Occupational exposure to mercury affects dentists & dental assistants

[philb]

Occupational exposure to mercury affects dentists & dental assistants:

Echeverria, Woods JS, Heyer NJ, Rohlman DS, Farin FM, Bittner AC Jr, Li T, Garabedian C. Chronic low-level mercury exposure, BDNF polymorphism, and associations with cognitive and motor function. Neurotoxicol Teratol. 2005 Nov-Dec;27(6):781-96



Potential cognitive and motor effects from exposure to elemental mercury (Hg(0)) were examined in the presence and absence of a polymorphism (Val66Met) in brain-derived neurotrophic factor (BDNF). A group of 194 male dentists (DDs) and 233 female dental assistants (DAs) were occupationally exposed to mercury and had no history of kidney or nervous system disorders. Acute exposure was measured using spot urinary Hg (HgU) concentrations (average 3.32 and 1.98 microg/l, respectively) and indices of chronic occupational exposure (26.3 and 14.9 years, respectively, weighted for historical exposures). The BDNF status was 68% and 66% wild type, 26% and 30% single substitution, and 5% and 4% full mutation for DDs and DAs, respectively. DDs and DAs were evaluated separately. Regression analyses controlled for age, premorbid intelligence, alcohol consumption, and education. Statistically significant adverse associations with HgU (p<.05) were found for nine measures among DDs (Digit Span (Forward), Digit and Spatial Span(Backward), Visual Reproduction, Finger Tapping(Dominant, Alternate, and Alternate Partialed), Hand Steadiness, and Tracking), and eight measures among DAs (Digit Span(Forward), Visual Reproduction, Pattern Discrimination(Rate), Symbol Digit(Rate), Trailmaking B, Finger Tapping(Dominant and Alternate Partialed), and Hand Steadiness). The BDNF status was associated with four measures in DDs and three measures in DAs. Joint effects were found for Finger Tapping(Alternate and Alternate Partialed) in DDs and Hand Steadiness and Trailmaking B in DAs. Joint effects were additive in all cases. Our findings are applicable to exposure levels of the general population and identify a potentially vulnerable group with a BDNF polymorphism.


EPA: those in the dentistry business acquiring as high as 3.94 mg/kg of mercury, for they are constantly exposed to the element, which is used for teeth filling.

[HereSince1628]

1. Like we aren't exposed to the crap in our filling?

Hmmmmmm, maybe the canary has stopped singing in the coal mine.

[bperci108]

2. Hmmm....

I thought that mercury amalgam fillings were a thing of the past; my personal dentist hasn't used them in over a decade, using epoxy resin materials instead. They are much better, IMHO.

Anyone out there still getting these things? :puke:

[philb]

3. Most dentists still use them; they haven't bothered to read medical studie

s apparently or pay attention to the effects on their patients or on dentists and their assistants or hygenists.

For lots of medical study documentation on effects of mercury on dental staff see:
http://www.home.earthlink.net/~berniew1/dental.html

for documentation on the mechanism by which dental amalgam causes over 40 chronic health conditions see:
http://www.home.earthlink.net/~berniew1/indexa.html
(the papers cite over 4000 peer-reviewed medical studies)

for documentation of over 60,000 clinical cases of recovery from the above 40 chronic conditions after treatment
for mercury toxicity(includes replacing amaglam fillings)
see http://www.home.earthlink.net/~berniew1/hgremove.html

[bperci108]

4. Yuck.

Glad I had all of mine removed long ago.

Mercury is really nasty stuff. So much for anyone bothering to read the MSDS on Hg at the dental college...:(

[philb]

23. Autopsy studies show dentists, dental staff, have high mercury in brain

and similar for those with amalgam fillings. Mercury is extremely neurotoxic and documented to commonly cause chronic neurological conditions, both to dental staff and those with many amalgam fillings. Half life of mercury in brain is 20 years,
but for dentists or those with fillings the levels in brain grow over time due to continuous exposure.


