 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / General / Dentistry / October 2006Scientific Progress in Dental Schools?
It became apparent some years ago that students in dental schools were being taught to believe that dissimilar metals in contact with each other are only able to generate an electrical current if they become involved in an electrolytic reaction. See: http://book.boot.users.btopenworld.com/letter-05.htm Has this error been redressed? Or are dentists still being miseducated? Keith P Walsh PS, for an elementary description of the thermoelectric effect go to: http://book.boot.users.btopenworld.com/thermo2.htm This is a lie. It is not part of the dental curriculum in any dental school. Also this statement is false. I have a degree in chemistry. 2 different types of metals in contact with each other will produce a net potential voltage that is how dry cell batteries work. The metals do not need to be in an electrolytic reaction to produce this voltage. This can be calculated from the physical data on the periodic table of the 2 or more metal elements in question. > It became apparent some years ago that students in dental schools were > being taught to believe that dissimilar metals in contact with each [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > http://book.boot.users.btopenworld.com/thermo2.htm > This is a lie. It is not part of the dental curriculum in any dental > school. > Also this statement is false. Is it possible for something to be a lie and not be false? > This is a lie. It is not part of the dental curriculum in any dental > school. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > This can be calculated from the physical data on the periodic table of > the 2 or more metal elements in question. I already know that the assertion that, "dissimilar metals in contact with each other are only able to generate an electrical current if they become involved in an electrolytic reaction", is false. That is in fact the point that I am making. And this is consistent with my referring to the teaching of this falsehood in dental schools as an "error". However, my own assertion that, "it became apparent some years ago that students in dental schools were being taught to believe (this falsehood)", is not a lie. It is a generalisation based on the evidence presented at: http://book.boot.users.btopenworld.com/letter-05.htm This evidence refers to a letter from Dr David Brown, a dental materials scientist who used to teach at a prominent London dental school, and who in 1992 wrote the following: "Thank you for your letter regarding the voltage produced whenever metals are in contact. Whenever such systems exist an electrical circuit also exists, and for a current to flow this circuit needs to be complete. Even on the microscopic scale such circuits always exist, and what we always need are two electrodes ( an anode and a cathode), an electrolyte (solution of ions) and an electrically conducting connection between the electrodes" This statement is scientifically inaccurate in that asserts that dissimilar metals in contact with each other require an electrolyte to be present in order for them to generate an electric current. I would therefore invite you to agree with me that Dr Brown was in error. Keith P Walsh THis is the most pathetic waste of bandwidth I have ever witnessed. Don't you have a reality show to watch or something? PS: It is crap, not part of the curriculum, and who gives a darn?? > > This is a lie. It is not part of the dental curriculum in any dental > > school. [quoted text clipped - 43 lines] > > Keith P Walsh > THis is the most pathetic waste of bandwidth I have ever witnessed. That's only because you're new around here! Steve  SignatureMark & Steven Bornfeld DDS http://www.dentaltwins.com Brooklyn, NY 718-258-5001 > > THis is the most pathetic waste of bandwidth I have ever witnessed. > > That's only because you're new around here! > > Steve Steve hits the center of the target yet again! Funny!! T > THis is the most pathetic waste of bandwidth I have ever witnessed. > Don't you have a reality show to watch or something? PS: It is crap, > not part of the curriculum, and who gives a darn?? I think that you're just having difficulty coming to terms with your own ignorance. (You're not by any chance a dentist who has been misled into believing that dissimilar metals in contact with each other are only able to generate electrical potentials if they are involved in an electrolytic reaction are you?) Metals, mixtures of metals and dissimilar metals in contact with each other are able to dissipate electrical energy to their surroundings as a result of their thermoelectric and electromagnetic behavior, and it is not necessary for there to be any electrolysis taking place in either case. In view of the fact that children's teeth are filled with metal amalgams (which may be accurately described as inhomogeneous mixtures of dissimilar metals), I believe that the electromagnetic and thermoelectric properties of dental amalgams ought to have been measured, and their electromagnetic and thermoelectric behaviors ought to have been investigated scientifically. Would you not agree? Keith P Walsh PS, some enquiries concerning the electrical properties of dental amalgams can be found at: http://book.boot.users.btopenworld.com/intro.htm - and an elementary description of the thermoelectric effect is at: http://book.boot.users.btopenworld.com/thermo2.htm children with amalgam have grown up already and exfoliated those decidious teeth new children are not getting amalgam anymore so what is the relevance of your proposed experiment???? That's like having an experiment to study social behaviour of cavemen. what relevance is it to today's world. Sounds like a waste of research funds to me. > > THis is the most pathetic waste of bandwidth I have ever witnessed. > > Don't you have a reality show to watch or something? PS: It is crap, [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > > http://book.boot.users.btopenworld.com/thermo2.htm > children with amalgam have grown up already and exfoliated those > decidious teeth new children are not getting amalgam anymore so what is > the relevance of your proposed experiment???? That's like having an > experiment to study social behaviour of cavemen. what relevance is it > to today's world. Sounds like a waste of research funds to me. Most children have all of their "adult" teeth by the time they are around 11 or 12 years old. If they don't look after them (a failing of most children in some parts of