Amalgams #1 Source of Mercury in People
Question:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> Graig and Jan, > Jan posted an extremely similar article before, but there are a few > problems with it. I’ll re-post my concerns I put to Jan about this > similar article, as I believe the same sentiments apply to the article > you have offered. Here is what I posted a few weeks ago: > Jan, > You have offered this article yet again as evidence. After doing some > research at your suggestion, I believe the article is intended to > mislead people (not inform) as to the safety or otherwise of mercury > amalgams. > The article does not distinguish between the toxicity (i.e. ranging > from negligible to high) of elemental Hg with the toxicity Hg vapour, > and with the toxicity with mercury alloys. I believe the article is > deliberately written in this way for people to believe to toxicity of > Hg vapour is the same as a mercury alloy or elemental mercury. As I > tried to highlight before, the article is trying to compare apples > with oranges. > It is your response which is misleading. Amalgams are the principle > source of exposure in the population.
Minorsev, What is your explanation for the selective editing in the reference section? Do you think it is deliberate? If so, why? DE
Response:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->> Graig and Jan, >> Jan posted an extremely similar article before, but there are a few >> problems with it. I’ll re-post my concerns I put to Jan about this >> similar article, as I believe the same sentiments apply to the >> article you have offered. Here is what I posted a few weeks ago: >> Jan, >> You have offered this article yet again as evidence. After doing >> some research at your suggestion, I believe the article is intended >> to mislead people (not inform) as to the safety or otherwise of >> mercury amalgams. >> The article does not distinguish between the toxicity (i.e. ranging >> from negligible to high) of elemental Hg with the toxicity Hg >> vapour, and with the toxicity with mercury alloys. I believe the >> article is deliberately written in this way for people to believe to >> toxicity of Hg vapour is the same as a mercury alloy or elemental >> mercury. As I tried to highlight before, the article is trying to >> compare apples with oranges. > It is your response which is misleading. Amalgams are the principle > source of exposure in the population. > Any chemist can put amalgams in solution and measure mercury vapor > evaporating from the solution. If the solution is heated or acidic or > if you place another metal in the solution then more vapor will be > released. > Dentists are required by law to dispose of scrap amalgam as a > hazardous waste. So by federal law even the mercury alloy is too > hazardous to flush down the toilet. > Either the federal government is overreacting in response to scrap > amalgam disposal or it is underreacting in response to dentists > placing that amalgam in the mouth. > Mercury amalgam cannot be both hazardous and safe. One of the > regulatory policies must be in error: either the 19th-century dental > practice is wrongheaded, or the late-20th-century amalgam disposal > practice is wrongheaded. > It is interesting to note that no pro-amalgamists have pointed out the > hysteria in the government’s policy on scrap amalgam disposal. > So the underlying sentiment in the pro-amalgamist seems to be a deep > trust in old traditions and the intelligence of bureacracies, over and > against a consistency of thought and logic demanded by individuals. > When urinary excretions and blood measurements prove themselves to be > erorenous indicators of mercury body burden, this doesn’t cause the > pro-amalgamist to question the Science supporting amalgam safety. He > cannot believe that a poison such as mercury can really hazardous when > placed in the mouth. So now he must look at the particular compounds > in which mercury may find itself in the body, with the effort of > minimizing its toxicity, to maintain his believe in the wisdom of > 19th-century dentists and the bureacratic mind. >Here is an interesting article I found at >http://yarchive.net/med/mercury.html