Autopsy studies have found similar high body accumulation in dental workers, with levels in pituitary gland and thyroid over 10 times controls and levels in renal cortex 7 times controls(99,363,38). Autopsies of former dental staff found levels of mercury in the pituitary gland averaged as high as 4,040 ppb. They also found much higher levels in the brain occipital cortex(as high as 300 ppb), renal cortex(as high as 2110 ppb) and thyroid(as high as 28,000 ppb. In general dental assistants and women dental workers showed higher levels of mercury than male dentists (171,172,173,253,303,362).

Autopsy studies have found much higher levels of mercury in the brain of adults who have amalgam fillings(14d). Infants of mothers who had dental work involving amalgam during pregnancy had significantly higher levels of mercury in hair tests(541a).

References: http://www.home.earthlink.net/~berniew1/amalg6.html

numbers refer to reference numbers of peer-reviewed studies in the paper/URL cited

[philb]

26. dentists(& dental staff) have much higher levels of mercury in urine

1."Dentists were found to have, on average, urinary mercury levels over 4 times that of control subjects."
2. "One hundred and twenty two (67.8%) of the 180 surgeries visited had environmental mercury measurements in one or more areas above the Occupational Exposure Standard (OES) set by the Health and Safety Executive."
3. "In 45 surgeries (25%) the personal dosimetry measurement (ie in the breathing zone of dental staff)(and the patient) was above the OES."

Reference: Mercury vapour levels in dental practices and body mercury levels of dentists and controls.
Ritchie KA, Burke FJ, Gilmour WH, Macdonald EB, Dale IM, Hamilton RM, McGowan DA, Binnie V, Collington D, Hammersley R. Br Dent J. 2004 Nov 27;197(10):625-32; discussion 621.






the reference is from the National Libary of Medicine Medline

[trotsky]

5. Elemental mercury is indeed dangerous.

Locked up in an alloy like amalgam, however, it is far safer than most things you are exposed to during the average day.

Dentists and dental assistants mix up the amalgam for use in fillings. They had better take every precaution because they ARE being exposed to elemental mercury.

Dental patients, however, are not.

[philb]

6. Its obvious you've been reading quack sites, so I'll provide more info

mercury in dental amalgam is not locked up in dental amgalgam in any way. Mercury is a gas at room temperatures
and constantly escapes from dental amalgam (or other sources such as thermometers if they are broken- if thermometer is
broken in schools they evacuate the school for this reason). The main type of exposure from dental amalgam is mercury vapor which causes adverse health effects at lower levels than other forms of mercury(and as acknowledged by Gov't health standards)
http://www.home.earthlink.net/~berniew1/damspr13.html

People with dental amalgam fillings get such high exposures that dental amalgam is by far the largest source of mercury in sewers
with those with several fillings excreting an average of about 30 micrograms per day of mercury into toilets(documented by medicals studies, EPA, municipal sewer agencies,etc.) http://www.home.earthlink.net/~berniew1/damspr2f.html
(EPA drinking water standard is 2 parts per billion so those with amalgam cause all sewer plants and sewer sludge sites to be toxic waste sites- sludge averages 3 parts per million mercury- note hugely more than EPA standard)

Thus dental amalgam is also a major source of mercury in rivers, lakes, bays, fish. Over 30 % of U.S. lakes have warnings
to limit fish consumption and similar for rivers and bays.

I can provide some statements by some of the more recognised researchers from Univ. Chemistry Departments on such subjects in this regard if you haven't already seen them in another thread.

[trotsky]

7. So you want me to believe that everyone's fillings

are putting out far more mercury than our nations coal-burning power plants, eh?

I'd guess that those power plants put out more mercury in a second than most people's mouths emit during their lifetimes.

I question your alarmist techniques.

