Well like it was said, it’s hard to kill the all. But some Listerine and peroxide do a pretty good job of laying waste to them for a day or so.
Imagine if there was a vaccine
No, tooth decay leads to root canals, the fillings are an intermediate step but not a cause.
No all root canals do not need crowns. It depends on the amount of tooth that needs to be replaced.
Of my six root canals three don’t have crowns. they are 40,37 and 35 years old. I’ve been doing root canals for 28 years and do a lot that dont need crowns. In fact the one I did yesterday morning will only get a filling.
I don’t think it’s the fit - the crowns in question are from many different visits, from different dentists, and I’ve had the bites checked multiple times on each area. I think it’s just the way my mouth is.
I know better, I really do. It’s just that teeth are so painfiul, and so expensive, and so valuable, I find it hard to let my fellow man suffer.
This is a fact, based on the mechanics of how mercury Amalgam fillings work. AModern safe fillings are nonded, and reuqire very little drilling.
The “real problem” is the massive drilling, requited to use mercury Amalgam fillings. It’s criminal tjhat Dentists still do this.
We know they are not “the cause”, tooth decay is, but the amount of drilling is the cause of needing a crown, rather than a filling after a root canal. As for the myth of mercury Amalgam as harmless.
I do, but I got enough grief with out starting that huge flame gfest of an argument.
No, and If I was saying that you could just quote me saying it. I’m talking about wiping ou the strain that causes the tooth rot.
As for a vaccine
Again, nobody is talking about using wide spectrum antibiotics, some of which actually can damage teeth.
Just for education purposes, Dentists used to use Cadmium rather than mercury, but stopped when it became obvious that cadmium was areally bad material for humans.
Mercury is a really bad material for humans.
Still pointing at the video that is just basically a conspiracy theory.
It’s a good example of confirmation bias when an otherwise hard nosed scientist sees mercury vapor coming off a filling, and tries desperately to “debunk” what they see with their own eyes.
Then when another video is made, showing with out any doubt it is mercury vapor, destroying the debunker completely, they go on as if nothing has happened.
It’s an amazing thing to watch happen.
I know it won’t matter, but still, ignorance is not only ugly, it’s dangerous
You can tell from a video the composition of the smoke/vapor? Damn - you got special abilities.
Yes - your ignorance and your attempts to spread it are absolutely ugly and dangerous - you should stop now.
Yep, FX seems to have **very **special abilities it seems. 
What it is clear that he will have to rely on outdated videos that in reality do not demonstrate what the evidence showed later. Logic would tell you that many dentists would had a problem as they handle and use the stuff itself. As the skeptoid guy reports, logic is something that conspiracy theorists do not have.
It’s really just one more example of confirmation bias at work. Eating mercury-tainted seafood will expose you to about 2.3 micrograms per day, but through your digestive tract, which was plenty high enough enough for scientists to call for a worldwide warnings about it. But the fact that a single mercury amalgam filling may release as much as 15 micrograms of mercury per day, which you breath, not eat, that is considered safe by some Dentists. And the EPA, and some other fuckheads who still have no clue. The average individual has eight amalgam fillings and could release up to 120 micrograms of mercury per day. Just from chewing.
This is demonstrated, proved, and really isn’t even a matter of debate. (once somebody realizes that it is true, they switch to “oh that amount isn’t harmful” or some other goal post moving denial)
Now obviously those amounts won’t kill you. Most people will just have low levels of mercury poisoning. It’s the poor souls who really are effected badly that suffer the most. Like children.
But even if none of that mattered, it’s the amount of tooth material that must be removed to use a Civil war era filling material, that’s the real crime.
Safe modern materials are bonded, and require removing a very small amount of tooth to use them.
Of course THAT fact will be ignored. It always is.
On the “worldwide fish warnings” - thats to help remind people to watch how much is consumed on a daily/aggregate basis - precisely due to the potential affects.
Again you miss that there are different types of Mercury - and the stuff contained within fillings is not the same as those found in fish.
Cite please? (on the amounts released from chewing)
If the amount is not harmful - and that seems to be proven fairly conclusively - thats not shifting the goal posts - if its your claim that “any, no matter how small” is proven harmful - BACK IT UP or you’re the one moving the fucking goal posts.
“low levels” - you mean like homeopathic levels?
They do think of the children - the reports specifically talk about caution for those under 6 and steps for those that have reactions, etc.
No - that fact is NOT ignored - and its why many dentists (I thought all) have moved away from amalgam fillings - that some have not (or maybe your speaking to other countries, I’m in the US) - or that the amalgam filling still has its place is some cases - is a different question.
So - how about a fucking cite on how dentists are not using this new stuff as a general rule?
The ADA still fully SUPPORTS MERCURY FILLINGS and denies ANY danger or possible damage from them.
A lot of fuckhead Dentists STILL USE THEM, including for children.
Drilling out enough tooth to use a Civil war method permanently weakens a tooth.
Which the ADA denies.
In case you can’t read the first line on the page
Since I posted that link to you - I think I am perfectly capable of reading it -
now - show some factual evidence that they are wrong.
If you can’t do that - and so far you have not - shut the fuck up.
[QUOTE=http://www.ada.org/1741.aspx]
The FDI World Dental Federation and the World Health Organization concluded in a 1997 consensus statementi: “No controlled studies have been published demonstrating systemic adverse effects from amalgam restorations.” Another conclusion of the report stated that, aside from rare instances of local side effects of allergic reactions, “the small amount of mercury released from amalgam restorations, especially during placement and removal, has not been shown to cause any … adverse health effects.”
[…]
The ADA Council on Scientific Affairs prepared acomprehensive literature review (PDF) on amalgam safety that summarizes the state of the evidence for amalgam safety over the last five years (from January 2004 to April 2009). Based on the results of this review, the Council reaffirmed at its July 2009 meeting that the scientific evidence supports the position that amalgam is a valuable, viable and safe choice for dental patients.
On July 28, 2009, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued its final rule on encapsulated dental amalgam classifying amalgam and its component parts, elemental mercury and powder alloy, as a class II medical device. Previously there was no classification for encapsulated amalgam, and dental mercury (class I) and alloy (class II) were classified separately. This new regulation places encapsulated amalgam in the same class of devices as most other restorative materials, including composite and gold fillings. At the same time, the FDA also reaffirmed the agency’s position that the material is a safe and effective restorative option for patients.
[/QUOTE]
Take that cite and enjoy.
When come back - bring a study that shows otherwise.
The “size of the hole” and “tooth structure” is you moving the goal posts away from your indefensible ‘mercury’ stance into a different topic alltogether - and one you still haven’t shown any evidence for.
Some information for you on Mercury - and why the fish kind is different than the tooth kind.
The ADAs own literature states
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.
Don’t try to blow smoke up the collective ass of science.
So - they are taking potential risks into account -
what the fuck point were you trying to make earlier? that the ADA “pushes” amalgam in all cases no matter what as you said earlier?
Seems you just proved yourself wrong.
have a pleasant afternoon…
Like I said, it’s a never ending argument.
Only because you wont shut the fuck up about that which you clearly know nothing about.
You just invalidated your entire case/mantra against the ADA -
So we can take away from that, and this thread - that you are, in fact, a troll that only wishes to share dis-information and ignorance.
Go back to your bridge.