Naa, I like these better, they aren’t from organized medicine. Jan http://www.home.earthlink.net/~berniew1/index.html DENTAL AMALGAMFILLINGS PAGE- documents high common mercury exposure levelsfrom dental amalgamfillings; and common adverse health effects on people anddental staff; plusresults of 60,000 clinical cases of significant improvementsto chronicconditions after amalgam replacement and treatment- as followed anddocumentedby doctors; plus environmental effects of amalgam that affecteveryone. (over1500 peer-reviewed medical study or Gov’t Agency referencesdocumentingmechanisms by which mercury from amalgam causes over 30chronichealth conditions) FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE April 24, 2001Mechinisms Documented byWhich Mercury from Amalgam Dental Fillings andVaccinations Are a Cause or MajorFactor in Over 40 Chronic Health Conditions; Class Action Suits for DamagesExpected to Total in the Billions of Dollars Announced in Washington, D.C.Acoalition of doctors, dentists, lawyers, health advocates, andenvironmentalistsare releasing information on April 24th in Washington DC, documenting thatmillions of people have been adversely affected by mercury indental fillingsand vaccinations. Lawyers are announcing class action lawsuitsexpected toinvolve billions of dollars in adverse effects and comparable totobacco. Research including over 1000 peer-reviewed or government studieshas beenaccumulated from the medical literature documenting the mechanism bywhichmercury causes over 40 chronic health conditions including: (a) autoimmuneproblems such as arthritis, MS, Lou Gehrig?s Disease(ALS),Parkinson?s/ muscletremor, Alzheimer?s, muscular & joint pain/fibromyalgia, chron?s disease, lupus, scleroderma, Chronic FatigueSyndrome(CFS), endometriosis , diabetes(b)neurological and mood disorders including memory disorders, depression,schizophrenia , insomnia, anger, anxiety & mental confusion, neuropathy/paresthesia, tinnitus, dizziness/vertigo,headaches/ migraines,epilepsy, ADD, dyslexia, learning disabilities, hearingloss, etc.(c)periodontal diseases such as gingivitis, oral lichen planus, amalgamtattoos,metal mouth, halitosis, oral keratosis(pre cancer); (d) immune systemconditions such as allergies asthma, multiple chemicalsensitivities, eczema,psoriasis, other skin conditions; cancer(breast,etc./leukemia),susceptibilityto infections, antibiotic resistant infection, sinusproblems(e) cardiovascularconditions including tachycardia, angina, arteriosclerosis,other heartconditions, hypertension, and other blood conditions (f) hormonal problems suchas hypothyroidism, adrenal problems, chronic chills,Hashimoto?s Disease,alopecia/hair loss, urinary/ prostrate problems, (g) reproductive problems suchas infertility, reduced sperm counts, PMS,spontaneous abortions, birthdefects, children with learning disabilities andlow IQ, etc. (h) chronic eyeconditions: inflammation/iritis/ astigmatism/myopia/cataracts/maculadegeneration , color blindedness, vision disturbances, etc. (i)stomach/digestive problems including leaky gut, malabsorption ofessentialminerals and essential fatty acids, blocked cellular enzymaticprocessesrelated to the ATPASE energy function and sulfur oxidation. Thereare extensive documented cases (many thousands) where removal ofamalgamfillings led to cure or significant improvement of these serioushealthproblems. Over 60,000 such clinical cases are compiled in thedocumentation asfollowed and compiled by doctors. The over 60,000 cases ofcure orsignificant improvements were not isolated cases of cures; the clinicalstudiesindicated a large majority of most such type cases treated showedsignificantimprovement.Mercury?s extreme cytotoxicity and neurotoxicity is amajorfactor in the neurological conditions, along with its inhibition ofbasicenzymatic cellular processes and effects on essential minerals andnutrients incells. Mercury is also documented to cause imbalances inneurotransmittersrelated to mood disorders. A direct mechanism involvingmercury?sinhibition of cellular enzymatic processes by binding with thehydroxylradical(SH) in amino acids appears to be a major part of the connectionto allergic/immune reactive conditions such as autism, schizophrenia, lupus, eczema and psoriasis, scleroderma, and allergies. Immune reactivity tomercuryhas been documented by immune reactivity tests to be a major factor inmany ofthe autoimmune conditions. The over 1000 peer reviewed studies mostlyeither Government studies orabstracted in the National Library ofMedicine(www.nlm.nih.gov/) document thatmost people with several amalgam dentalfillings get significant daily exposureto mercury that is the largest source ofmercury exposure for most people andoften above the Government health guidelinefor mercury. The reason for thehigh exposure levels from amalgam aremercury?s negative vapor pressure thatmeans it is constantly vaporizing, alongwith galvanic electric currents causedby mixed metals in the mouth that drivemercury and other metals into the body.These are easily measured which has beenwidely documented. The studies also document that mercury from amalgam orother sources such asfish crosses a woman?s placenta readily and accumulates tolevels in thefetus at levels usually higher than in the mother. And thatmercury in themother is transfered at significant levels to a brestfeedinginfant. The factthat children have been exposed