstream. Following distribution by blood circulation, mercury can enter and remain in certain tissues for longer periods of time, since the half-life of excretion is prolonged. Two of the primary arget organs of concern are the central nervous system and kidneys. Publication Types: Review Review, Tutorial PMID: 1292449 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE] 1: FASEB J 1990 Nov;4(14):3256-60 Related Articles, Books, LinkOut Comment in: FASEB J. 1991 Feb;5(2):236. Whole-body imaging of the distribution of mercury released from dental fillings into monkey tissues.Hahn LJ, Kloiber R, Leininger RW, Vimy MJ, Lorscheider FL.Department of Radiology, University of Calgary, Faculty of Medicine,Alberta,Canada. The fate of mercury (Hg) released from dental "silver" amalgam tooth fillings into human mouth air is uncertain. A previous report about sheep revealed uptake routes and distribution of amalgam Hg among body tissues. The present investigation demonstrates the bodily distribution of amalgam Hg in a monkey whose dentition, diet, feeding regimen, and chewing pattern closely resemble those of humans. When amalgam fillings, which normally contain 50% Hg, are made with a tracer of radioactive 203Hg and then placed into monkey teeth, the isotope appears in high concentration in various organs and tissues within 4wk. Whole-body images of the monkey revealed that the highest levels of Hg werel ocated in thekidney, gastrointestinal tract, and jaw. The dental profession's advocacy of silver amalgam as a stable tooth restorative material is not supported by these findings.PMID:2227216 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE] poor daniel... Jan got into the thread... bad bad bad she'll have you spammed as she's been doing with us dentists for....6 years? I use amalgam I'm proud None of my patients nor me have gone crazy I have 7 amalgams in my mouth Cheers! Gabe >>> Danielle Samaniego, "Dental fillings adding mercury to wastewater", >>> Contra Costa Times, February 21, 2006, [quoted text clipped - 230 lines] > restorative material is not supported by these findings.PMID:2227216 > [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE] > poor daniel... Jan got into the thread... bad bad bad > she'll have you spammed as she's been doing with us dentists for....6 years? > I use amalgam > I'm proud > None of my patients nor me have gone crazy Out of what 2000/3000? That shows fundamental dishonesty. Statistically speaking 20 of your patients have commited suicide. Statistically speaking Probably 3 or 4 have been commited. I'm sure many others have developed kidney disease,alzhiemers and immune systems problems. Did Gabe ever go to an asylum and test his former patient (accurately) with an Hg challenge test? Did Gabe dig up the bones of his patients who commited suicide and test them for Hg? Gabe probably wouldn't have the slightest idea how to test for chronic Hg and would laugh if a former patient brought up the issue. All Gabe really knows is that he thinks he is ok. And maybe most of the fillings Gabe place didn't cause problems. But does Gabe know that to be a fact? No. > I have 7 amalgams in my mouth > > Cheers! I am 50 yrs old and have so many amalgamam fillings that I have lost count (REALLY soft teeth). I worry a little about this as any reasonable person would conclude that such intimate contact with Hg is harmful at some level. However, it would cost a really insane amount of money to replace all these fillings. OTOH, I do not allow my kids to get such fillings if trhere is a real option. Dentists would hav us believe that magically this form of mercury is not harmful but they have no evidence to back this up. What are the current options for filling material? As an aside, we sell x-ray spectrometers and one was sold to a museum. One of their applications was to help verify authenticity of gold plated bronze artifacts. It seems that one way to gold coat metals many years ago was to make a mixture of Hg and gold (an amalgamum I think) and smear it on the object. The object was then heated to drive off the Hg leaving a thin coating of gold. Even after 1000 yrs, real artifacts have detectable amounts of Hg in the gold. When I as in Physics grad school, I was given an office filled with old equipment and something had broken spilling droplets of Hg everywhere. You could look betwen the lineoleum tiles and see shiny Hg. We vacuumed as much as we could and then we were told to sprinkle powdered sulfur all over and sweep it into the cracks. Fortunately, I spent little time there. > When I as in Physics grad school, I was given an office filled with old > equipment and something had broken spilling droplets of Hg everywhere. > You could look betwen the lineoleum tiles and see shiny Hg. We > vacuumed as much as we could and then we were told to sprinkle powdered > sulfur all over and sweep it into the cracks. Fortunately, I spent > little time there. Your brain is fried then. Be sure to donate all your organs to science. http://cosmic.lifeform.org >I am 50 yrs old and have so many amalgamam fillings that I have lost > count (REALLY soft teeth). I worry a little about this as any [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > sulfur all over and sweep it into the cracks. Fortunately, I spent > little time there. I think there are millions of people on the planet who have heads full of amalgam fillings. However, they are not all dying young of mercury poisoning, but perhaps they are less healthy than they might be if they didn't have amalgum fillings. Some white fillings also have dangerous substances in them, such as bisphenol A. This is mentioned in this article: http://www.doh.wa.gov/ehp/oehas/amalgam_dental_fillings_12-2003.htm This article also supports the view that amalgam is not harmful. I know mercury itself is toxic to humans, but amalgam fillings are a lot stronger than white fillings. But at least mercury is washed out of the body to some extent, so when you have a head full of amalgam, you need to research how your body can best do this, just in case you are being poisoned by mercury, this is really important. I would prefer not to have amalgam fillings or harmful white fillings. But, if you are worried about the contents of dental fillings, the only answer to the problem is to have all your teeth extracted and have dental plates instead. No one has been able to give me an answer other than this. People against amalgam are alerting people to its dangers, nothing wrong with this. But if people concentrated on practical alternatives, this would be even better! A few people who quote long lists of anti-amalgam research can't even give a single suggestion as to what's a practical alternative. Perhaps there is no alternative other than to extract diseased teeth? It's also very dangerous to fly in an aircraft, thousands of people have been killed doing this, perhaps more people have been harmed doing this than have been dangerously harmed by amalgam, who really knows? But in the end, it's all a matter of keeping things in proportion, and taking sensible risks, otherwise you might as well live in a padded cell. >> I am 50 yrs old and have so many amalgamam fillings that I have lost >> count (REALLY soft teeth). I worry a little about this as any [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > I think there are millions of people on the planet who have heads full of > amalgam fillings. Including you, apparently. > However, they are not all dying young of mercury > poisoning, but perhaps they are less healthy than they might be if they > didn't have amalgum fillings. People don't usually die from mercury poisoning you idiot, they just suffer from insidious neuroses and suffer from a slow creeping insanity, and have cretins for children. Take America, for instance, I think that adequately describes the effects of ubiquitous heavy metal and PCB contamination there. http://www.lifeform.org/elements/mercury.htm > Some white fillings also have dangerous > substances in them, such as bisphenol A. This is mentioned in this article: > > http://www.doh.wa.gov/ehp/oehas/amalgam_dental_fillings_12-2003.htm > > This article also supports the view that amalgam is not harmful. They're brain damaged, just