Sorry to add to the "amalgam" discussion.  But enough is enough on a
subject that is so worn out.  I'm only a 3rd dental student, and I'm so
tired of hearing about it, hopefully students and young doctors will share
my view.  The studies seem to be fairly conclusive on what types of Hg
exposures are harmful and which ones are not.  Let's all face it....  we do
so many things each day that are more harmful to our bodies than this.  
Discussing amalgam dangers is like spending a third of your life counting
pennies.  It's just about as boring and pointless.  

Hi,

We agree! There's so many more interesting topics in dentistry. How'd
we get so far off topic?

Today, I heard that about the new Dunkin' Bagel Stick in
Cheddar/Jalepeno flavor.

Even that sounds good compared to more amalgam discussion!

Cheers,

Joel

````````````````````

By the way, what's state of the art for posterior class II composites?

Which materials, which bonding agents and which solvents?

Cheers,

Joel

```````````````````````

Thanks, Wrany,

That is VERY interesting. I do understand their reasoning for this. I
have practiced dentistry over 30 years and I have seen quite a bit.
You comments kind of support my postings where I mention that
sometimes, in certain clinical situations, amalgam is best.

Of course we can also do something that's second best, but in my
hands, there's a place for amalgam. If any patient requests "no
amalgam" then they won't get any amalgam!

I hope that we can end our "amalgam" controversies for the time being.
I do wish you well in the greatest profession on the face of the
earth!

There is nothing more gratifying than some of our most excellent
treatment!