[philb]

8. Its obvious you don't bother to read the documentation I provide,

since all that I have stated is documented by peer-reviewed medical studies and Government agency statements.
But dentists use about 40 tons of mercury per year(see previous reference) and it all ends up in the environment
sooner or later, much each year, since people with several amalgams excrete approx. 30 micrograms per day into toilets
and thus sewers(Municipal Sewer Agency Assoc., EPA, etc.) as previously documented
http://www.home.earthlink.net/~berniew1/damspr2f.html

The annual effect on the environmental of dental amalgam is large and only slightly less than that of coal fired
power plants. But the effects of both are huge, both result in large amounts of mercury in water bodies, fish, the atmosphere, etc.
and there is a serious worldwide mercury problem as a result.
Can you show me a case where there is documentation that I have exagerated anything?
But its also documented as I've said that dental amalgam is the largest source of mercury in most people
http://www.home.earthlink.net/~berniew1/damspr1.html
and the largest source in sewers and thus in many water bodies(see above)
It only takes the amount of mercury in one dental filling to contaminate all fish in a 10 acre lake to the extent that a health warning would be issued. Much more than this comes out of most dental offices and from relatively small areas toilets of those with amalgam. (source: Electric Power Research Institute- see previous cite)

What specifically of the documentation that I've provided do you disagree with?
Do you disagree that amalgam is the largest source in most people? If so, why?
Do you disagree that amalgam is the largest source in sewers? If so, why?
I've provided doc. from gov't agencies

[trotsky]

9. Caught ya exaggerating!

OK, let's go with your number of 30 micrograms per day that a person with "several amalgams" releases into the environment. That number, if accurate, translates into about 11 milligrams per year per person.

Let's go totally wacky and say that EVERYONE in the United States emits that much. We're exaggerating the problem probably by at least an order of magnitude or more, but hey, it's all in the name of science, right? Let's go for it!

So now, by those estimates, we are releasing into the environment 300,000,000 x 11mg of mercury every year from fillings. This works out to be about 3300 kilograms per year, if my math is correct. Now granted, that's a lot of mercury!

BUT

The fine state of Pennsylvania ALONE emits more than 4000 kilograms of mercury every year from coal-burning power plants. (http://www.ewg.org/reports/brainfood/plants/PA.html)

Nationally, power plants spew about 40,000 kilograms of mercury into the environment every year.

Compare that to our certainly-overestimated 3300 kg/year for amalgams.

Your claim that "The annual effect on the environmental of dental amalgam is large and only slightly less than that of coal fired power plants." is obviously WRONG. Why on earth should I trust anything else you say on this issue?

[philb]

10. Actually you didn't. You misintepret apparently.

I said that U.S. dentist use 40 tons of mercury each year. But the mercury going into toilets are from amalgam fillings that
have been placed over lifetimes; and some by dentists in other countries; and much of past waste from dental amalgam is still
in the gound being methylated and outgased continuously- it doesn't all happen instantly. But it does happen continuously as documented by Oak Ridge National Laboratory studies and others.
http://www.home.earthlink.net/~berniew1/damspr2f.html

In addition to the mercury excreted by people(do you dispute the numbers documented in the above reference by Gov't agencies?)
there is also slightly more released from the U.S. dental officies. So double the amount you calculated. And take into account amounts released from past years. I haven't had time to check your work, but I have checked mine. It is also documented that the mercury released from dental amalgam at crematoriums is a "major" source of emissions and the largest source in UK apparently. See same paper above for references. And likewise burial plots/graveyards would be a major source of emissions due to dental amalgam.
And landfills and places sludge has been land spread. (some countries like UK are considering requiring amalgams be removed when people die by morticians to avoid major releases into the environment- see paper above)

And note that according to the Electric Power Research Institute the amount released by people and dental officies is enough to contaminate all fish in the U.S. with enough mercury to not be able to safely eat the fish. The amount of mercury in one filling can contaminate all fish in a 10 acre lake to a level where consumption warnings would be necessary.

I haven't specifically tried to work out the total amounts from utility emissions(though I've done research on emissions and effects and I have studies with numbers and documentation for my state). But I've seen Gov't and other studies that deal with both types of sources and know that both sources are large and significant. I agree that power plant emissions are also a major source, and also that it is a larger source in some areas. But not for others. It depends on the distribution of power plants and sewer plants and dental officies and where the outfalls and landfills and crematoriums are.