like you, that's why they think like that. > I know > mercury itself is toxic to humans, but amalgam fillings are a lot stronger > than white fillings. Excuses, excuses, is that all you've got for US? Listening to that AM radio announcer in your head again, are you? > But at least mercury is washed out of the body to some extent, so when you > have a head full of amalgam, you need to research how your body can best do > this, just in case you are being poisoned by mercury, this is really > important. I would prefer not to have amalgam fillings or harmful white > fillings. You need to donate your organs to science, because your brain is damaged. That's about the only contribution you'll make to science. > But, if you are worried about the contents of dental fillings, the only > answer to the problem is to have all your teeth extracted and have dental > plates instead. No one has been able to give me an answer other than this. The answer is yes. Get it? > People against amalgam are alerting people to its dangers, nothing wrong > with this. But if people concentrated on practical alternatives, this would > be even better! A few people who quote long lists of anti-amalgam research > can't even give a single suggestion as to what's a practical alternative. > Perhaps there is no alternative other than to extract diseased teeth? Remove the fillings and have them recycled properly. What is so darn hard to understand about that? > It's also very dangerous to fly in an aircraft, thousands of people have > been killed doing this, perhaps more people have been harmed doing this than > have been dangerously harmed by amalgam, who really knows? But in the end, > it's all a matter of keeping things in proportion, and taking sensible > risks, otherwise you might as well live in a padded cell. That would be perfect, because you appear to be suffering from some kind of mercury induced psychosis. Be sure to sign your organ donor certificate. http://cosmic.lifeform.org >> But, if you are worried about the contents of dental fillings, the only >> answer to the problem is to have all your teeth extracted and have dental >> plates instead. No one has been able to give me an answer other than >> this. > > The answer is yes. Get it? No wonder people decided to open up a moderated dental group if this is the only answer that people can get from some of the anti-amalgam people. It's simply no good telling millions of people to have their teeth out as soon as they need dental fillings, simply because of the possible effects of harmful substances in dental fillings! Root canal therapy is also very dangerous, so this is ruled out as well. So can't you see that your only "safe" answer is to extract teeth, there's no middle ground or alternatives that are suitable. Perhaps you work for people who make dental plates? A more rational, reasoned, balanced and less inflammatory approach is required for people who post to this newsgroup in good faith looking for some workable alternatives to using amalgam. >>> But, if you are worried about the contents of dental fillings, the only >>> answer to the problem is to have all your teeth extracted and have dental [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > No wonder people decided to open up a moderated dental group if this is the > only answer that people can get from some of the anti-amalgam people. There is only one thing that can explain widespread use of mercury amalgam fillings by dentists, the dentists must be totally insane from exposure to mercury. > It's > simply no good telling millions of people to have their teeth out as soon as > they need dental fillings, simply because of the possible effects of harmful > substances in dental fillings! We didn't say pull the teeth, you did, because you are insane. We simply recommend removing and replacing the mercury amalgam. > Root canal therapy is also very dangerous, so > this is ruled out as well. So can't you see that your only "safe" answer is > to extract teeth, there's no middle ground or alternatives that are > suitable. Sure there are, anything is better than mercury amalgam. > Perhaps you work for people who make dental plates? No, I work for science, and science tells me mercury is toxic an any amount. The result follows almost immediately. You are insane. > A more > rational, reasoned, balanced and less inflammatory approach is required for > people who post to this newsgroup in good faith looking for some workable > alternatives to using amalgam. I'm rational, you are quite insane. See a dentist right away! Anything that doesn't use mercury. Plastics work fine. http://cosmic.lifeform.org > >>> But, if you are worried about the contents of dental fillings, the only > >>> answer to the problem is to have all your teeth extracted and have dental [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > amalgam fillings by dentists, the dentists must be totally insane from > exposure to mercury. That's a good question. I think the real answer is that society itself has accepted amalgam. Society argued for years that the earth was flat, the sun revolved around the earth, cigarettes were safe. and so on All most every instituition is government is tied to politics and therefore it's actions are determined by what public opinion is > > There is only one thing that can explain widespread use of mercury > > amalgam fillings by dentists, the dentists must be totally insane from > > exposure to mercury. PS - thankfully some patient lawsuits are now advancing to trial but to get an idea of what manipulative liars the ADA is and who screwed up the court system is see: http://64.233.179.104/search?q=cache:31IN_2flkgQJ:law.case.edu/student_life/jour nals/health_matrix/142/ChirbaMartin.pdf+patient+lawsuits+amalgam+appellate&hl=en &gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=14&ie=UTF-8 which is an excellent description of the enormous legal hurdles which allow amalgams to continue in use, not "Expert opinion of safety" >>> There is only one thing that can explain widespread use of mercury >>> amalgam fillings by dentists, the dentists must be totally insane from [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > which is an excellent description of the enormous legal hurdles which > allow amalgams to continue in use, not "Expert opinion of safety" Considering we are confronted with mercury addled and brain damaged dentists, lawyers, judges, politicians, and the corporation CEOs, the problems confronted by the average American are suddenly put into their proper perspective. It's like the fall of Rome all over again. All because of tooth fillings! Start em young! Give them Sugar! Blame the Fluoride! http://cosmic.lifeform.org > Considering we are confronted with mercury addled and brain damaged > dentists, lawyers, judges, politicians, and the corporation CEOs, > the problems confronted by the average American are suddenly > put into their proper perspective. It's like the fall of > Rome all over again. All because of tooth fillings! That is not entirely untrue. are you posting from Europe? If so when did they become aware of the amalgam problem there? You may or not now about a college entrance exam called the SAT in America. Well, since the 1970's a big deal had been made about scores going down every year in a very predictable way. Rationales were given such as Kids read less, weaker curricula, etc. So much so that they made the exam easier and rescaled it so that parents wouldn't think that their kids were getting dumber. High copper amalgam2's were also introduced in the 70's. But recently during the 90's it seemed like for 5 years in a row the media would always report to an INCREASE in the average SAT score continuing into the early 2000's. Well how could that be since we had been taught that Kids were lazier, watched more TV, schools were poorer and greater %'s of students came from poor backgrounds etc? Did anybody in the US ever say wel,l this corresponds with the increased use of composites or even study the issue. No!, they said, the prep courses were helping! The new video games were helping the kids learn! Like they didn't have prep courses and play real life video games (i.e sports) before? Suppose the Romans had removed lead from the pipes and suddenly the scores on the Roman national college exam went up for 5 years? The news show in my town recently did a story on how the high schoolers had the best score on an advanced placement exam in the world this year which was a record. WONDERFUL!, they claimed since the US had been so FAR behind other countries BEFORE. The TEACHERS should be given an AWARD! These must be the best TEACHERS in the WORLD. Look at the results! Did anybody ever comment that this was probably the first "amalgam free" class in 2 decades? Heck no! "Clinton" <clintonz@prodigy.net> wrote in message > You may or not now about a college entrance exam called the SAT > in America. Well, since the 1970's a big deal had been made about [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > that their kids were getting dumber. > High copper amalgam2's were also introduced in the 70's. Well, IQ tests are not scaled in this manner, and there has been a constant rise in IQ scores since their introduction of about 1.