Cheers,

Joel

`````````````````

To learn more about the Amalgam safety issue (or lack of) visit:-
  http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/pcsol
(Includes FAQ & more links..)

PLEASE NOTE - "REPLY TO" on this message may be incorrect
to discourage junk mail. EMAIL replys to :
   pcsol AT tcp DOT co DOT uk

Well, nojunk, it is a misfortune.  But I can guarantee that the benefits
have outweighed the problems by a million fold.  No one I know has ever
gotten ill, and it's very rare cases that I've even heard of a true illness
due to amalgam placement.  Most of them are documented hyperchondriacs who
watch too much 20/20, 60 minutes, and Dateline.  Also it had been shown
that when all the amalgams are removed and the mercury exposure is
increased due to all the cutting out of the fillings, that the {*filter*} levels
of mercury in these patients goes up considerably, but miraclously the
patients feel better, ummmmm, could it be psychological partly?  I wonder.

Well, nojunk, it is a misfortune.  But I can guarantee that the benefits
have outweighed the problems by a million fold.  No one I know has ever
gotten ill, and it's very rare cases that I've even heard of a true illness
due to amalgam placement.  Most of them are documented hyperchondriacs who
watch too much 20/20, 60 minutes, and Dateline.  Also it had been shown
that when all the amalgams are removed and the mercury exposure is
increased due to all the cutting out of the fillings, that the {*filter*} levels
of mercury in these patients goes up considerably, but miraclously the
patients feel better, ummmmm, could it be psychological partly?  I wonder.

On 26 Mar 1998 00:41:51 GMT, "Wrany Southard"

If only one percent of the general population suffers health problems
due to mercury poisoning from amalgam, that is many thousands of
people each year.

Mercury is the most toxic non-radioactive element on earth.  Mercury
amalgam fillings normally contains 52% mercury.  On average, an
amalgam filling weighs 1 gram and contains 1/2 gram of mercury.  The
typical {*filter*} carries ten amalgam fillings containing about 5 grams of
mercury.   1/2 gram of mercury in a ten acre lake would warrant
issuance of a fish advisory for the lake.

At this address you will find:
http://www.***.com/
"This is an electron microscope picture of a ten-year-old amalgam
Filling. Those black holes are where the mercury used to be. In this
filling, some 40 per cent has evaporated in only ten years. So where
did it go, and could it cause harm to humans?"

At this address you will find:
http://www.***.com/
"Dr. Jaro Pleva in Switzerland in 1983 performed a chemical analysis
of a filling removed after 5 years and found it to contain only 27%
mercury.  About half of what was there when placed!  How long
have the fillings in your teeth been there? "

Check my math here:  If the average American {*filter*} has 10 amalgams
which contain, on the average, 1/2 gram of mercury each, that would be
5 grams total of implanted mercury in the mouth.  If half, that is
2 1/2 grams of mercury, vaporizes over a span of 5 - 10 years, where
do you think it goes?  Remember, 80% of all inhaled mercury vapor is
absorbed directly into the {*filter*} stream.  What are the chances that
some people actually do get sick from this?  Probably more than can be
proved, or are even suspected due to the misdiagnosis.  When someone
has amalgams in their mouth for years before they get sick, they never
suspect that the amalgams are the cause, because they don't associate
getting sick years later, from the amalgams placed earlier.  And when
they do get sick, they don't go to their dentist for a dianosis.

The DAMS group has tons of documented case histories of people with
many different very serious health problems who recovered their health
after amalgam removal and detox.  Not double blind placebo studies,
but still the truth, regardless whether it is clinical or not.  Many
pro-amalgamists deny that this data has any merit because it was not
collected in a lab.  Whether the collection of data was done in a lab
or not has no relevance to the fact that it is true.  If extrememly
ill people with diseases such as MS are made better by amalgam removal
and treatment for mercury poisoning, it is foolish to cast this
information aside, and laugh it off as placebo, or ignore it as only
anecdotal.

Since amalgam has to be stored in a sealed container before it is
placed in the mouth because it is a known neurotoxin and vaporizes at
room temperature, and s{*filter*}amalgam and amalgams which are removed are
stored in a sealed container and required by law to be disposed of in
a toxic waste disposal site, then the only legal place to store
amalgam, other than in a sealed container is in the mouth!  

Does this make any sense?  If it is perfectly harmless then why is it
kept in a sealed container and s{*filter*}amalgam is sent to a toxic waste
site?  Is saliva such a strong wonderful solution which is capable of
rendering the poison mercury harmless?

Duncan

easy1, I am impressed with your information, even though it seems that the
worst and most extreme information has been gathered from all over and
concentrated here to convince me.  I was interested in what your
qualifications were, not neccesarily in dentistry, but in quality studies
in general, and the difference of a good study and a poor one.  I am aware
of one thing.  The school I attend employs doctors who have written books
used all over the nation.  They are critiquers of important and well read
dental journals.  They have a collective practice experience of hundreds of
years.  And they must be a responsible party to impart information to my
class- future dentists of the U.S.  They gathered all pertinent
information, weighed it out, unbiased b/c they really could care less
whether we are forced to do composites only or not.  And they gave us a
heart to heart talk about all the amalgam talk that is out there.  Showed
us and explained the toxicology reports,  and it seemed very clear to me
that amalgam is still the best option we have to restore caries.  The
evidence is absolutely NOT there regardless of all the websites you can
point out.  It's all about validity.  I guess I'm just being lied to by a
whole group of researchers/teachers/dentists who are really just out to
keep hurting ppl regardless of the consequences.  

also, upon more careful inspection of your posting.  THERE is NO way that
you are going to lose 1/2 of the mercury in a filling in even 50 years.
Your numbers are extremely far off.  If you want some real numbers related
to everyday mercury exposure I can get that for you given a little time.
And I mean exposure from other sources that you can't avoid.  The
difference btw a no-amalgam person and a amalgam person would be
astonishingly low considering everyday Hg exposure from other sources.  At
a quick glance your posting looked serious, but now I'm humored at the
numbers, sorry.  I'm not trying to be a jerk.  I would be the first to stop
placing amalgam, I prefer composites, they are easier to cut preps for, and
kind of fun to trim.  You know ppl used to play with elemental Hg, they
would roll it in there hands let it absorb in real good.  Do you have any
idea how much more exposure that was compared to the Hg that is in
conjuction with other metals in amalgams.  Also I place amalgams under
extremely favorable conditions for the correct setting of amalgam, I then
polish it after 24 hours.  My amalgams do not look like potholes, like some
I've seen.  

On 26 Mar 1998 03:32:04 GMT, "Wrany Southard"

I suggest that you should care about this issue enough to collect your
own research data from the abundance that is easily available through
references given on this discussion group.  I suggest that you find
out for yourself through your own personal quest for knowledge and
research it on your own and make your own informed decision about what
is true and unbiased information, rather than follow along blindly
believing whatever you are told.  

If the teacher tells you something you have to go along with it to
pass your course.  That does not make it true.  But you do have the
ability to think for yourself, don't you?  I can't believe you think
they are unbiased.  They are certainly biased in every way.  They have
been teaching that amalgam is harmless and ridiculing the
anti-amalgamist position for so long and so loudly, that if they were
to change their position now they would look like idiots, and at the
very least lose face.

I can tell that you obviously took their word for it and did not
research for yourself.  No one could possibly read 10% of the
available toxicology reports and research data that is available and
referenced in the discussion on this group and come to the conclusion
that amalgam is totally harmless unless hopelessly biased.

Do you know what a MSDS sheet is?  If a MSDS sheet from the
manufacturer says not to use this product in pregnant women, children
under six years old, or in someone with kidney problems, what would
that indicate to you?   Totally harmless?  A neurotoxin?  Read the
contraindications (warnings, inadvisable procedure) for yourself,
including toxicity symptoms, on the Material Safety Data Sheets
at http://www.***.com/
Do you think the manufacturer was only joking when this data sheet was
published, or that his toxicologists are wrong, because your teachers
tell you that the toxicology report has no significance?

On this webpage   http://www.***.com/
Dispersalloy Caulk posted

""Contraindications

The use of amalgam is contraindicated;

     In proximal or occlusal contact to dissimilar metal restorations.

     In patients with severe renal deficiency.
     In patients with known allergies to amalgam.
     For retrograde or endodontic filling.
     As a filling material for cast crown.
     In children 6 and under.
     In expectant mothers.

Precautions

The number of amalgam restorations for one patient should be kept to a
minimum.

Inhalation of mercury vapor by dental staff may be avoided by proper
handling of the amalgam, the use of masks, along with adequate
ventilation.

Avoid contact with skin and wear safety glasses and gloves.

Store amalgam s{*filter*}in well sealed containers. Regulations for
disposal must be observed."

Is the manufacturer just pulling our legs on this one, or are your
teachers right?

Duncan

http://home.sol.no/~reiersol/who.htm

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Oslo, Norway
---------------------------------------------------------------------

As one example, I have a list of 13 estimates of mercury exposure from
amalgam published in the scientific literature. The four lowest are by
dental researchers, and only one of the others. Someone might want to
find out how likely it is that that would happen by chance. As far as
I know, no one in dental research or in the dental organizations has
ever been strongly critical of amalgam; on the other hand, several of
the world's leading mercury researchers are.

If you look at epidemiological studies, never mind the reviews, you
will find the same pattern. Dental researchers and dental journals are
overwhelmingly favorable to amalgam. Toxicological and medical
researchers and journals are more divided, but I think most of what
you will find is at least skeptical to the use of amalgam.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Oslo, Norway
---------------------------------------------------------------------

Well, very interesting.  Like I said in another posting " I like composites
better anyway, especially now with the development of better composites and
condesable ones"  I think that amalgams are ugly even when placed near
perfectly.  So personally have no problem with not using amalgam, but I'm
just quoting the 1998 version of what's being taught.  
Respectively Wrany