> > > My advice to you is this:
> > > 1) Don't confuse elemental mercury with mercury amalgam.   Elemental
> > >     mercury is toxic; amalgam is not.  Can amalgams leak elemental
> > >     mercury?   Yes, they can, but the leakage is so minute that the
> > > danger
> > >     is non-existent.   Pseudo-scientific claims to the contrary have
> > > usually
> > >     been based on faulty use of mercury detection instruments.

> > the WHO would beg to differ, placing Amalgam as #1 source for
> > mercury on average..

> I've been around the block on this claim many times over the past
> thir{*filter*} years.  So far I haven't seen a single documented claim that
> wasn't based on faulty analysis.   And sad to say, the proponents of

> > >      in a root c{*filter*}procedure  and crownwork if not extraction and
> > > dentures.

> No, "rotten" teeth aren't necessarily rotten teeth.   Amalgam restorations
> often last several decades without complications, and they can be easily
> replaced by another amalgam restoration which could easily last another
> two decades.  By contrast, acrylic composites have an extremely short
> life expectancy on occlusal surfaces.   Owing to their high coefficient of
> expansion, a large composite restoration can create stresses within a
> tooth that cause minute (harmful) cracks.   And the base resins used
> *often* cause pulpal problems leading to endodontics and/or extraction.
> This is well documented in the endodontic literature.

> Name a few.

> > The evidence is there - but unfortunately the dental
> > industry has learnt lessons from other industrys with similar problems
> > (tobacco,asbestos,GM foods, etc) and is rather good at spewing out
> > rhetoric similar to that above.

> Exactly the opposite.  The anti-amalgam quackery rose to a fevor pitch
> in the USA in the 80's before consumer agencies finally took action.  The
> publishers of "Consumer Reports" in the USA was instrumental in

>> > > My advice to you is this:
>> > > 1) Don't confuse elemental mercury with mercury amalgam.   Elemental
>> > >     mercury is toxic; amalgam is not.  Can amalgams leak elemental
>> > >     mercury?   Yes, they can, but the leakage is so minute that the
>> > > danger
>> > >     is non-existent.   Pseudo-scientific claims to the contrary have
>> > > usually
>> > >     been based on faulty use of mercury detection instruments.

>> > the WHO would beg to differ, placing Amalgam as #1 source for
>> > mercury on average..

>> I've been around the block on this claim many times over the past
>> thir{*filter*} years.  So far I haven't seen a single documented claim that
>> wasn't based on faulty analysis.   And sad to say, the proponents of
>Nonsense. Ive "been round the block" too.

>> > >      in a root c{*filter*}procedure  and crownwork if not extraction and
>> > > dentures.
>Whenever someone trots out the "composites are bad too" line,
>I smell a rat. So what? The primary question is whether Amalgam
>is safe, not whether composites are safe.
>Anyway, research data indicates that any volatile hydrocarbon
>type toxins that Composites might leak are toxic at
>(broadly) milligram levels, rather than microgram levels
>that Mercury dangerous at. Furthermore any such compounds
>that do come out drop rapidly in level one they "set",
>within a day or so. Conversly Amalgams leak Mercury slowly
>over a very long time - and Mercury is a cumulative toxin.
>Remember that Mercury is the most toxic non-radioactive element
>known to man. Toxicologists have long regarded it as particularly
>dangerous  because its effects at low-levels are so insidious &
>hard to detect.
>> > My own & most of the other people I directly know who have gone down
>> > this
>> > path have not had problems, above what you might expect - after all,
>> > rotten
>> > teeth are rotten teeth, Amalgam or not..