- 2 points per decade, mercury amalgams or none. Also you said yourself that SAT scores are adjusted by making the tests easier. So there is your explanation of higher test scores. Yes, you have a correlation. But unless you have a correlation with dental mercury exposure you don't have much. Many confounding influences can be found - including mercury and led exposure from automobile exhausts. > "Clinton" <clintonz@prodigy.net> wrote in message > > You may or not now about a college entrance exam called the SAT [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > constant rise in IQ scores since their introduction of about 1.- 2 points > per decade, mercury amalgams or none. REally so we should all be genusises by now (LOL)! > Also you said yourself that SAT scores are adjusted by making the tests > easier. > > So there is your explanation of higher test scores. No, they have increased taking that into account. > Yes, you have a correlation. But unless you have a correlation with > dental mercury exposure you don't have much. Well, it is interesting how no one even explores this issue. My point is merely how perception shapes reality. > Many confounding influences can be found - including mercury and led > exposure from automobile exhausts. And what is even more amazing is that admittly more kids are suffering from learning disorders such as ADHD, etc but STiLL the scores are rising, so pershpas the effect from the switch to composite is much greater than realized i.e., anti-amalgamsits can -play the cofounder game too. > No wonder people decided to open up a moderated dental group if this is the > only answer that people can get from some of the anti-amalgam people. It's > simply no good telling millions of people to have their teeth out as soon as > they need dental fillings, simply because of the possible effects of harmful > substances in dental fillings! There is no need for mercury amalgam fillings as any informed person knows. Alternate metals amalgams are available as well as UV hardened plastics. The plastics work very well in my experience but are not generally recommended for molars. >> No wonder people decided to open up a moderated dental group if this is > the [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > The plastics work very well in my experience but are not generally > recommended for molars. Thanks Scott for this reply. Can you tell me what metals are included in the "non-mercury" amalgams? Are the "non-mercury" amalgams widely available to dentists? Do they cost much the same as the mercury amalgams, and are they as strong? I understand that composite resins can release chemicals such as bisphenol-A and formaldehyde, so I am not sure whether these would be any safer than mercury amalgam fillings? >>> No wonder people decided to open up a moderated dental group if this is >> the [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > dentists? Do they cost much the same as the mercury amalgams, and are they > as strong? Gosh, wouldn't it be great if there was some way that we could search out the cumulative knowledge of mankind, and have the answers delivered instantly to computer screens in our living rooms, over telephones lines perhaps? That would be great! Too bad nothing like that exists. > I understand that composite resins can release chemicals such as bisphenol-A > and formaldehyde, so I am not sure whether these would be any safer than > mercury amalgam fillings? Anything besides lead or thallium would be better than mercury idiot. > Thanks Scott for this reply. Can you tell me what metals are included in the > "non-mercury" amalgams? Are the "non-mercury" amalgams widely available to > dentists? Do they cost much the same as the mercury amalgams, and are they > as strong? > I understand that composite resins can release chemicals such as bisphenol-A > and formaldehyde, so I am not sure whether these would be any safer than > mercury amalgam fillings? They are vastly safer, since mercury is bioaccumulative while formaldehyde is biodegradable. Formaldahyde is also a byproduct of alcohol metabolism, and is consumed in vastly larger quantities than could possibly be produced by a small fixed amount of plastic on the order of the size of a tooth. As to metal alternatives to mercury amalgam include Galloy, Gold inlay and Titanium inlay. NonMetalic fillers include porcelain inlay. All are more costly than mercury amalgam, but none have the same <potential> toxic side effects of mercury exposure. Expert opinion holds that Mercury amalgam is save - although there are recommendations for minimizing exposure to mercury vapour when they are removed. However, the real question is why Mercury amalgam at all when the various alternatives above exist? Cost is not a legitimate issue, since anyone who can afford a Mercury amalgam filling can just as easily afford a resin or Galloy filling. Resin by the way has the advantage of being non-conforming when hardened and hence provides some level of lateral support to the tooth, while malluable metals do not. > > Thanks Scott for this reply. Can you tell me what metals are included in > the [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > > Expert opinion holds that Mercury amalgam is save - What expert? although there are > recommendations for minimizing exposure to mercury vapour when they are removed. Actually this mercury vapor IS exposed to the person throughout the lifetime of the amalgam. Therefore the *mercury amalgam* is NOT safe. http://tinyurl.com/6yyb3 Ned Tijdschr Tandheelkd. 1993 Apr;100(4):179-82. Related Articles, Links [Amalgam. IV. Metabolism of mercury] [Article in Dutch] Gladys S, van Meerbeek B, Vanherle G, Lambrechts P. Afdeling Conserverende Tandheelkunde en Tandheelkundige Materialen, School voor Tandheelkunde, Mondziekten en Kaakchirurgie, Katholieke Universiteit te Leuven, Belgie. After absorption in the body by four ways, each type of mercury undergoes a specific metabolism. Elementary mercury as mercury vapour becomes rapidly oxidized to Hg2+ and, afterwards, is metabolized as an inorganic mercurial compound. From the blood circulation mercury reaches target organs like the kidneys, the central nervous system, the liver and the hypophysis, in which mercury accumulates. The retention time varies by organ and is longest in the brain. Mercury is mainly eliminated with urine and faeces, to a lesser degree with transpiration and mother's milk and sometimes by respiration. Publication Types: Review Review, Tutorial PMID: 11822127 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE] http://www.greenfacts.org/mercury/l-2/mercury-2.htm .1.2. Elemental mercury is also poisonous to the nervous system. Humans are mainly exposed by inhaling vapours. These are absorbed into the body via the lungs and move easily from the bloodstream into the brain. However, when elemental mercury is ingested, little is absorbed into the body. The inhalation of elemental mercury vapours can cause neurological and behavioural disorders, such as tremors, emotional instability, insomnia, memory loss, neuromuscular changes and headaches. They can also harm the kidneys and thyroid. High exposures have also led to deaths. http://www.positivehealth.com/permit/Articles/Dentist/dental.htm