Subject: Re: Mercury: what about dentists?

From: Elke Babiuk <[email-masked]>
Date: 28 Jan 1996 04:48:57 GMT

[email-masked] (Douglas Simpkins) wrote:
>Not to cloud the issue with facts, but our lab at the University of Florida 
>did a study to determine if any mercury did indeed get into the kidneys or 
>brains of rats with conventional amalgam.  The dental school did the 
>implants, feeding and organ excise, and the tissues were sent to us for 
>analysis.
>
>Qualifier:  I have no idea what controls were on the experiment before we got 
>the samples.  We were paid to do the analysis.
>
>The results were that no mercury was found to have concentrated in the kidney 
>or brain tissues, within the sensitivity of the analysis (Neutron Activation 
>Analysis).

Sure glad you put the qualifier in there Doug because your analysis 
contradicts what's in the peer-reviewed literature so far. The FACTS are 
that mercury definately collects in the kidneys and some goes to the 
brain. Of course, rats may provide different results than those from 
monkeys, sheep, and human autopsy studies. Or maybe, the study should 
have been done at a health sciences medical research center rather than 
by dental students. 

Regards, Elke
ps: removed some of the groups

INTERNET RESOURCES--MERCURY:
http://vest.gu.se/~bosse/MercSubj.html (abstracts here) other resources: 
http://vest.gu.se/~bosse/MercRes.html
Mercury FAQ here: http://www.algonet.se/~leif/
AMALGAM discussion list; to subscribe send an E-mail to: 
[email-masked] with the following message in the first line of the 
body: SUB AMALGAM Myfirstname Mylastname 
(Editor: Siegfried Schmitt E-mail: [email-masked])

A good review: "Mercury exposure from 'silver' tooth fillings: emerging 
evidence questions a traditional dental paradigm," F.L. Lorsheider, M.J. 
Vimy (both from the University of Calgary), and A. O. Summers (University 
of Georgia), FASEB Journal, 9, 504-508 (1995). 

-- 
All truth passes through three stages. First it is ridiculed. Second,
it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident
---------------------   Arthur Schopenhauer  -----------------------

http://www.santarosa.edu/~dmontgom/fluoride.htm
http://emporium.turnpike.net/P/PDHA/health.htm

---

From: Elke Babiuk <[email-masked]>
Date: 28 Jan 1996 17:17:04 GMT

http://ww2.altavista.digital.com/cgi-bin/news?[email-masked]@134.15
3.2.38
Message-ID     <[email-masked]>
misc.health.alternative,sci.med,misc.kids,misc.kids.health,alt.activism.c
hildren,misc.kids.pregnancy,alt.folklore.herbs,sci.med.nutrition

[email-masked] (CB Leek) wrote 23 Jan 1996 10:09:49 GMT:
> As a dentist:  Bless you!  All logical questions that fear mongers
> seem to neglect.  Especially when there seems to be a very lucrative
> reason to replace all those amalgam restorations.  $$ rules, it seems.

The use of "fear mongers" is distasteful, given the evidence about the 
harmful effects of mercury in many patients that have first-hand 
experience with it, and the readily available published literature on it. 
Also, dental associations consider it unethical for a dentist to remove 
mercury amalgams for reasons other than dental. Allegations that some 
dentists are removing amalgams because it's "very lucrative" is  
unprofessional and shames the dental profession, of which you are a 
member. The push towards mercury-free dentistry comes not only from 
concerned dentists but from various scientists in the health medical 
professions; and, from the growing numbers of consumers who don't wish to 
have a toxic poison placed in their mouths. We don't want our children 
exposed to it either. Mercury amalgam removal is usually initiated at the 
request of a patient and/or doctor or the dentist risks losing his/her 
license, so stop embarassing yourself and your profession by falsely 
accusing some of practising mercury-free dentistry just to make more 
money. 

> Besides, has anyone realized that the replacement restorations are
> full of even less tested/more chemically reactive agents???
> *** [email-masked], Goose Bay, Labrador

I hope you are not implying that mercury fillings have been tested for 
biocompatibility. They haven't. Isn't it amazing that relatively little 
or NO biocompatibility testing is ever done on the systemic effects of 
the other dental materials that are routinely placed in the general 
population? It's past time that we as consumers demanded that the dental 
industry conform to the traditional standards of toxicological testing 
before we allow dentists to put some of this stuff into our bodies!

Elke Babiuk
ps: I trimmed some of the groups

Bioprobe (books newsletter, etc): http://www.eyec.com/bioprobe/
Mercury facts: http://www.algonet.se/~leif/FUSCIFCT.html