Its very clear that dental amalgam is a major source of mercury emissions to the environment and is affecting everyone.
As the summary document above documents. I think the documentation in total says that amalgam affects people more than
power plants. But both have very major effects. It would be interesting to carry out a full study comparing the amounts and effects from these two types of sources. But I think all thats clear is that both are major and are having significant effects on everyone.

note: studies document that over 20% of people tested in the U.S. have levels of mercury above the EPA safety reference level and over 30% in states such as Florida, New York, Calif., New England.
But it should also be noted that the test done signficantly underestimates exposure. Those with the most body burden and most serious effects from mercury show the least levels in the tests commonly used- because those with blood APO type IV alleles can't excrete mercury and store it, it doesn't show up in hair tests or blood tests. Type 3s to a lesser degree. Type 2s are lucky and excrete mercury readily, also test well. Thus to assess mercury toxicity you have to look at indirect effects on other things as well as mercury test levels.
Also, the type of test used(hair) mainly picks up methyl mercury, not mercury vapor from dental amalgam. Because mercury vapor is rapidly transported by the heart to organs(especially major organs that get a lot of blood like the brain, heart, liver, kidneys, lungs) where it is rapidly transfered into cells and forms binding compounds with amino acids and such in the cells. The average life of mercury vapor in the blood is less than 10 seconds before it is transfered and bound into the cells. You can't find it in standard tests. (Magos et al , http://www.home.earthlink.net/~berniew1/amalg6.html)

the same paper referenced documents that dental amalgam is the largest source of mercury in the brain and that those with mercury fillings get high levels in the brain that increases over time(autopsy studies). But dentists have even higher levels in their brains. And mercury is extremely toxic. Note the effects of this mercury in the brain from amalgam in the study posted re: dentists, above(1st post) Mercury causes widespread and major neurological effects, since its extremely toxic and those with amalgam or those in dental offices a lot end up with lots of mercury in the brain. (see paper just referenced)

The effects in that study are in addition to Alzheimer's, ALS, MS, Parkinsons, memory loss,etc. commonly caused by mercury
http://www.home.earthlink.net/~berniew1/indexa.html

[Name removed]

11. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[trotsky]

12. I didn't misinterpret - you misstated.

Apparently I can't use the word that one normally uses to refer to someone who has told an untruth, so I will simply and politely state that you are in error.

[philb]

13. I posted the URL to the full story several times; I did not reproduce

the whole paper on this thread. I didn't think it was necessary. I posted part and left it to those with futher interest
to look at more details. You just later decided to go further, without bothering to look at the documentation and details in
my posted paper. I don't have unlimited time to recompile info for you just because you don't seem to want to read what I've already summarized and cited.

you still haven't answered my questions, which of the statements that I asked about do you disagree with and why?
that is the crux of the matter. If you don't disagree with what I've posted, we should get on to other things.
I'm leaving for the holidays early tomorrow morning.

If you still have questions, I'll try to respond when I get back.

[trotsky]

14. I disagree with most of what you said.

I agree that mercury is a deadly poison and is in our environment at alarming levels, but I dispute that:

* Dental amalgam is a health threat
* Removing amalgam fillings will improve health
* Dental amalgam is a major source of mercury pollution

I.e., pretty much every other claim you've made. Why do I disagree? Because you haven't made your case on any of those. I caught you exaggerating data. On the other thread you first backed off a claim ("most dentists"), then didn't even produce solid evidence to support your backed-off claim ("most European dentists"). These dishonest and evasive tactics produce suspicion in my mind.

That and the fact that the most highly respected and knowledgable dental organization in our country has overwhelming evidence that your claims are unfounded.

[Orrex]

15. But he really really really really believes it!

Doesn't that count for anything? :sarcasm:

[philb]

16. I've already documented that what you say you believe isn't true

but you still didn't answer any of the 3 basic questions I asked you.
(its pretty clear you didn't bother to read the documentation but have none to the contrary) (I'll be more specific this time)

I've provided documentation that dental amalgam is the largest source of mercury in most people (Do you disagree?)(if so why?)
see http://www.home.earthlink.net/~berniew1/damspr1.html
specifically:
World Health Organization(WHO),1991, Environmental Health criteria 118, Inorganic Mercury, WHO, Geneva;
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, U.S. Public Health Service, "Toxicological Profile for Mercury"March, 1999;