Dental Amalgam Fillings is the Number One Source of Mercury in People and Exposure Exceeds Government Health Standards for Inorganic mercury (vapor) Supplied by one of our readers Government agencies and medical studies have found that the number one source of mercury in people is from dental amalgam fillings2-20. Exposure from fillings amounts to from 50 to 90 percent of exposure, with the average being about 80 % of total exposure5-9,12-15,19,20. The studies found that mercury amalgams are unstable due to mercury's low vapor pressure and galvanic action, leaking mercury vapor continuously into the lungs and saliva at levels exceeding health standards. Mercury exposure of most people with fillings was found to exceed government health standards and levels found to cause adverse health effects(see below). The U.S.EPA mercury health standard1 for elemental mercury exposure(vapor) is 0.3 micrograms per cubic meter of air(0.3 ug/M3). For the average adult breathing 20 M3 of air per day2, this amounts to an exposure of 6 micrograms(ug) per day. The corresponding tolerable daily exposure developed in a report for the Canadian Health Agency, Health Canada, is .014 ug/kg body weight or 1 ug/day for average adult2. The U.S. Agency for toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ASTDR) standard (MRL) -for acute inhalation exposure to mercury vapor is 0.02 micrograms Hg/m3, which translates to approx. 1.2 ug/day for the average adult. The range of mercury exposure levels found in people with amalgam fillings by the World Health Organization Scientific Panel on Mercury was 3 to 70 micrograms per day3, with other medical studies finding up to 200 ug/day in gum chewers or people who grind their teeth6,11,16,17,18. The average exposure was above 10 ug/day3-18. The average mercury exposure for a Canadian adult with amalgam fillings was found in the Health Canada study to be 9 ug/day2. In a large German study with 20,000 tested subjects at a University Medical Clinic, the average exposure from fillings was over 10 ug/day and over 50 % of all those with 6 or more amalgam fillings had daily exposure exceeding the EPA health guideline17. Studies have consistently found modern high copper non gamma-two amalgams have greater release of mercury vapor than conventional silver amalgams21-23. Recent studies have concluded that because of the high mercury release levels of modern amalgams, mercury poisoning from amalgam fillings is widespread throughout the population"17,22,18. Common levels found in persons with amalgam fillings are over 10 times the Health Canada TDE, and more than the EPA health standard for mercury vapor. Thus persons with amalgam fillings have levels of intraoral mercury vapor and body exposure levels higher than the level considered to have significant health risk. However, the real question is why Mercury amalgam at all when the > various alternatives above exist? Cost is not a legitimate issue, since > anyone who can afford a Mercury amalgam filling can just as easily afford a [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > and hence provides some level of lateral support to the tooth, while > malluable metals do not. > > Expert opinion holds that Mercury amalgam is save - > What expert? Take your pick. The consensus opinion is that mercury amalgam is safe when in place. There is exposure to mercury - primarily through vapour, but the exposure is at acceptable levels. There are recommendations for minimizing exposure to mercury vapour when they are removed. > Actually this mercury vapor IS exposed to the person throughout the > lifetime of the amalgam. Yes, but not at a level that is thought to be dangerous. > Therefore the *mercury amalgam* is NOT safe. No, you can't conclude that. Just as it is a logical fallicy to conclude that if some is good, more must be better, it is also illogical to conclude that if some is bad, less must be better. Not all exposure risk profiles are continuous. At the limits of exposure one can expect a disjoint responses in some cases. Best estimates put a limit on Mercury exposure. Lower than this the danger to the public is supposedly unmeasurable and irrelvant. > http://tinyurl.com/6yyb3 I appreciate the links, and to put things into perspective, I will not have mercury fillings even though I have dental work. - soon a new root canal - Yummy. I would prefer to have a solid polymer filling than one that slumps - causing more damage down the road, and is potentially damaging. However, this does not alter the fact that the consensus view is that Mercury amalgam fillings are safe. WIth regard to the studies in question. Medical studies are notorious for coming to false conclusions. Meta studies are considerably more trustworthy. > > Thanks Scott for this reply. Can you tell me what metals are included in any safer than > > mercury amalgam fillings? > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > As to metal alternatives to mercury amalgam include Galloy, Gold inlay and > Titanium inlay. Gold foil, I heae is a good material, however please note, while Gold may be a superior material if it is only used, if it is used WITH or next to amalgam in can actually create a strong galvanic reaction which can release Hg. As far as composities, IMO, who knows how safe they are in the future or what chemical will be found to cause birth defects , cancer etc, SO there really is no easy answer to your question. But your way ahead of the game because your aware of these issues. > NonMetalic fillers include porcelain inlay. > > All are more costly than mercury amalgam, but none have the same > <potential> toxic side effects of mercury exposure. > > Expert opinion holds that Mercury amalgam is save - although there are No "Expert opinion does not". Manufacturers have admitted in court that amalgam can severly corrode under certain conditions. All the "expert" opinions in the US are issued by organization run by or closely affiliated with dentists. Reality is that there is no truly impartial panel composed of SCIENTISTS who are expert in materials that has deemed amalgam safe. In Congress a bill has been introduced to BAN amalgam (To see the bill go to http://thomas.loc.gov and type in HR 4011) To hammer the point home even, more, consider that there are warnings issued in Europe for amalgam use and the ADA in court has stated that they have no legal responsbility for the final manufactured product, while the WHO has admitted that some people show unsafe levels of Hg exposure from amalgam. (The who also issues there reports by handholding with supposedly objective "dental federations" and seems to have difficutly issuing a signed report with an author or any real data) What happens is that manufactuers give extensive warning and contraindications to dentists (look at an MSDS sheet). Then they transfer the responsabilty to the dentist through certain "product safe harbor laws" and by classifying them as the manufacturer of the final product. This protects the manufacturer from liability. Then dentists then invoke, the "standard of care" defense which is that they cannot be held accountable for using amalgam, even if it is unsafe, because that is the accepted standard. (Medicine in general does many treatments which are unsafe harmful. If any doctor or dentist could be sued for treatments later found to be toxic, uneffective or harmful they would all eventually be bankrupted as medicine and science moves forward. All they have to concern themselves with is "what everyone else is doing. That's right, the bandwagon approach is hardwired into the legal system.) > As far as composities, IMO, who knows how safe they are in the future > or what [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > because > your aware of these issues. There is such a small volume of composite material and it is solid, so it is very highly unlikely that they pose any harm at all. Mercury on the other hand is mobile even though it is released in very small quantities. The fact that safety procedures are recommended for removal of Mercury amalgam fillings tells us that the dental industry is aware of the danger of exposure, or are overly sensitive to it. Time will tell. > > Expert