Heat will naturally increase release of mercury vapor from amalgams.
Of course, the duration of the heat is generally pretty small.  I have
never seen any detectable increase in oxidation of amalgams in heavy
coffee drinkers.  I've never seen a study comparing the stability of
amalgam in exposure to certain foods.  My guess is that the best
compounds for sequestering mercury from amalgam would be
sulfur-containing foods, such as egg yolks.

    Most absorption of mercury from amalgams is almost certainly through
the lungs.  Most absorption from seafood is through the gut, in the form
of methylmercury.

Steve

Notice this study was published by the NIDCR that is staffed by
Dentists, who are members of the ADA.
These military studies have been discussed on this group before. This
particular
study does not actually measure the release of Hg from a filling as a
function
of coffe, nor does it have the statistical power , or attempt to draw
epidemologicl
conclusions. What it does do is look, far from the source of the Hg
release, in
the blood stream, to "see" what the Hg levels are. As has been
discussed before  in this group, apparently with no comprehension by
the dentists. you
CANNOT determine Hg exposure by measuring the level in the blood. The
measurement is useless. Lead yes, Hg no. Since this study did not,
actually
a) determine how much Hg was absorbed in the nervous system, through
autopsy or challenge test, b) measure the hg directly as it came of
the filling,but used methods shown by newer studies to be inaccurate
its simply garbage.

For instance, those with the most Hg exposure actually have
decreased ability to excrete it, so their blood level and urine levels
are less.
Hg is absorbed directly into the organs and nervous systems, and does
not
stay long in the blood.

There are many other problems with these types of garbage studies used
by
the FDA and NIDCR. A really leaky filling will probably release it's
Hg in a pulse, then the level will decrease, and if a military veteran
was poisoned,
he would probably be have been kicked out of the military. Measuring
exposure
in veterans after years and years, using a test which at best can't
even gauge
recent exposure reliably, cannot tell you the chronic long term
exposure.
(Not to mention, suppose those most affected had their amalgams
removed , root canals, etc, or they are missing teeth.)

The most accurate studies, many used to be on Boyd Haley's site are
fecal
tests. Most of the Hg from the filling actually passes through the
gastrointestinal tract, not the kidneys or even the bloodstream.

Now, another problem with your analysis is that you are confusing a
whole
lot of issues. you are saying this study "raises questions about
amalgams",
but the topic of discussion is increase in Hg release rate due to
oils.
amalgams , vary wildly in composition, age, galvanic activity and
as yes, has been documented in some studies, some amalgams
give off hundreds of times more Hg that others. You can't just say,
here is
a study of 1000 people and THIS is the release rate of Hg from a
filling, (even
if they didn't use useless blood/urine tests), because that assumes
that all
fillings give off the same amount of Hg.
It is just like me saying, I did a study of airplane safety last year.
I studied 300 passengers. The average fatality is .01 people, which is
not much, therefore there is no danger of airplanes crashing. You got
to look at the
exposure in the top 1% using a saliva test , a challenge test, the
top .1% with a lot of statistical power (that means 10,000+ people).

The tubigen study, I think the U is with an umlaut.

The world health organization did a study on amalgam led by expert
mats berlin,
they concluded the safety margin had been erased, I don't know who
this "comission" is couldn't open the document, but certainly "Europe"
has not
concluded amalgam safe, in fact the opposite.

Risk is a relative term. In this thread you are concerned with whether
in oil
will increase the risk of amalgam, by Hg. Probably not. But my concern
is
those with the leakiest amalgam. Assigning a risk to the average
person with
the average filling is like trying to determine whether cigratte or
second hand smoke is  dangerous. It's a complex problem

That is a good question, which I wondered myself. It has to do with
the fact that
the majority set's the rules, not the smartest or the wisest people.
Most people
don't understand the science behind amalgam, so there is no political
pressure.

you could ask that question of numerous things including, why say
cigarettes
are safe?, why invade iraq? Why didn't anyone take global warming
seriously.
What i see in your statements is not a scientific anaylsis or question
although
you have "cited" references, your argument in the absence of that
falls into
the bandwagon syndrome, if everyone does that then in must be right.
This is precisely WHY most people accept amalgam in the first place,
which you have concluded makes the safety "self-evident". Heck, you
should be glad that *Most* people by the wrong stocks!

Makes no sense. Who is making

I think you know who, the dental industry, who had no other material
for years, and
if they admitted the mistake now, would be sued into the next
universe. Suppose
the ADA declared tommorrow, that billions of mercury implants their
dentists had
installed, which will be in billions of people for decades are unsafe?
Are you that
niave?