Why is it complete nonsense? If a compound of dangerous elements can be safe in one case, explain why it can’t hold true in any other.
It is a chemical definition. Salt, a chemical compound, will not release sodium or chlorine except in a chemical reaction or process like electrolysis. However, an amalgam (an alloy) will emit mercury due to, for example, chewing.
Here is a link which discusses compounds vs alloys:
Rather than relying on Yahoo! Answers, can you provide some reputable studies that show higher mercury levels in those with more fillings or/and advanced age?
They also date from a time when people got into a big sweat about “toxins” and underwent all sorts of grotesque purges and enemas to rid themselves of these imagined toxins.
Luckily, no one falls for that nonsense these days.
Children’s Amalgam Trial out of Boston did studied multiple aspects of the possible effects of mercury on children receiving fillings.
[Monty Python Spam Song] Cite! Cite! Cite! Cite! [/Monty Python Spam Song]
From another study which looked at 42 measures of neuropsychological function following exposure to the mercury-containing compound thimerosal (a vaccine preservative falsely blamed for “toxic” effects in children, including autism):
“…we detected only a few significant associations with exposure to mercury from thimerosal. The detected associations were small and almost equally divided between positive and negative effects. Higher prenatal mercury exposure was associated with better performance on one measure of language and poorer performance on one measure of attention and executive functioning. Increasing levels of mercury exposure from birth to 7 months were associated with better performance on one measure of fine motor coordination and on one measure of attention and executive functioning. Increasing mercury exposure from birth to 28 days was associated with poorer performance on one measure of speech articulation and better performance on one measure of fine motor coordination.”
I’d like to think that relesabe will realize that the term “toxin” is meaningless unless you can demonstrate harm.
Not sure I’d buy that. Around here it’s almost all historical sediments laid down during the gold rush.
In my opinion based only on 27 years in the business, is that aesthetics is a bigger concern. People don’t want gold placed where it will show.
some people do like bling.
Citation about environmental contribution from dental waste:
Note that even if no direct effect from implanted filling on individual, the effect on environment is not small.
And if scare mongers stopped insisting that every one have their fillings replaced, the problem would be greatly reduced.
Notice that that PDF from the EPA says that dental offices were the source of 50% of all mercury which was sent to POTWs (Publicly=Owned Treatment Works). Further, POTWs have a 90% efficiency rate of removing mercury from the water they discharge from the plants.
So, the amount of residual mercury compounds discharged in waste water from the plants is probably pretty small, at least in parts per billion on whatever.
I think those concerned about using mercury in fillings have legitimate motivations, don’t see what is to be gained by any party except maybe producers of alternative materials.
But surely removal of fillings does not contribute significant to dental waste – it is from things like excess mercury used in the production of fillings.
I think it would be great if amalgams were completely harmless but I am not convinced.
My last word on this subject here.
Good luck and I hope at least some people consider avoiding amalgams in favor of plausibly safer materials even if they cost a little more.
This is from wikipedia article, with its own citations:
“In addition to health and ethics issues, opponents of dental amalgam fillings point to the negative externalities of water contamination and environmental damage of mercury. This concern is especially worrisome since its use and disposal by dentists go largely unregulated in many places, including the United States.[11] The WHO reports that mercury from amalgam and laboratory devices accounts for 53% of total mercury emissions.[12] Separators may dramatically decrease the release of mercury into the public sewer system, where dental amalgams contribute one-third of the mercury waste,[12] but they are not required by some states in the United States.[13]”
And “mercury-free” dentists whose practices make money by catering to people unnecessarily frightened by having amalgam fillings (presumably including whoever removed yours).
So, what sort of replacement materials did your dentist use? Composite fillings that contain the sort of Toxins I listed in a previous post? How do you feel about having all those [del]plausibly safer[/del] cytotoxic materials in your mouth?
My personal story.
About 10 years ago, I began to get frequent headaches radiating up from the jaw area, as well as a constant low grade underlying headache. My jaws were constantly and …the only word I can think of is “vibrating”, I would get these weird pains like electrical shocks radiating outward. And my teeth hurt all the time…I couldn’t really eat anything hot or cold. And I stopped going to the dentist – he wasn’t really helpful about the tooth sensitivity issue he attributed it to age------and a simple teeth cleaning had become a painful process.
I will note that I believe these symptoms began as a side effect of anti-depressant medication, but they did not subside when the medication was discontinued. My doctor was stumped and nothing we tried helped. I began to live with the chronic pain.
So, one day a filling broke or something else happened that meant I couldn’t avoid dentistry any longer. I did, however, find a new dentist.
Please note that the dentist I went to was a mainstream dentist that works in both composite and amalgam. After he fixed the broken filling he made the comment that some of my old amalgam fillings were in really bad shape and he recommended replacing them. For whatever reason he recommended composite.
I was reluctant because of the pain dentistry caused me, but I drugged myself up and went into my first appointment, which was to replace the fillings on the right side.
I did not take me long after the novocaine wore off for me to realize that I was better, at least on the right side of my head and face. All those annoying symptoms I’d put up with for years were 90% better, at least on the side were I had the work done. I called the dentist and asked for the next available appointment to replace the rest of the fillings, after that I was completely better.
I am going to mention again that this was a mainstream dentist and he did not use any special methods to remove the amalgam…according to the woo theories the removal process he used would have released all sorts of poisons and made me worse. He made the suggestion that I may have had some sort of allergy to the fillings-- or maybe they were just so worn and leaky that they were causing the problem.
But I still view what happened after their removal as a miracle of sorts and I don’t think I would ever get another amalgam filling.
I am advocating simply not using amalgam in anyone’s future fillings.
The people who would argue vehemently against that position might be dentists who had installed many Hg-bearing fillings and thus are in a “tiger by the tail situation.”
Also, someone with a lot of amalgams might be comforted by the belief that everything is okay and there is no such thing as a toxin…
You’re still not getting this part.
Anything is toxic under the right conditions: water, oxygen, even calcium - the stuff bones and teeth are made of.
The point is that dental amalgam is not particularly toxic and doesn’t pose a significant risk of mercury poisoning under normal use by healthy humans - just as calcium, oxygen, and water are not toxic under normal use by healthy humans.
Everything is toxic, therefore nothing is?
Anyway, as I keep saying, the environmental impact of dental usage of mercury is surprisingly large. On the other hand, look at all the toxic O2 in the environment…