opinion holds that Mercury amalgam is save - although there are > No "Expert opinion does not". Manufacturers have admitted in court that > amalgam can severly corrode under certain conditions. All the "expert" [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > of SCIENTISTS who are expert in materials that has deemed amalgam > safe. In Congress a bill has been introduced to BAN amalgam I wouldn't use the actions of an obviously corrupt Republican government to justify any position, pro or con. Your rejection to the expert opinion is that it is biased. The fact remains that it is the expert opinion. It's simply your opinion that it's biased. No matter... State your evidence for Bias. > To hammer the point home even, more, consider that there are warnings > issued in Europe for amalgam use and the ADA in court has stated that [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > supposedly objective "dental federations" and seems to have difficutly > issuing a signed report with an author or any real data) I note that warnigs are given but there is no European ban. > What happens is that manufactuers give extensive warning and > contraindications to dentists (look at an MSDS sheet). Then they > transfer the responsabilty to the dentist through certain "product safe > harbor laws" and by classifying them as the manufacturer of the > final product. This protects the manufacturer from liability. Not really relevant to the toxocology studies. > Then dentists then invoke, the "standard of care" defense which is that > they cannot be held accountable for using amalgam, even if it is > unsafe, because that is the accepted standard. These are all wonderful legal complaints but none of this adds up to any net negative toxological effect. You need to prove your case. > The fact that safety procedures are recommended for removal of Mercury > amalgam fillings tells us that the dental industry is aware of the danger of > exposure, or are overly sensitive to it. > > Time will tell. LOL, are you a dentist? how many dentists protect their patients when drilling out an amalgam. > > of SCIENTISTS who are expert in materials that has deemed amalgam > > safe. In Congress a bill has been introduced to BAN amalgam > > I wouldn't use the actions of an obviously corrupt Republican government > to justify any position, pro or con. So when it suits YOU the government is corrupt. Only when dealing with organiztions closely tied to the self interested dental industry do you accept the opinion as unbiased. I.E. you think it is reasonable to label half the governemtn as corrupt, but not a small group of special interests? > Your rejection to the expert opinion is that it is biased. > > The fact remains that it is the expert opinion. NO, "expert opinon" means NIDCR which is run by dentists who are not experts in materials. No truly independent high powered committe with materials expertize has said amalgam is safe. In fact the manufactuerers have all kinds of warnings on the product indicating just the opposite. It's simply your opinion > that it's biased. > > No matter... State your evidence for Bias. 1) No rigours approval process as for drugs, safety is based on a superifical and biased evalution of "scientific literature". I.E the product is grandfathered in and rather than proving safety, a few dentists and engineers at NIDCR/FDA who are really not "experts" at all have chosen the "prove it isn't safe" route, rather than proving it is safe, using the very lack of research they have created as "evidence" for safety 1.2) "expert opinon" in the US contradicts "expert" findings in other countries such as sweden who is now going to ban amalgam 1.4) Numerous funded studies simply were not publishes by the NIDCR! Talk about bias. Dentists give grants to their buddies for incomplete studies and filtered out the "bad stuff". 1.5) All "experts" closely died to the dental industry. All "expert" committes run by or organized by or accountable to dentists! 2) No studies using non-amalgam controls 3) Virtually No large studies using accurate methods of measuring hg burden from amalgam. We know now that urine and blood testing are not meaningful. those that do use more accurate methods such as the tubigen study which employed saliva tests show alarming results. 4) No large studies testing for methyl Hg which can be created by mount / gut bacteria and amalgam. This critical issue has been ignored. So has the fact that this form of Hg is difficult to measure. 5) No animal studies so accurate determinations of hg accumulation from amalgam can be made. 6) No studies with the statistical power to evalutae effects in the 10% most exposed ( this according to the WHO). 7) No studies designed to evalute effects of poorly manufactered amalgam or amalgam placd with excessive galvanic activity. I.E all studies assume a uniform distribution, not a split distribution where their could be a minority of more severly affected individuals. This helps wash out the most severe effect in favor of the typical average amalgam user. The harm done to the avearge user is then evaluted using small studies, usually composed of pre-screended "healthy" volunteers and meaningless blood/urine testing. 8) No adverse event reporting system in place for amalgam. 9) Studies assume all hg will be released continously at a constant rate, not in quickly in large amounts in cases of severe corrosion when Hg can quicly become depleted near the amalgam surface. I..E flawed model/assumptions of amalgam behavior. 10) Studies assume urine testing is valid, which is false, i.e. flawed model of hg uptake from amalgam. in fact fecal testing is the most accurate and no method can accurately determine methyl and elemental concentations in the oral cavity, especally when an amalgam corrodes on the inside surface and leaks into the bone and is taken up into the brain 11) No studies taking into account that high copper amalgams release more Hg, or that older fillings releae less, or that people with fewer fillings may have had root canals, extractions etc and still have high tissue burdens. I.e simplistic and misleading models which assume amalgam surface area is proportional to tissue burden in general and in all sub-amalgam bearing populations. > I note that warnigs are given but there is no European ban. One reason I hear is that dentists made a deal to phase out amalgam use and effectively admit it could be harmful in exchange for not being sued. Sweden will soon be banning amalgam however. > > What happens is that manufactuers give extensive warning and > > contraindications to dentists (look at an MSDS sheet). Then they [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Not really relevant to the toxocology studies. But you have to do the studies, and significantly large studies. Anyone knows that proving harm through epidemology is very difficult. Did they prove cigarettes are harmful yet? However there are many stuides showing harm from amalgam. > LOL, are you a dentist? how many dentists protect their patients when > drilling out an amalgam. I'm not a dentist, and I don't know. Yet that is the recommendation. I suggest you have your dentist follow the recommendations. > > I wouldn't use the actions of an obviously corrupt Republican government > > to justify any position, pro or con. > So when it suits YOU the government is corrupt. Only when dealing with > organiztions closely tied to the self interested dental industry do you The current AmeriKKKan government is by far, the most corrupt AmeriKKKan government in history. This serves the interests of those who seek to destroy the Corrupt AmeriKKKan state. > accept the opinion as unbiased. I.E. you think it is reasonable to > label half the governemtn as corrupt, but not a small group of special > interests? Clearly something like 90% of the corruption stench exudes from the RepubliKKKan party. Science on the other hand does not recognize "special interests". > NO, "expert opinon" means NIDCR which is run by dentists who are > not experts in materials. Neither do they need to be. They simply need to be able to measure mercury exposure levels by sending samples to a lab for analysis. It's not rocket science. Ho Humm.... > > LOL, are you a