Kingman A, Albertini T, Brown LJ, Mercury concentrations in urine and whole blood associated with amalgam exposure in a US military population., J Dent Res 1998 Mar;77(3):461-71 (population of over 1000 Air Force personnel; found each 10 amalgam surfaces increased mercury in urine by approx. 1 microgram per liter)

Leistevuo J et al, Dental amalgam fillings and the amount of organic mercury in human saliva. Caries Res 2001 May-Jun;35(3):163-6

Kraub P, Deyhle M, Maier KH, Roller HD, "Field Study on the mercury content of saliva", Heavy Metal Bull, vol.3, issue 1, April '96

A. Engqvist et al, "Speciation of mercury excreted in feces from individuals with amalgam fillings", Arch Environ Health, 1998, 53(3):205 13
J.A.Weiner et al, "An estimation of the uptake of mercury from amalgam fillings", Sci Total Environmet,v168,n3,1995.

L.Barregard et al, "People with high mercury uptake from their own dental amalgam fillings", Occup Envir Med, 1995, 52:124
128.
L.Bjorkman et al, "Mercury in saliva and feces after removal of amalgam fillings", Toxicol Appl Pharmacol 1997, 144(1): 156 162.
Berglund A, Molin M, "Mercury levels in plasma and urine after removal of all amalgam restorations: the effect of using rubber dams", Dent Mater 1997 Sep;13(5):297-304;& M.Molin et al, "kinetics of mercury in blood and urine after mercury removal" J Dent Research, 1995, 74:420
J.Begerow et al, "Long Term Mercury Excretion in Urine after Removal of Amalgam Fillings", Int Arch Occup Health , 1994, 66: 209 212.
G.Sallsten et al, "long term use of chewing gum and mercury exposure from dental amalgam", J Dental Research, 1996, 75(1):594 598.
I.Skare, "Mass Balance and Systemic Uptake of Mercury Released from Dental Fillings", Water, Air, and Soil Pollution, 80(1 4):59 67, 1995

can you find any documentation showing these medical/medical lab studies are wrong or the U.S. Govt agency responsible for such is wrong or the World Health Organization is wrong? There have been millions of tests by medical labs such as Doctors Data lab, etc.
that have documented this. Doctors Data Lab , http://www.doctorsdata.com

also note that as the Lievestro study shows, since bacteria, yeast, and methyl donars in the body methylate other forms of mercury
to methylmercury, dental amalgam is often the largest source of methyl mercury in the body as well as of total mercury.

you can find abstracts of the medical studies in the Nat. Lib. of Med. Medline at: http://www.nlm.nih.gov/

[philb]

17. Do you disagree witht these facts re: amalgam largest source in sewers &

related effects of the high amount of mercury from dental amalgam that goes into sewers, sewer sludge, water bodies, fish, atmosphere, etc.?

1. Human excretion into sewers by those with amalgam dental fillings along with dental office amalgam waste have been documented to be the largest source of mercury into sewers.
2. All sewer plants in the U.S. have high levels of mercury and all sewer sludge has dangerous levels of mercury(generally 1 to 3 ppm).
3. Dental amalgam fillings are a major source of mercury going into rivers, lakes, and bays, both from dental offices and human wastes in home and office sewers. Dentistry is the third largest use of mercury in the U.S. using
45 tons per year most of which ends up in the environment.
4. Mercury pollution is widespread in U.S. rivers, lakes, and bays; with dangerous amounts of mercury commonly found in freshwater and saltwater fish. Over 50% of Florida’s rivers and lakes have warnings regarding eating the fish and most bays. Over 33% of all U.S. lakes have fish consumption warnings, 15% of all U.S. river miles, 90% of Atlantic coastal miles, and 100% of all Gulf coastal miles. Most Gulf Coast salt water predator fish species have high levels of mercury(above EPA/FDA warning level)
5. Mercury is the most toxic substance commonly encountered, and is adversely
affecting the health of millions of people in the U.S.
6. If sewer sludge is incinerated, most of the mercury goes into emissions.
7. Crops grown on land using sewer sludge pick up high levels of mercury.
Soil bacteria in landfills and land spread sludge areas methylate mercury to methyl mercury, which is released in methane and landfill gas in high levels.
8. High levels of mercury are being found in rain all over the U.S.