>> No, "rotten" teeth aren't necessarily rotten teeth.   Amalgam restorations
>> often last several decades without complications, and they can be easily
>> replaced by another amalgam restoration which could easily last another
>> two decades.  By contrast, acrylic composites have an extremely short
>> life expectancy on occlusal surfaces.   Owing to their high coefficient of
>> expansion, a large composite restoration can create stresses within a
>> tooth that cause minute (harmful) cracks.   And the base resins used
>> *often* cause pulpal problems leading to endodontics and/or extraction.
>> This is well documented in the endodontic literature.
>Amalgam is indeed an "easy" material to work with, demanding
>low skill levels for tolerable results. By contrast Composites
>and other materials are "technique sensitive" - more time &
>skill is required for good placement - *particularly* in
>a tooth that once contained Amalgam because so much of the
>tooth needs to be removed to form a plug for the Amalgam.
>Also the presence of Hg ions has the short term local effect
>of killing off bacteria - however that poses immediate
>questions about systemic effects of those same ions..
>> > This is mud that is easy to sling, but proves nothing.
>> > Some of the "Anti amalgamists" are top notch scientists (WHO
>> > consultants, etc) with a good solid scientific history before they took
>> > up sides the Amalgam issue.

>> Name a few.
>There are many research papers that indicate (directly or indirectly)
>Amalgam could be harmful - often published by scientists who
>do not regard themselves as be "anti amalgam" at all.
>But if you want a few names..
>-------------------------------
>Vimy and Lorscheider, "Evaluation of the safety issue of Hg release
>from dental fillings", FASEB Journal (1993)
>Nylander and Berglund, "Does Hg from amalgam restorations constitute
>a health hazard?", Science of the Total Environment (1990)
>Goerging, Galloway, Clarkson, Lorscheider, Berlin and Rowland,
>"Toxicity Assessment of Hg Vapor from Dental Amalgams", Fundemental
>and Appled Toxicology (1992)
>Clarkson and Friberg, Biological monitoring of Toxic Metals (Plenum
>Press 1988)
>Svare et al., "The Effect of dental amalgams on Hg levels in expired
>air", Journal of dental research (1981) - The first paper to establish
>unequivocally that Hg comes out of amalgams.
>Vimy and Lorscheider, "Whole-body imaging of the distribution of Hg
>released from dental fillings into monkey tissues", FASEB Journal
>(1990)
>Vasken Aposhian, "Urinary Hg after administration of 2,3-
>dimercaptopropane-1-sulfonic acid (DMSA): correlation with dental
>amalgam", FASEB Journal (1992)
>Friberg and Nylander, "Hg Concentrations in the human brain and
>kidneys in relation to exposure from dental amalgam fillings",
>Swedish Dental Journal (1987)
>Woods and Echeverria, "Urinary porphyrin profiles as a biomarker of Hg
>exposure: studies on dentists with occupational exposure to Hg",
>Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health (1993)
>Vimy and Lorscheider, "Mercury from dental "silver" tooth Eillings
>impairs sheep kidney Eunction", (1991)
>Eggleston and Nylander, "Correlation of dental amalgam with Hg in
>Brain tissue", Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry (1987)
>David Eggleston, "Effect of dental amalgam and nickel alloys on
>T-lymphocytes: Preliminary report", Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry
>(1987)
>Summers, Vimy and Lorscheider, "Hg released from dental "silver"
>fillings provokes an increase in Hg and antibiotic-resistant bacteria
>in {*filter*}and intestinal flora of primates", Antimicrobial Agents and
>Chemotherapy (1993)
>Vimy and Lorscheider, "Maternal-fetal distribution of Hg released from
>dental amalgam fillings", (1990)
>Gustav Drasch, "Hg burden of human fetal and infant tissues",
>European Journal of Paediatrics (1994)
>Fritz Lorscheider, `ADP-ribosylation of brain neuronal proteins is
>altered by in vitro and in vivo exposure to inorganic Hg",
>Journal of Neurochemistry (1994)
>Markesbery and Ehmann, "Trace element imbalances in isolated
>subcellular fractions of Alzheimer's diseased brains", Brain Research
>(1990)
>Markesbery and Ehmann, "Regional brain trace element studies in
>Alzheimer's disease neurotoxicology", (1988)
>Boyd Haley, "HgEDTA complex inhibits GTP interactions with the E-site
>of brain beta-tubulin", Journal of Toxicology and Applied Pharmacology
>(1993)

>> > The evidence is there - but unfortunately the dental
>> > industry has learnt lessons from other industrys with similar problems
>> > (tobacco,asbestos,GM foods, etc) and is rather good at spewing out
>> > rhetoric similar to that above.