to levels of highly toxicmercury thimerosal invaccinations well beyond Government health guidelines formercury is also welldocumented. Studies document that such mercury exposurescan causedevelopmental conditions and disorders such as autism, ADD,learningdisabilities, etc. The referenced medical studies also documentthe mechanism by which mercuryfrom amalgam or vaccines cause the above listedconditions, and over 60,000clinical cases of amalgam replacement that resultedin significant improvementor cure of the above listed conditions. The studies also document that due to the high daily exposure fromamalgampeople excrete high amounts of mercury into home and office sewers whichcauselevels in sewer plants to be high enough to contaminate with mercury mostofthe water bodies they empty into to the extent that fish and wildlifearecontaminated with dangerous levels of mercury. Over 20% of the lakes,allGreat lakes, 7% of U.S. river miles, and many bays are contaminated totheextent warnings have been issued to not eat the fish. Amalgam is documentedtobe a major source of mercury in many water bodies. References(1) Autism, ADD,and Pervasive … read more »
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> Graig and Jan, > Jan posted an extremely similar article before, but there are a few > problems with it. I’ll re-post my concerns I put to Jan about this > similar article, as I believe the same sentiments apply to the > article you have offered. Here is what I posted a few weeks ago: > Jan, > You have offered this article yet again as evidence. After doing > some research at your suggestion, I believe the article is intended > to mislead people (not inform) as to the safety or otherwise of > mercury amalgams. > The article does not distinguish between the toxicity (i.e. ranging > from negligible to high) of elemental Hg with the toxicity Hg > vapour, and with the toxicity with mercury alloys. I believe the > article is deliberately written in this way for people to believe to > toxicity of Hg vapour is the same as a mercury alloy or elemental > mercury. As I tried to highlight before, the article is trying to > compare apples with oranges. > It is your response which is misleading. Amalgams are the principle > source of exposure in the population. > Any chemist can put amalgams in solution and measure mercury vapor > evaporating from the solution. If the solution is heated or acidic or > if you place another metal in the solution then more vapor will be > released. > Dentists are required by law to dispose of scrap amalgam as a > hazardous waste. So by federal law even the mercury alloy is too > hazardous to flush down the toilet. > Either the federal government is overreacting in response to scrap > amalgam disposal or it is underreacting in response to dentists > placing that amalgam in the mouth. > Mercury amalgam cannot be both hazardous and safe. One of the > regulatory policies must be in error: either the 19th-century dental > practice is wrongheaded, or the late-20th-century amalgam disposal > practice is wrongheaded. > It is interesting to note that no pro-amalgamists have pointed out the > hysteria in the government’s policy on scrap amalgam disposal. > So the underlying sentiment in the pro-amalgamist seems to be a deep > trust in old traditions and the intelligence of bureacracies, over and > against a consistency of thought and logic demanded by individuals. > When urinary excretions and blood measurements prove themselves to be > erorenous indicators of mercury body burden, this doesn’t cause the > pro-amalgamist to question the Science supporting amalgam safety. He > cannot believe that a poison such as mercury can really hazardous when > placed in the mouth. So now he must look at the particular compounds > in which mercury may find itself in the body, with the effort of > minimizing its toxicity, to maintain his believe in the wisdom of > 19th-century dentists and the bureacratic mind.
Here is an interesting article I found at http://yarchive.net/med/mercury.html Newsgroups: sci.med.nutrition poisening) > I have read claims that the vapor pressure of Hg can actually be >measured in the mouth! If this is true, I will allow my wife to be >alone with Clinton for a full half hour! In round numbers, the vp @ 30 >deg C is 30 for water, .003 for Hg, and about 1/50 of that for silver. >Surely in an amalgam, the vp would be closer to that of silver. > It would seem, though, that fillings _are_ a long term and releasable >repository of Hg. The question is, what are the molar amounts <get >it– MOLAR!! huyuk!!>, and what amounts are subclinically toxic to the >body. Given that fillings do not seem to dissolve out of the tooth, at >least not for a cupla hundred years, one could calculate a worst-case >scenario for this release.