our society) then they are likely to have their first amalgam dental fillings installed in their "adult" teeth when they are young teenagers around the age of only 13 or 14. It is widely recognised that many children (or "teenagers") of this age begin to display symptoms of some degree of "emotional" disturbance, and whilst it has become generally accepted that this is the natural consequence of the process of physical changes commonly referred to as "puberty", this acceptance may have been significantly influenced by the unscientific contention that "it can't be anything else". Furthermore, if scientifically conducted investigations were to demonstrate that the electrical potentials generated by metal amalgam dental fillings are able to dissipate electrical energy through the nerves in people's heads (remember that amalgam fillings are able to generate electrical potentials with magnitudes of up to 350 millivolts, whilst the resting potential of the human neurological synapse has a magnitude of around only 70 millivolts), then this would indicate that there is in fact another possible explanation as to why many teenagers begin to display "problematic" behavior. We have all grown up in societies where a large proportion of adults have had electric batteries placed in their teeth, starting from an age which roughly coincides with puberty. Perhaps the problems caused by amalgam fillings are not restricted to a small number of cases of "allergic reaction" at all, perhaps they are in fact representative of one of the biggest technological errors that the human race has ever visited upon itself and its children. Electric batteries in teeth. Anyway, the only scientific way to find out for certain would be to carry out those experimental investigations. Keith P Walsh By the way, you never said whether or not you agree that Dr Brown was wrong. Can I assume that you do? Keith P Walsh you must be a freaking idiot because you do not read what I said. amalgam is on its way out. it is becoming extinct like the dinosaurs. hardly anybody in putting in amalgam anymore and pretty soon it will be no one because the cost of amalgam has gone up due to a decrease in demand since patients are interested in cosmetics. Dispite the fact that composite has bis-gamma which is a a known carcinogen. You are better off trying to find a replacement material than to dwell about something that is not being used anymore. You want to do this amalgam research do it with your own life savings because no one is stupid enough to finance it for you. There are more imporatant things out there that need to be researched such as nerve regeneration. Who gives a crap about amalgam other than you. Finally for someone that has not gone to dental school, you are really talking out of your a.s about telling people who went to dental school what is being taught there. For all we know this source you used may have gotten the story wrong because he was a poor excuse for a student. Dental students are taught nothing about electrical current between metals in dental materials get that through your thick head. This information is a bunch of garbage. You want to discuss this you should address your concerns to the physics forum. The only thing dental students are taught in dental materials is how to mix alginate/dental stone/pvs etc... wrote: > > children with amalgam have grown up already and exfoliated those > > decidious teeth new children are not getting amalgam anymore so what is [quoted text clipped - 47 lines] > > Can I assume that you do? > Keith P Walsh > [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > physics forum. The only thing dental students are taught in dental > materials is how to mix alginate/dental stone/pvs etc... Well, I found the following under the heading of "Dental Amalgam Properties" in some lecture notes at the website of the University of North Carolina, School of Dentistry: ****************************************************** D. Chemical Properties: 2. Electrochemical Corrosion: a. Types: (all occur at same time) (1) Galvanic Corrosion: (e.g., restoration touching Au crown) (2) Structure-Sensitive Corrosion: (local galvanic corrosion) (3) Crevice Corrosion: (concentration cell corrosion) (4) Stress Corrosion: b. Corrosion Reactions for Dental Amalgam Phases: (1) Low Copper Dental Amalgam: [Sn-Hg] ---> [Sn] + saliva ---> [Sn-O-Cl] (soluble) ---> [Sn] + saliva ---> [Sn-O] (insoluble) ---> [Hg] + [Ag-Sn] ---> [Ag-Hg] + [Sn-Hg] (2) High Copper Dental Amalgam: [Cu-Sn] ---> [Sn] + saliva ---> [Sn-O-Cl] (soluble) ---> [Sn] + saliva ---> [Sn-O] (insoluble) ---> [Cu] + saliva ---> [Cu-Cl] (soluble) ****************************************************** See: https://www.dent.unc.edu/portfolios/bayne/dental-materials/amalgam-structure-and -properties-HO.pdf What's being described here is a set of ELECTROLYTIC reactions (sometimes described as "Galvanic" reactions.) And this proves that the electrochemical behavior of dental amalgams IS taught to students in at least one dental school. So you see it isn't me who's the idiot. (Neither "freaking" nor otherwise.) It's you. Keith P Walsh By the way, I've noticed that none of the other dentists who contribute frequently to sci.med.dentistry have bothered to offer you any support in your arguments on this topic. I wonder if that's because they recognise that their own "education" in dental schools had misled them into believing that dissimilar metals in contact with each other are only able to generate an electrical potential if they are involved in an electrolytic reaction. That's like having an > experiment to study social behaviour of cavemen. what relevance is it > to today's world. Sounds like a waste of research funds to me. Who is the caveman? Someone wrote: Human anatomy has not altered substantiallly for the past 100,000 years or so . The Cro-Magnon people who painted the great caves of Europe some twenty to thrity thousand years ago wre indistinguishable from us. I find nothing whatever surprising about human stabiliy over 100,000 years. This interval, while not quite so short as an evolutionary eyeblink, represents a pretty damned small unit of geological time > Human anatomy has not altered substantiallly for the past 100,000 years > or so . Except that since around 160 to 170 years ago large numbers of individuals have been trying to get along with electric batteries in their teeth. Keith P Walsh |
Reply to this Message |
 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
|
©2009 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.