dentist? how many dentists protect their patients when > > drilling out an amalgam. > > I'm not a dentist, and I don't know. Yet that is the recommendation. I > suggest you have your dentist follow the recommendations. No I don't blindly follow my dentists recommendations, because I am not a brainwashed follower. I think for myself because I have a brian > The current AmeriKKKan government is by far, the most corrupt AmeriKKKan > government in history. This serves the interests of those who seek to > destroy the Corrupt AmeriKKKan state. What did Bush say when Congressman Burton wrote him a letter asking him to investigate the Autism epidemic. He said he was too busy! > > accept the opinion as unbiased. I.E. you think it is reasonable to > > label half the governemtn as corrupt, but not a small group of special [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > RepubliKKKan party. Science on the other hand does not recognize "special > interests". Oh no. The federal government is a cesspoll of special interests. through politicians government agenices can be heavily influenced by lobbiests. Look at 9/11. Even though the area was toxic the EPA declared it was safe! The Judical branch is separated from politics, but that is not the case with the EPA, FDA, NIH, NIDCR, NASA etc > > NO, "expert opinon" means NIDCR which is run by dentists who are > > not experts in materials. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > It's not rocket science. Determination of chronic Hg burden from amalgam is MORE complex than rocket science. Blood and urine testing are inaccurate for a wide variety of reasons. I listed 10 points in answer to your question and what, you can't read...? Scott Nudds wrote: > > I'm not a dentist, and I don't know. Yet that is the recommendation. I > > suggest you have your dentist follow the recommendations. > No I don't blindly follow my dentists recommendations, because I am not > a brainwashed follower. I think for myself because I have a brian That's good. Be an informed consumer and take responsibility for your own mistakes when you chose wrong. > > The current AmeriKKKan government is by far, the most corrupt AmeriKKKan > > government in history. This serves the interests of those who seek to > > destroy the Corrupt AmeriKKKan state. > What did Bush say when Congressman Burton wrote him a letter asking > him to investigate the Autism epidemic. He said he was too busy! Too busy responding to Katrina no doubt. > > Clearly something like 90% of the corruption stench exudes from the > > RepubliKKKan party. Science on the other hand does not recognize "special > > interests". > Oh no. The federal government is a cesspoll of special interests. > through politicians government agenices can be heavily influenced by lobbiests. Oh yes. Compared to the Bush administration there was no corruption in either the Clinton or Carter administrations. But similar levels of corruption in both the Bush, Reagan and Nixon administrations. Learn some history. > Look at 9/11. Even though the area was toxic the EPA declared it was > safe! All Republicans are liars. I have never met one who wasn't a perpetual liar. > Determination of chronic Hg burden from amalgam is MORE complex than > rocket science. Blood and urine testing are inaccurate for a wide > variety of reasons. I listed 10 points in answer to your question and > what, you can't read...? I can. I can even extract a cadaver brain. >> Thanks Scott for this reply. Can you tell me what metals are included in > the [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > produced > by a small fixed amount of plastic on the order of the size of a tooth. What about bisphenol-A, it seems just as bad as mercury amalgam: http://www.cbgnetwork.org/1267.html http://www.ourstolenfuture.org/NewScience/oncompounds/bisphenola/bpauses.htm http://www.ourstolenfuture.org/Myths/vomsaal.htm So much for white composite resin fillings being safer than amalgam fillings! > What about bisphenol-A, it seems just as bad as mercury amalgam: Wow, the crackpot learns how to use a search engine! > http://www.cbgnetwork.org/1267.html > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > So much for white composite resin fillings being safer than amalgam > fillings! Mercury is toxic at any level you crackpot! http://www.bisphenol-a.org/ If you have a problem with it, don't use epoxy or polycarbonate. http://cosmic.lifeform.org > What about bisphenol-A, it seems just as bad as mercury amalgam: > > http://www.cbgnetwork.org/1267.html http://www.ourstolenfuture.org/NewScience/oncompounds/bisphenola/bpauses.htm > http://www.ourstolenfuture.org/Myths/vomsaal.htm > > So much for white composite resin fillings being safer than amalgam > fillings! What about Bisphenol-A? Is that released by the poymers used in dental fillings? If so you have provided no evidence of it, as the links you provide do not mention fillings at all. Do you just presume that fillings magically exude this chemical? And if so, at what rate do you guess these chemicals are exuded? What is the exposure that you imagine? and finally why are you inventing these things? > They are vastly safer, since mercury is bioaccumulative while formaldehyde > is biodegradable. Formaldahyde is also a byproduct of alcohol metabolism, [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Expert opinion holds that Mercury amalgam is save - "Expert" opinion does not hold that amalgam is safe. The ADA doesn't take ANY responsability for amalgam. Amalgam was never approved but grandfathered in. In fact there is a Bill to Ban amalgam in congress with 14 co-sponsers and for every expert that says amalgam is safe you can find another who says it is not. That is so conformist to use the term "expert opinion". has a committe of experts in materials science deemed amalgam safe? No. Furthermore it has been admitted in court by the manufacturer that amalgam can severly corrode, making the above statement even more ridiculous. > recommendations for minimizing exposure to mercury vapour when they are > removed. No, AMALGAM constantly releases Hg. It is the LARGEST source of elemental Hg in humans. However, the real question is why Mercury amalgam at all when the > various alternatives above exist? Because Billions of people already had amalgam put in their mouths! Besides who knows what problems there are with Galloy. I heard of it, but I doubt it is in common use. > "Expert" opinion does not hold that amalgam is safe. Actually it does. > The ADA doesn't take ANY responsability for amalgam. Amalgam was never > approved but grandfathered in. As a result of lack of apparent harm. > In fact there is a Bill to Ban amalgam in congress > with 14 co-sponsers and for every expert that says amalgam is safe you > can find another who says it is not. Woo Hoo, a bill in congress. Was this included in the Bill to build that Alaskan bridge to nowhere? Or the bill to make the week of Sept 14, National Seamonkey week? Excuse me if I am not impressed with a bill being presented by a corrupt congress to a corrupt congress. As to parity, there is none of course. If even 1/10th of the medical community was holding the opinion that mercury amalgam was a significant health risk, then it would be banned. > No, AMALGAM constantly releases Hg. It is the LARGEST source of > elemental Hg in humans. It does, but only mouth breathers take in significant amounts. As to the largest source.... It is the largest exposure most people with fillings have, unless they eat a lot of fish. > However, the real question is why Mercury amalgam at all when the > > various alternatives above exist? > Because Billions of people already had amalgam put in their mouths! > Besides who knows what problems there are with Galloy. I heard of it, > but I doubt it is in common use. I actually made reference to it earlier. You silly boy you. > > "Expert" opinion does not hold that amalgam is safe. > > Actually it does. No, the WHO has not reached that conclusion. Are you a dentist? > > The ADA doesn't take ANY responsability for amalgam. Amalgam was never > > approved but grandfathered in. > > As a result of lack of apparent harm. Wrong again, I'm beginning to sense a pattern. As a result of the fact that they "owe