Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
Home
Discussion Groups
General
GeneralCardiologyVisionDentistryPharmacyLaboratoryNutritionAlternative
Diseases and Disorders
AIDSAlzheimer'sArthritisAsthmaCancerBreast CancerDiabetesEpilepsyGlaucomaHepatitisHerpesLupusProstate BPHProstate CancerProstatitisSinusitisTinnitus

Medical Forum / General / Dentistry / April 2006

Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

There is Volcano's!!!!....

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
Clinton - 02 Apr 2006 17:11 GMT
Question:

Why doesn't the earth cool off?

SMD group answer: There is Volcano's so it can't.....LOL

Okay I've been enough of a jerk for one day.
Joel344 - 02 Apr 2006 19:14 GMT
Its cooled off here ,,, ,where ya located?

Signature

Joel344

Clinton - 02 Apr 2006 23:12 GMT
> Its cooled off here ,,, ,where ya located?

Huh, I understand that if you file a lawsuit against the ADA you
can subpeona all outspoken dental experts within 150 miles!
Clinton - 02 Apr 2006 23:30 GMT
> Its cooled off here ,,, ,where ya located?

I haven't actually seen an Amist buggy near here yet, although they did
set up
a store. I wonder if they come by carriage or car?
Sue - 02 Apr 2006 20:20 GMT
Clinton Wrote:
> Question:
>
> Okay I've been enough of a jerk for one day.

That is the most intelligent statement I have heard from Clinton
today.. :D

Signature

Sue

letsconnect - 02 Apr 2006 20:35 GMT
> Question:
>
> Why doesn't the earth cool off?
>
> SMD group answer: There is Volcano's so it can't.....LOL

Could you explain to the group your own views on volcanic activity? I'm
not sure I quite understand what you're trying to say, either in this
or previous postings.
What exactly is your point?
Clinton - 02 Apr 2006 20:55 GMT
> > Question:
> >
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
> or previous postings.
> What exactly is your point?

Well I do have the benifit of taking heat transfer courses but
basically
the question was presented to me, as "why doesn't the earth cool off"
You see because of the property of diffusion, thermodynamics etc heat
energy which is  concentrated in a central location will disperse over
time
to colder areas.  If you had a thermos for example which contained a
very
hot liquid but was insulted (analogues to the earth's crust and outer
layes
which insulates the molten core) you would expect that liquid to
gradually cool off unless the insulator was perfect.

I couldn't come up with an answer after thinking about it for a few
seconds
and also realized that their is no reason WHY the Earth wouldn't cool
off.

Well, the questioner then informs me that it is because the Earths core
is radioactive!! I didn't doublecheck but as you can see, like with the

Sun their is some fundamental process generating heat in the earth's
core to replace all the energy being radiated out from the Earth's
surface.

Interestingly if true the earth's core does seem to have many
properties
of recent dental materials, radioactivity and hg, which makes wonder
if anyone has thought of lava fillings.......
letsconnect - 02 Apr 2006 21:31 GMT
> Interestingly if true the earth's core does seem to have many
> properties
> of recent dental materials, radioactivity and hg, which makes wonder
> if anyone has thought of lava fillings.......

No, only of lava crowns and bridges :-)
letsconnect - 02 Apr 2006 21:33 GMT
> Well I do have the benifit of taking heat transfer courses but
> basically
[quoted text clipped - 20 lines]
> core to replace all the energy being radiated out from the Earth's
> surface.

I'm still not sure what any of this has to do with the amalgam
"controversy" (apart from the original point of mercury occuring
naturally in the environment).
Clinton - 02 Apr 2006 21:52 GMT
> I'm still not sure what any of this has to do with the amalgam
> "controversy" (apart from the original point of mercury occuring
> naturally in the environment).

Because we don't tend to question something when we see it.
This means that we are not objective in our analysis. Someone
who was only thinking logically, would question why the Earth
hasn't cooled down. I never questioned it when I was in school.

Similarly we don't question the underlying science of amalgam
because we are supposedly already given the "obvious" answer.
Millions of people use amalgam and "there is Volacanos" so
why question what really lies beneath it?
letsconnect - 02 Apr 2006 22:28 GMT
> Similarly we don't question the underlying science of amalgam
> because we are supposedly already given the "obvious" answer.
> Millions of people use amalgam and "there is Volacanos" so
> why question what really lies beneath it?

I don't really know what you're trying to say. You've said in other
threads that amalgam fillings don't affect the majority of people, but
that there is a very small minority of people whom it does affect. I
don't think any dentist would argue this fact.
But it is also true that a very small minority of people have bad
reactions to, say, resin fillings.

I'm not entirely sure what your aims are - are you trying to achieve a
"ban on amalgams", or trying to warn people that amalgam fillings
aren't tolerated well by a small minority of the population? If it's
the latter, there are already tons of websites on the subject available
on the internet, and the amalgam "controversy" has a presence
disproportional to the actual number of people affected. Posting on
this newsgroup is not going to have any measureable impact. In fact,
I'd wager a bet that being swamped by anti-amalgam posts has the exact
opposite effect on people who might otherwise be quite willing to take
your message on board.