>> Exactly the opposite.  The anti-amalgam quackery rose to a fevor pitch
>> in the USA in the 80's before consumer agencies finally took action.  The
>> publishers of "Consumer Reports" in the USA was instrumental in
>Is this the same consumer reports that told us 10 years ago
>"passive smoking was harmless", and later reversed that position?
>They should stick to evaluating fridges..
>> getting officials to examine the scam long before the ADA got involved.
>> The ADA was reluctant to speak out on the issue because of political
>This is utter rubbish. The ADA have been unequivocal in
>attacking virtually *anyone* (credible scientist or otherwise)
>who dares to question Amalgam safty - right from in inception
>in the 19th century, through the debates in the 30's, right up
>to date. By the way, the average daily release figures calculated
>by Dr Stock (10ug/Hg vapour day for a mouth full of Amalgam)
>were broadly backed up by

> > This implies that the ADA accept research that you dismiss as
> > faulty..

> > ie:-
> > Svare et al., "The Effect of dental amalgams on Hg levels in expired
> > air", Journal of dental research (1981) - The first paper to establish
> > unequivocally that Hg comes out of amalgams.

> Yep.  This is one of the bogus studies that used an industrial mercury
> vapor measuring device  to establish the presence of mercury vapor in
> the {*filter*}cavity. Both the manufacturer of the device and critics
> pointed out that the design of the device would yield unreliable
> results (including false positives) when used in extremely small
> areas.   If you've bothered to read the literature, you would already
> know this.   It's unreasonable to promote a citation of this type
> if/when you already know that the study is faulty.

> > > them out when I have time and send you my comments.   Please note
> > > that I'm asking you for COMPLETE documentation which details
> > > the precise methods and instruments used to develop raw data.  And
> > > also a description of the statistical analysis used to arrive at conclusions
> > > like the one below:

> > > > World Health Organization Figures (World Health Organization,
> > > > Environmental Health Criteria 118: Inorganic Mercury, Geneva, 1991.)
> > > > The World Health Organization has calculated the average human
> > > > daily dose of mercury from various sources is:
> > > > Dental amalgam = 3.0-17.0 ug/day (Hg vapor)
> > > > Fish and Seafood = 2.3 ug/day (methylmercury)
> > > > Other cooking.net">food = 0.3 ug/day(inorganic Hg)
> > > > Air & Water = Negligible traces   (NOTE ug = Micrograms)

> > Ok, the above was based on an "average" analysis of available
> > peer-reviewed research data.

> You didn't answer my question.

> > > > > 2) While decrying amalgam as a restorative substance, you better take a
> > > > >      look at the alternatives.  Acrylic composites are known
> > > > > pulp-killers and
> > > > >      the practice of replacing amalgam with composite usually culminates

> > > > >      in a root c{*filter*}procedure  and crownwork if not extraction and
> > > > > dentures.

> > Whenever someone trots out the "composites are bad too" line,
> > I smell a rat. So what? The primary question is whether Amalgam
> > is safe, not whether composites are safe.

> Nonsense.   Almost all {*filter*}, medical devices, and substances used
> in medicine can have adverse effects.   The irrational mindset of
> anti-amalgamists is indicated by the amazing way in which they
> decry the use of a substance whose safety is well-established in
> favor of substances that have obvious harmful effects.