You can and it’s been done. Amalgam fillings do contribute to the body’s burdon of mercury, and this can be measured. The only problem is that the contribution is of the same order as random environmental stuff like how much fish you eat (even the best you can find), and whether or not you’re around mercury containing paints (outlawed only in 1986-7), etc. And last but not least is the levels of mercury in people with scads of fillings are WAY less (like 1%) than the levels permitted in industrial situations, which in turn are based on lots of toxicology with animals, and lots of experience with known mercury poisoning in humans. So it’s hard to get excited about amalgam fillings. If they’re doing everything they’re supposed to be doing, how come people who have 100 times more mercury in them from exposure on the job, aren’t all basket cases? Eh? Answer me that, oh anxious ones. And how come all these people who claim to be poisoned by their fillings don’t have any of the classic chronic poisoning symptoms, like acrodynia? > It is the vapor of mercury and its ionic form that are particularly >dangerous, as well as the methyl/alkyl forms. The merck says you can >"occasionally" swallow Hg with no ill effects. Tonic, anyone? Of >course, various mercury compounds have been used medicinally (tinctures, >cathartics, emetics) for some time.
Basically, your body has the power to turn mercury vapor and mercury organics, into ionic-form mercury (the salt), if the load isn’t too large. And ionic mercury doesn’t get into the CNS too well. That means in practice that all those CNS effects of mercury you read of are either organic mercury poisonings, or massive mercury vapor inhalations (mercury as the metal vapor does cross into the CNS, if enough is given to overload the body’s oxidation system). Fortunately, not much metallic mercury is absorbed from single ingestions (somebody swallows a few drops from a thermometer, say). Mercury salts, and small long term exposure to vapor (fillings) would NOT be expected to cause problems in the brain or nervous system. It doesn’t happen that way in animals, and it doesn’t make sense from what we know about mercury. But that is exactly what the amalgam screamer people are claiming is happening. If they were all having renal problems and finger pain (ionic mercury tox symptoms), I’d find it all a *little* less preposterous, since anything they breathe from fillings is ALL going to get converted to ionic form, as the doses are so tiny. As it is, all the amalgam filling symptoms sound suspiciously like the symptoms of chronic fluoride and aspartame poisoning. And gulf war syndrome. And Xanax withdrawal. And all the symptoms you see in the placebo group of every drug experiment in the PDR. I should post all of these in several columns some time. Steve Harris, M.D. I trust you can understand what Steve Harris is saying here. rich — "I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, de-briefed, or numbered…My life is my own." "I am not a number. I am a free man." No. 6
Response:
Thank You Minorsev. Eager to hear all replies! Jan – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> Graig and Jan, > Jan posted an extremely similar article before, but there are a few > problems with it. I’ll re-post my concerns I put to Jan about this > similar article, as I believe the same sentiments apply to the article > you have offered. Here is what I posted a few weeks ago: > Jan, > You have offered this article yet again as evidence. After doing some > research at your suggestion, I believe the article is intended to > mislead people (not inform) as to the safety or otherwise of mercury > amalgams. > The article does not distinguish between the toxicity (i.e. ranging > from negligible to high) of elemental Hg with the toxicity Hg vapour, > and with the toxicity with mercury alloys. I believe the article is > deliberately written in this way for people to believe to toxicity of > Hg vapour is the same as a mercury alloy or elemental mercury. As I > tried to highlight before, the article is trying to compare apples > with oranges. >It is your response which is misleading. Amalgams are the principle >source of exposure in the population. >Any chemist can put amalgams in solution and measure mercury vapor >evaporating from the solution. If the solution is heated or acidic or >if you place another metal in the solution then more vapor will be >released. >Dentists are required by law to dispose of scrap amalgam as a >hazardous waste. So by federal law even the mercury alloy is too >hazardous to flush down the toilet. >Either the federal government is overreacting in response to scrap >amalgam disposal or it is underreacting in response to dentists >placing that amalgam in the mouth. >Mercury amalgam cannot be both hazardous and safe. One of the >regulatory policies must be in error: either the 19th-century dental >practice is wrongheaded, or the late-20th-century amalgam disposal >practice is wrongheaded. >It is interesting to note that no pro-amalgamists have pointed out the >hysteria in the government’s policy on scrap amalgam disposal. >So the underlying sentiment in the pro-amalgamist seems to be a deep >trust in old traditions and the intelligence of bureacracies, over and >against a consistency of thought and logic demanded by individuals. >When urinary excretions and blood measurements prove themselves to be >erorenous indicators of mercury body burden, this doesn’t cause the >pro-amalgamist to question the Science supporting amalgam safety. He >cannot believe that a poison such as mercury can really hazardous when >placed in the mouth. So now he must look at the particular compounds >in which mercury may find itself in the body, with the effort of >minimizing its toxicity, to maintain his believe in the wisdom of >19th-century dentists and the bureacratic mind.