A lot of dentists, including many on this newsgroup, eschew amalgams
for reasons other "toxicity" (e. g. environmental concerns, lack of
customer demand, less removal of tooth structure, etc.). On the other
hand, amalgams take less time to place thus making them cheaper (an
important socio-economic aspect) and have an excellent track record
with regards to longevity, so there's arguments to be made either way.

The problem with "amalgam poisoning" and similar concepts is that they
attract a significant number of people who have other problems (either
of a medical or psychiatric nature) who then attribute all their
ailments to one perceived cause. Once the perceived cause is eliminated
(e. g. amalgam fillings removed), they're fine for a while (the placebo
effect), but then the "symptoms" return and the sufferer then has to
look for another perceived cause (e. g. root canals or NICO, if they
want to stay within the dental field).

Of course, there are genuine cases like yourself, but many people are
inclined to seek for explanations of their ailments (which may not
always be of a medical nature) in pseudoscientific quack solutions,
which apply to almost everyone (for example, most people of a certain
generation have amalgam fillings - therefore, any mood swings or
problems with attention for example could ostensibly be "caused" by
amalgams).
Clinton - 02 Apr 2006 23:07 GMT
> > Similarly we don't question the underlying science of amalgam
> > because we are supposedly already given the "obvious" answer.
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> threads that amalgam fillings don't affect the majority of people, but
> that there is a very small minority of people whom it does affect.

No I didn't say that.
I
> don't think any dentist would argue this fact.
> But it is also true that a very small minority of people have bad
> reactions to, say, resin fillings.

This is the small minority of people are allergic to reaction argument.
Truth is that some amalgams can corrode severly and have Hg from
them converted into more toxic methylated forms. There have been
1000's of adverse reaction reports and dozens of lawsuits. However it
is true most are only affected by lower doses of elemental Hg from
"typically behaved amalgam" and that is a whole nother topic.

> I'm not entirely sure what your aims are - are you trying to achieve a
> "ban on amalgams", or trying to warn people that amalgam fillings
> aren't tolerated well by a small minority of the population?

No. I have even posted research on the instabiilty of high copper
amalgams.
You don't undertand that the structue, corrosin release rate of an
amalgam
is highly variable, regardless of what the average rates are or the
standard
devation. For example in a letter published in Sweden or Norway to
the dental authorities in the 90's it was acknowledged that worse case
exposure from amalgam could be 300 times "safe levels" for elemental Hg
alone.

> the latter, there are already tons of websites on the subject available
> on the internet, and the amalgam "controversy" has a presence
> disproportional to the actual number of people affected.

That is debatable. Keep in mind that the biggest issue is "low-dose"
Hg exposure from amalgam. After all amalgam is now admitted to
be the largest source of elemental Hg. This literally affects billions
of people. "Who knows what the effect is?" -

>Posting
> this newsgroup is not going to have any measureable impact. In fact,
> I'd wager a bet that being swamped by anti-amalgam posts has the exact
> opposite effect on people who might otherwise be quite willing to take
> your message on board.

I agree that the anti-amalgamist message isn't presented in the most
favorable light always. Many people come here because they have
been poisoned and run into an iron wall of denial. It's the only place
they can hold dentists accountable except filing an expensive lawsuit.
(Keep in mind that if a well placed amalgam posions someone that
is considered legal because it is the "standard of care")
The reason some people continue to post is the reckless disinformation
and denial they find on this list.

> A lot of dentists, including many on this newsgroup, eschew amalgams
> for reasons other "toxicity" (e. g. environmental concerns, lack of
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
> of a medical or psychiatric nature) who then attribute all their
> ailments to one perceived cause.

I think it would be a sad commentary on the intelligengence of most
people
if they could not separate out the arguments being made on both sides
and
all discussion had to be censored or "skewed" to the pro-amalgam side,
just
to prevent an anticipated action. One could justify invading a country
because of what may happen in the future, but is that rational?
Furthermore
the dentists are posting heavily skewed misinformation which is being
picked
up and repeated by people who trust they know what they are talking
about.
Anti-amalgamists will admit that most amalgams are not causing obvious
symptoms of toxicity, but the dentists never admit amalgam can severly
corrode or breakdown even when presented with 1000's of adverse
reaction
reports , lawsuits, bans. dozens of patient accounts on this group and
manufacturers admissions of amalgam instability on warning labels and
in court!

> Once the perceived cause is eliminated
> (e. g. amalgam fillings removed), they're fine for a while (the placebo
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
> problems with attention for example could ostensibly be "caused" by
> amalgams).

I have said many times that removing amalgam will not "cure" chronic
diseases in most situations. However I really don't know what the
benifit
of amalgam removal is for most people anyway. I know someone who
was pro-amalgam and had a lot of amalgam crown buildup removed for
dental reasons that reported that was the first winter they hadn't
gotten
sick. I.e it is difficult to guage the subtle effects of Hg on things
like
the immune system even if amalgam removal is not a cure for a chronic
health problem.
Joel344 - 02 Apr 2006 23:10 GMT
Another condition is volcanicitis .......

Signature

Joel344

 
Sign In
Join
My Latest Posts
My Monitored Threads
My Blog
My Photo Gallery
My Profile
My Homepage

Start New Thread
Enable EMail Alerts
Rate this Thread



©2008 Advenet LLC   Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.