no care or responsability" for the final manufactured product. > > In fact there is a Bill to Ban amalgam in congress > > with 14 co-sponsers and for every expert that says amalgam is safe you [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Alaskan bridge to nowhere? Or the bill to make the week of Sept 14, > National Seamonkey week? Listen jerk, why don't you say who and where you are from? Are you a dentist? Answer, then I'll be glad to return your smartass comments in kind. > Excuse me if I am not impressed with a bill being presented by a corrupt > congress to a corrupt congress. > > As to parity, there is none of course. If even 1/10th of the medical > community was holding the opinion that mercury amalgam was a significant > health risk, then it would be banned. False, your pattern of ignorance continues. many dentists, in fact many thousands feel amalgam could be a health risk. What controls amalgam usage is the FDA. Doctors and Dentists cannot ban a product. Congress can, but when presented with that evidence you ignore it. > > No, AMALGAM constantly releases Hg. It is the LARGEST source of > > elemental Hg in humans. > > It does, but only mouth breathers take in significant amounts. LISTEN CAREFULLY. Amalgam is scientifically proven to be the LARGEST source of elemental Hg in everyone, regardless of whether they are "mouth breathers" or not. This is because amalgam releases Hg into saliva. The fact that you would even make such a statement show what an idiot you are. The ADA is keen to show that most hg is swallowed and exrected and the rest is exhaled. I read the one paper that made that claim written by their henchman/scientist Mackert! It's a bunch of bullshit filled with self serving assumptions and unsubstantiated measurement hypothesys which are not subjected to any real tests or scrutiny and is aimed at trashing REAL research. Meanwhile look at the mass of reasearch showing the huge amounts of hg people excrete from amalgam. I guess, "chuckle" the ADA's scientists can't produce any of their own research, nor can they do REAL autopsy studies in mice for fear of what they would REALLY find so all they can do is try to argue that most Hg from amalgam isn't "absorbed" (i.e its exhaled and/or shitted out) and hope the public buys it and that idiots like you repeat this lame argument. As to the > largest source.... It is the largest exposure most people with fillings > have, unless they eat a lot of fish. I don't think your very rational. As stated by the WHO and in numerous research papers, hg exposure due to amalgam will reach the "safe" threshold in some amalgam bearers. But I WOULD highly recommend copper amalgam for you. > > > "Expert" opinion does not hold that amalgam is safe. > > > > Actually it does. > No, the WHO has not reached that conclusion. Are you a dentist? For the third time, I am not a dentist, neither do I need be to evaluate the literature on mercury. As for the WHO, have they done a meta-study? What was the result? > > > The ADA doesn't take ANY responsability for amalgam. Amalgam was never > > > approved but grandfathered in. > > > > As a result of lack of apparent harm. > Wrong again, I'm beginning to sense a pattern. As a result of the fact > that they "owe no care or responsability" for the final manufactured > product. What was the evidence of harm when as you claim amalgams were "grandfathered in"? Scott Nudds wrote: > > Woo Hoo, a bill in congress. Was this included in the Bill to build that > > Alaskan bridge to nowhere? Or the bill to make the week of Sept 14, > > National Seamonkey week? > "Clinton" <clintonz@prodigy.net> wrote > Listen jerk, why don't you say who and where you are from? Are > you a dentist? Answer, then I'll be glad to return your smartass > comments in kind. The U.S. congress - dominated by Republicans is completely and without question, now the most corrupt AmeriKKKan institution outside of the White House. Lying and misrepresentation is epidemic. I don't give a rats a.s what is said or not said by congenital liars in the U.S. government. > > Excuse me if I am not impressed with a bill being presented by a corrupt > > congress to a corrupt congress. > > > > As to parity, there is none of course. If even 1/10th of the medical > > community was holding the opinion that mercury amalgam was a significant > > health risk, then it would be banned. > "Clinton" <clintonz@prodigy.net> wrote > False, your pattern of ignorance continues. many dentists, in fact many > thousands feel amalgam could be a health risk. Thousands out of tens of thousands, and could be rather than is. > "Clinton" <clintonz@prodigy.net> wrote > What controls amalgam usage is the FDA. Doctors and Dentists cannot ban a > product. Congress can, but when presented with that evidence you ignore it. No, I just take it in context. > "Clinton" <clintonz@prodigy.net> wrote > > It does, but only mouth breathers take in significant amounts. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Hg in everyone, regardless of whether they are "mouth breathers" or > not. Incorrect. It isn't a source of any mercury for people who don't have mercury amalgam fillings. Hence it is not a source of elemental mercury for EVERYONE, let alone the LARGEST source. It's statements like that which are obviously wrong, and obviously calculated by someone to foster their agenda which makes you less than credible. > "Clinton" <clintonz@prodigy.net> wrote > This is because amalgam releases Hg into saliva. The fact that you would > even make such a statement show what an idiot you are. The ADA is keen > to show that most hg is swallowed and exrected and the rest is exhaled. And virtually all swallowed mercury is excreted. > "Clinton" <clintonz@prodigy.net> wrote > I don't think your very rational. As stated by the WHO and in numerous > research papers, hg exposure due to amalgam will reach the "safe" > threshold in some amalgam bearers. But I WOULD highly recommend > copper amalgam for you. Too maluable and too difficult to install if it's not maluable. I'll stick to polymers. > > > > "Expert" opinion does not hold that amalgam is safe. > > > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > As for the WHO, have they done a meta-study? What was the result? Their statement has been posted here many times. Their methodology is strange to say the least. Search something like WHO, Maths Berlin NOYB > > > > The ADA doesn't take ANY responsability for amalgam. Amalgam was never > > > > approved but grandfathered in. > > > > > > As a result of lack of apparent harm. Gee, wouldn't that be nice to do that for drugs! The idea is to prove safety, not lack of harm. Many products appear safe unitl they are put under close scrutiny. As for what the state of research was when amalgam was grandfathered in, well they didn't even figure out that amalgam is the largest source of hg in amalgam bearers until recently. > What was the evidence of harm when as you claim amalgams were > "grandfathered in"? Keep in mind that at that time the ADA probably claimed that amalgam was inert so I would say the level of research was non-existant. I do not know what studies had been done at that time. > The U.S. congress - dominated by Republicans is completely and without > question, now the most corrupt AmeriKKKan institution outside of the White > House. . You forgot the media! > I don't give a rats a.s what is said or not said by congenital liars in > the U.S. government. But you think that government agencies will be honest? Who appoints people to head the various government agencies? I hope not the liars in congress! . > And virtually all swallowed mercury is excreted. That is what they say, but the fact is that the amalgam can release hg into the jawbone and up into the brain. The truth is no one really knows where all of it goes because it's hard to know how much is coming off the amalgam in the first place and to know how much is absorbed. >>> No wonder people decided to open up a moderated dental group if this is >> the [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] >dentists? Do they cost much the same as the mercury amalgams, and are they >as strong? An amalgam, by definition, is an alloy of mercury and some other metal. That's all