Response:
Jan, Do you agree with my concerns about the article? Two taps for yes, one tap for no, zero taps if you don’t understand the question. Have a nice day, sweetness and light. DE
Response:
> The mercury vapor from dental amalgam alone is a bigger source than all the > other sources together.
Proof?
Response:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – > Graig and Jan, > Jan posted an extremely similar article before, but there are a few > problems with it. I’ll re-post my concerns I put to Jan about this > similar article, as I believe the same sentiments apply to the article > you have offered. Here is what I posted a few weeks ago: > Jan, > You have offered this article yet again as evidence. After doing some > research at your suggestion, I believe the article is intended to > mislead people (not inform) as to the safety or otherwise of mercury > amalgams. > The article does not distinguish between the toxicity (i.e. ranging > from negligible to high) of elemental Hg with the toxicity Hg vapour, > and with the toxicity with mercury alloys. I believe the article is > deliberately written in this way for people to believe to toxicity of > Hg vapour is the same as a mercury alloy or elemental mercury. As I > tried to highlight before, the article is trying to compare apples > with oranges.
It is your response which is misleading. Amalgams are the principle source of exposure in the population. Any chemist can put amalgams in solution and measure mercury vapor evaporating from the solution. If the solution is heated or acidic or if you place another metal in the solution then more vapor will be released. Dentists are required by law to dispose of scrap amalgam as a hazardous waste. So by federal law even the mercury alloy is too hazardous to flush down the toilet. Either the federal government is overreacting in response to scrap amalgam disposal or it is underreacting in response to dentists placing that amalgam in the mouth. Mercury amalgam cannot be both hazardous and safe. One of the regulatory policies must be in error: either the 19th-century dental practice is wrongheaded, or the late-20th-century amalgam disposal practice is wrongheaded. It is interesting to note that no pro-amalgamists have pointed out the hysteria in the government’s policy on scrap amalgam disposal. So the underlying sentiment in the pro-amalgamist seems to be a deep trust in old traditions and the intelligence of bureacracies, over and against a consistency of thought and logic demanded by individuals. When urinary excretions and blood measurements prove themselves to be erorenous indicators of mercury body burden, this doesn’t cause the pro-amalgamist to question the Science supporting amalgam safety. He cannot believe that a poison such as mercury can really hazardous when placed in the mouth. So now he must look at the particular compounds in which mercury may find itself in the body, with the effort of minimizing its toxicity, to maintain his believe in the wisdom of 19th-century dentists and the bureacratic mind.
Response:
>I believe the article is intended to >mislead people (not inform) as to the safety or otherwise of mercury >amalgams.