> > Anyway, research data indicates that any volatile hydrocarbon
> > type toxins that Composites might leak are toxic at
> > (broadly) milligram levels, rather than microgram levels
> > that Mercury dangerous at. Furthermore any such compounds
> > that do come out drop rapidly in level one they "set",
> > within a day or so. Conversly Amalgams leak Mercury slowly
> > over a very long time - and Mercury is a cumulative toxin.
> > Remember that Mercury is the most toxic non-radioactive element
> > known to man. Toxicologists have long regarded it as particularly
> > dangerous  because its effects at low-levels are so insidious &
> > hard to detect.

> You're still confusing elemental mercury with amalgam.   Mercury
> is toxic.  Amalgam is not toxic.   And you don't understand the
> problems involved in use of composites.   I don't have time to
> discuss all the ramifications.  Well, in truth, I do have the time,
> but I don't believe that you care.

> > > > My own & most of the other people I directly know who have gone down
> > > > this
> > > > path have not had problems, above what you might expect - after all,
> > > > rotten
> > > > teeth are rotten teeth, Amalgam or not..

> > > No, "rotten" teeth aren't necessarily rotten teeth.   Amalgam restorations
> > > often last several decades without complications, and they can be easily
> > > replaced by another amalgam restoration which could easily last another
> > > two decades.  By contrast, acrylic composites have an extremely short
> > > life expectancy on occlusal surfaces.   Owing to their high coefficient of
> > > expansion, a large composite restoration can create stresses within a
> > > tooth that cause minute (harmful) cracks.   And the base resins used
> > > *often* cause pulpal problems leading to endodontics and/or extraction.
> > > This is well documented in the endodontic literature.

> > Amalgam is indeed an "easy" material to work with, demanding
> > low skill levels for tolerable results. By contrast Composites
> > and other materials are "technique sensitive" - more time &
> > skill is required for good placement - *particularly* in
> > a tooth that once contained Amalgam because so much of the
> > tooth needs to be removed to form a plug for the Amalgam.
> > Also the presence of Hg ions has the short term local effect
> > of killing off bacteria - however that poses immediate
> > questions about systemic effects of those same ions..

> Nonsense.   While it's true that both time and skill is required
> to place acrylic composite restorations in suitable areas, ie non-occlusal
> surfaces (on the sides of teeth), no amount of skill on the part of
> the dentist can make acrylic composites acceptable for use on
> chewing surfaces.   Why?   The potential for pulpal irritation and
> death owing to chemical complications;   the stresses that composites
> create on tooth structure -- both during the cure and also during
> temperature fluctuations after cure; and finally owing to the lack
> of abrasive resistance of composites themselves.  In short,  an acrylic
> composite contact surface will wear away within a few months
> causing all sorts of problems.

> > > > This is mud that is easy to sling, but proves nothing.
> > > > Some of the "Anti amalgamists" are top notch scientists (WHO
> > > > consultants, etc) with a good solid scientific history before they took
> > > > up sides the Amalgam issue.

> > > Name a few.

> > There are many research papers that indicate (directly or indirectly)
> > Amalgam could be harmful - often published by scientists who
> > do not regard themselves as be "anti amalgam" at all.
> > But if you want a few names..
> > -------------------------------
> > Vimy and Lorscheider, "Evaluation of the safety issue of Hg release
> > from dental fillings", FASEB Journal (1993)

> > Nylander and Berglund, "Does Hg from amalgam restorations constitute
> > a health hazard?", Science of the Total Environment (1990)

> > Goerging, Galloway, Clarkson, Lorscheider, Berlin and Rowland,
> > "Toxicity Assessment of Hg Vapor from Dental Amalgams", Fundemental
> > and Appled Toxicology (1992)

> > Clarkson and Friberg, Biological monitoring of Toxic Metals (Plenum
> > Press 1988)

> > Svare et al., "The Effect of dental amalgams on Hg levels in expired
> > air", Journal of dental research (1981) - The first paper to establish
> > unequivocally that Hg comes out of amalgams.