you need to know when talking to an anti-amalgam nutcase. The use of the expression "mercury amalgam" is also a good indicator of either stupidity or ignorance, as such a tautology (if it existed) would be liquid at body temperature, being a mixture of mercury and mercury. >I understand that composite resins can release chemicals such as bisphenol-A >and formaldehyde, so I am not sure whether these would be any safer than >mercury amalgam fillings? > SignaturePeter Bowditch aa #2243 The Millenium Project http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles Australian Council Against Health Fraud http://www.acahf.org.au Australian Skeptics http://www.skeptics.com.au To email me use my first name only at ratbags.com > >>> No wonder people decided to open up a moderated dental group if this is > >> the [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > (if it existed) would be liquid at body temperature, being a mixture of mercury and > mercury. You a pathetic loser. You have no aptitude for science and all you can do is comment on little "englishisms" and high falutin sounding words like tautology to componsate. Before you use the word "anti-amalgam nutcuse" when peoples lives have been DESTROYED by amalgam whose use has been perpuated by ignorant grunts like you, you ignorant *%$%, you and all the scientifically illeterate quackwatchers should take a JEROME MERCURY METER and measure the HIGH VAPOR hg levels in your mouth. Yes it took the telescope to convince your dimwitted ancestors that that the Sun didn't revolve around the Earth (Even then many argued you couldn't tell for sure), and it'll take a JEROME MERCURY METER and direct measurements to convince your scientific illiterate brain of scientific reality. Amalgam is not a stable substance, EVEN under ideal conditions. Measure it yourself with a JEROME meter you ignorant $#$%. PS- Yes I was very good in math/sxience maybe as good as almost anybody but in general curricula there were people smarter than me. I didn't get a 4.0 at college or skip 2 years. I'm wasn't on the national math team. I'm no prodigy. This amalgam stuff isn't that difficult and if I can understand it anybody should be able to understanded it. Yet you and others keep making the same stupid and illogical arguments over and over and over. Like you never learn or you can't learn. It's really unbelievable to me. Maybe I am a genius if I'm the only one who can understand this, but I can't be that smart and I hope your not that stupid and certainly this isn't just about pure physics. Surely commsense plays a part??. How can understanding the inherent possability of instability in amalgam and the toxicity of Hg be so difficult? Maybe your not thinking visually, you need to have the solid state matrix's and chemical interactions drawn out or visually simulted in a computer program so you can "see" them. Maybe all this talk about vapor pressure, metalic bonds and phases, is just "words", it means nothing to you. People, Don't you get it , amalgam is not a stable substance, even under ideal conditions (lack of severe corrosion, acids and good mixing). You can measure the Hg coming off it. It gives of large amounts of Hg/vapor 24/7, even if its sitting by itself outside of the mouth, and the manufacturer admits in court amalgams can severly corrode. This is fact not fiction. Most people get by because it is a "relatively" low release rate and the amalgam is placed pretty well and not near any other dissimilar metals, but it is not reality to state or think that Hg can' come out of amalgam, sometimes in rather large quantities I know some people used to copy software in the 80's. I asked one expert how that could be when I was a kid. I.E. can't they figure out a way to keep the information in the computer (prevent copying). No he said, there is always a way to get the information out. Same with amalgam, THERE is a way that the Hg can come out, even if it is retained in the amalgam most of the time, THERE IS a way for it to leave the amalgam, the Hg NOT locked in or protected indefinietly JUST becaue its been mixed with silver. Mixing Hg with an alloy , copper , zinc Ag, is not a guarantee that the hg will stay there throughout the life of the amalgam anymore than write protecting a program will "guarantee" that the program can't be copied, even though it WILL slow the process down. > PS- > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > This amalgam stuff isn't that difficult and if I can understand it > anybody should be able to understanded it. Can you tell us whether the type of mercury in amalagam fillings, that is said to be released in the body, is actually subsequently excreted by the body? I was interested in the statement on this site that the stomach successfully absorbs and excretes about 90% of any mercury ingested through food. http://www.generationrescue.org/mercury_myths6.html "If you take those 28 cans of tuna and distill it down to mercury content, you would have 840 micrograms of mercury (30 micrograms per can). Keep in mind that the stomach successfully absorbs and excretes about 90% of any mercury ingested through food, leaving only about 10% of the mercury to be absorbed into the bloodstream. Since the mercury in vaccines is injected directly into the bloodstream where 100% of it can be absorbed by the organs, you would need an additional 252 cans of tuna to get the equivalent amount of mercury into the bloodstream for a total of 280 cans of tuna and 8,400 micrograms of methlymercury." Also from this site: http://www.mercurypoisoned.com/dental_personnel.html "The total discharge into sewers from dental amalgam at individual homes and businesses is almost as large as that from dental offices, since the average person with amalgam fillings excretes in body waste approx. 100 micrograms per day of mercury." So approximately what percentage of mercury that the body absorbs from amalgam fillings is retained by the body? It is also said that selenium and Vitamin E help to reduce mercury toxicity. http://www.nutraingredients.com/news/ng.asp?n=65560-omega-selenium-merthylmercury So we need to be aware of mercury from all sources and how the body reacts to it and how it may excrete it and / or reduce its toxicity. >> PS- >> [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > successfully absorbs and excretes about 90% of any mercury ingested through > food. And since mercury is toxic in *ANY* quantity, you still be f.cked. Why are you such a f.cking idiot? Were you just born that way, or did your daddy teach you how to be butt f.cking dumb? Was it nature, or nurture? Oh, I get it, your daddy wasn't your daddy, but your daddy didn't know. That explains some of it, the mercury in yo mamma's system explains some more of it, and the mercury and lead in your system explains yet more of your complete ignorance of physics, chemistry and biology. And then on top of all that, there are the PCB's. You be f.cked. Like I said, it is vitally important that you donate your body to science, that is the only contribution you'll make. http://cosmic.lifeform.org > And since mercury is toxic in *ANY* quantity, you still be f.cked. It is entirely unclear if this is true. But even if true, there are still reasonable levels of exposure. What that level is, is up to you. As I said, I won't have amalgam fillings, and that is my informed choice. However, until the consensus opinion holds that there is some legitimate proven danger, then I wouldn't necessarily remove it from the arketplace. - Unless - there were alternatives that were more or equally cost effective. > > This amalgam stuff isn't that difficult and if I can understand it > > anybody should be able to understanded it. > > Can you tell us whether the type of mercury in amalagam fillings, that is > said to be released in the body, is actually subsequently excreted by the > body? Sure, everybody agrees (anti and pro amalgam) that of the Hg that is released by amalgam a large part is excreted. Most moves though the gastrointestinal tract as elemental hg and is excreted via the feces, maybe as much as 80-90% of the total amount. I was interested in the statement on this site tha |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message