Yep, and you also believe that vulgar webites should be recommended. Not to mention you believe aloha Rich’s lies EVEN after you read of his stalking me and his despicable behavior concerning my parents. It’s amazing what you believe and tells me all I need to know about you. Sweden didn’t ban them because they are safe, and you have not one single study proving them to be safe. Take a look at the loooonnngggggggg list of EPA guidelines to dispose this very same mercury that just came out of the mouth. THE FACTS ARE: Mercury is Poisonous. There is NO safe form of Mercury in living tissue. The mercury vapor from dental amalgam alone is a bigger source than all the other sources together. Jan
Response:
Jan, Would you like to respond to my concerns about the article in question? Have a nice day, sweetness and light. DE
Response:
>Jan, >Would you like to respond to my concerns about the article in question?
Mercury is Poisonous. There is NO safe form of Mercury in living tissue. The mercury vapor from dental amalgam alone is a bigger source than all the other sources together. <snip other smart alec remarks for DE who is now following me around and stalking since he and aloha Rich are busy e-mailing each other> Jan
Response:
Graig and Jan, Jan posted an extremely similar article before, but there are a few problems with it. I’ll re-post my concerns I put to Jan about this similar article, as I believe the same sentiments apply to the article you have offered. Here is what I posted a few weeks ago: Jan, You have offered this article yet again as evidence. After doing some research at your suggestion, I believe the article is intended to mislead people (not inform) as to the safety or otherwise of mercury amalgams. The article does not distinguish between the toxicity (i.e. ranging from negligible to high) of elemental Hg with the toxicity Hg vapour, and with the toxicity with mercury alloys. I believe the article is deliberately written in this way for people to believe to toxicity of Hg vapour is the same as a mercury alloy or elemental mercury. As I tried to highlight before, the article is trying to compare apples with oranges. The concerns and fears people may have about mercury amalgams has lead to scientific research, such as: The amalgam controversy. An evidence-based analysis. Dodes JE. BACKGROUND: There are a number of patients and health care professionals who believe dental amalgam restorations are a factor in a host of diseases and conditions. They have been influenced by anecdotal case reports in the medical and dental literature, research published in the refereed literature and media stories concerning the alleged dangers of amalgam restorations. METHODS: The author uses an evidence-based approach in analyzing the data both supporting and condemning the continued use of amalgam restorations. He reviewed the articles from both peer-reviewed and non-peer-reviewed sources and evaluated their relevance, research design and statistical analysis, as well as whether the conclusions follow from the data. CONCLUSIONS: There are numerous logical and methodological errors in the anti-amalgam literature. The author concludes that the evidence supporting the safety of amalgam restorations is compelling. CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: Amalgam restorations remain safe and effective. Dentists should educate patients and other health care professionals who may be mistakenly concerned about amalgam safety. Publication Types: Meta-Analysis J Am Dent Assoc 2001 Mar;132(3):348-56. It is interesting to note that after reviewing both peer-reviewed and non-peer reviewed jourmals ( an example of a non-peer reviewed journal would be Journal of Orthomolecular Medicine), JE Dodes came to the conclusion "…that the evidence supporting the safety of amalgam restorations is compelling." Furthermore, the credibility of the article you provided as evidence diminishes further in the reference section, as it fails to give the full-title of the article cited. For example: In the article the reference is cited as; Ref (22) A. Berglund, "A study of therelease of mercury vapor from different types of amalgam alloys", J Dent Res,1993, 72:939-946. The actual title is: "An in vitro and in vivo study of the release of mercury vapor from different types of amalgam alloys". Berglund A. J Dent Res 1993 May;72(5):939-46. Also, Ref (23) H. Lichtenberg, "Mercury vapor in the oral cavity in relation to the number of amalgam fillings and chronic mercury poisoning", Journal of Orthomolecular Medicine, 1996, 11:2, 87-94. The actual title is: " Mercury Vapour in the Oral Cavity in Relation To the Number of Amalgam Surfaces and the Classic Symptoms of Chronic Mercury Poisoning" by H Lichtenberg, DDS. http://www.orthomed.org/jom/jom96.htm. (I would very much like to obtain a copy of this paper from the Journal of Orthomolecular Medicine, but they are asking for $2.50/copy (credit card only) and the Journal of Orthomolecular Medicine is not listed on Pub Med, so I can
Related Posts