> > Vimy and Lorscheider, "Whole-body imaging of the distribution of Hg
> > released from dental fillings into monkey tissues", FASEB Journal
> > (1990)

> > Vasken Aposhian, "Urinary Hg after administration of 2,3-
> > dimercaptopropane-1-sulfonic acid (DMSA): correlation with dental
> > amalgam", FASEB Journal (1992)

> > Friberg and Nylander, "Hg Concentrations in the human brain and
> > kidneys in relation to exposure from dental amalgam fillings",
> > Swedish Dental Journal (1987)

> > Woods and Echeverria, "Urinary porphyrin profiles as a biomarker of Hg
> > exposure: studies on dentists with occupational exposure to Hg",
> > Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health (1993)

> > Vimy and Lorscheider, "Mercury from dental "silver" tooth Eillings
> > impairs sheep kidney Eunction", (1991)

> > Eggleston and Nylander, "Correlation of dental amalgam with Hg in
> > Brain tissue", Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry (1987)

> > David Eggleston, "Effect of dental amalgam and nickel alloys on
> > T-lymphocytes: Preliminary report", Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry
> > (1987)

> > Summers, Vimy and Lorscheider, "Hg released from dental "silver"
> > fillings provokes an increase in Hg and antibiotic-resistant bacteria
> > in {*filter*}and intestinal flora of primates", Antimicrobial Agents and
> > Chemotherapy (1993)

> > Vimy and Lorscheider, "Maternal-fetal distribution of Hg released from
> > dental amalgam fillings", (1990)

> > Gustav Drasch, "Hg burden of human fetal and infant tissues",
> > European Journal of Paediatrics (1994)

> > Fritz Lorscheider, `ADP-ribosylation of brain neuronal proteins is
> > altered by in vitro and in vivo exposure to inorganic Hg",
> > Journal of Neurochemistry (1994)

> > Markesbery and Ehmann, "Trace element imbalances in isolated
> > subcellular fractions of Alzheimer's diseased brains", Brain Research
> > (1990)

> > Markesbery and Ehmann, "Regional brain trace element studies in
> > Alzheimer's disease neurotoxicology", (1988)

> > Boyd Haley, "HgEDTA complex inhibits GTP interactions with the E-site
> > of brain beta-tubulin", Journal of Toxicology and Applied Pharmacology
> > (1993)

> Good work.  You've compiled the who's who of dental quackery here.  Now
> take a look at the critical reviews that address the inherent flaws
> in the underlying research.   I don't have my bibliography handy, but
> right offhand I

>What are we all missing that you know is true?

>>What are we all missing that you know is true?
>What we all are missing is those organizations to respect the
>principles of scientific research.

>Interesting! The entire world is made up of fools, according to the
>anti-amalgamists!

>>Interesting! The entire world is made up of fools, according to the
>>anti-amalgamists!
>Wrong.

>>>>What we all are missing is those organizations to respect the
>>>>principles of scientific research.

>>>Interesting! The entire world is made up of fools, according to the
>>>anti-amalgamists!

>>Wrong.

>Then how does that work? If the Centers for Disease Control, the US
>Public Health Service and now the Academy of General Dentistry do not
>join the "amalgam is poison" bandwagon, then how can they all be
>anything but fools?

>That is, unless there is no proven harm from amalgam.

>>>>What we all are missing is those organizations to respect the
>>>>principles of scientific research.

>>>Interesting! The entire world is made up of fools, according to the
>>>anti-amalgamists!

>>Wrong.

>Then how does that work?

>>>>>What we all are missing is those organizations to respect the
>>>>>principles of scientific research.

>>>>Interesting! The entire world is made up of fools, according to the
>>>>anti-amalgamists!

>>>Wrong.

>>Then how does that work? If the Centers for Disease Control, the US
>>Public Health Service and now the Academy of General Dentistry do not
>>join the "amalgam is poison" bandwagon, then how can they all be
>>anything but fools?

>>That is, unless there is no proven harm from amalgam.
>Amalgam IS proven poisonous.
>And you know this!