All of this is documented by studies and measurements by EPA, Municipal Sewer Agencies( and Assoc. for Municipal Sewer Agencies),
Oak Ridge National Laboratory, and peer-reviewed studies referenced in:
http://www.home.earthlink.net/~berniew1/damspr2f.html

do you disagree with any of these statements or the documentation supporting them? If so, why, and where is your support for what you believe?

[philb]

18. Mercury from dental amalgam documented to commonly cause adverse effects

Mercury is in the top 3 toxics causing large numbers of adverse health effects according to U.S. Gov't:
U.S. Dept. of Health(ATSDR)/EPA Priority List for 2003: Top 20 Hazardous Substances, Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, www.atsdr.cdc.gov/clist.html
(the 3 top exposures all affect millions)

As previously documented, amalgam is the largest source of mercury exposure in most people, and those with several fillings
get very high exposures, far more than gov't health guidelines http://www.home.earthlink.net/~berniew1/amalno1.html
http://www.home.earthlink.net/~berniew1/damspr1.html

the type of exposure one gets from dental amalgam, mercury vapor is extremely toxic, has Gov't health standards lower than other forms, and causes adverse effects at levels of exposure lower than other mercury forms:
http://www.home.earthlink.net/~berniew1/damspr13.html

the mechanism by which mercury from dental amalgam causes over 40 chronic health conditions has been documented by thousands of
peer-reviewed medical studies and many thousands of clinical tests and cases
http://www.home.earthlink.net/indexa.html (over 4000 peer-reviewed medical studies or gov't stuidies referenced)

DAMS has documentation including peer-reviewed medical studies of over 60,000 cases of recovery from the over 40 chronic conditions caused by dental amalgam after amalgam replacement. All of the DAMS state coordinators and coordinators are included in those totals, along with thousands more that the coordinators know and have worked with.
http://www.home.earthlink.net/~berniew1/hgremove.html
http://www.home.earthlink.net/~berniew1/recover.html

There is consensus in the medical and dental communities that dental amalgam is the main cause of some of these conditions, and that
most recover after amalgam replacement. (see previous documentation)


also note that the scientific documentation provided by the Amer. Dental Assoc. to the FDA when requested to do so fully supports the high exposures I've documented from dental amalgam and also the common adverse health effects

http://www.flcv.com/adaabsr.html
also note that in court as posted on another thread, ADA has admitted that they are not a credible source of information on this subject.


Which of this do you disagree with and why?
(I've supplied URLs for over 4000 peer reviewed studies, can you find any credible studies to the contrary?)

[trotsky]

19. Look, I'm only going to say this one more time.

1) You are manipulating data. On one hand, you cite valid information that indicates mercury is a poison and a health threat. I do not disagree with you on this. But on the other, you try to assume that amalgam fillings are a significant mercury source, which they are not.

2) It is not the responsibility of those who side with current scientific consensus to pour over your "4000 peer-reviewed studies" and debunk them. Everything you link to is on your personal website, where you take those peer-reviewed studies and put YOUR OWN SPIN on them. Since you've already been clearly demonstrated to exaggerate and misstate facts, why on earth should you be trusted?

3) http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=3316333&dopt=Abstract

Several investigators have attempted to assess the extent of mercury exposure from dental amalgam restorations through the use of mercury vapor measurements of intra-oral or expired air. The sampling times and flow rates of the mercury vapor analyzers used in intra-oral measurements are not comparable with physiological inhalation times or flow rates of air through the mouth during inhalation. Analysis of the assumptions and measurement techniques employed in previous attempts to estimate mercury exposure from amalgam restorations shows that adequate compensation had not been made for these measurement parameters. Calculation of the mercury vaporization rates responsible for the mercury vapor concentration values previously reported enabled the daily dose of mercury to be estimated for subjects with various numbers of amalgam restorations. The corrected estimates for daily dose of mercury from amalgam restorations are a factor of sixteen lower than those previously reported.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=1556301&dopt=Abstract

Measurements of intra-oral mercury vapor from amalgam fillings are discussed. It was shown that the only quantity which it is possible to measure is the mercury release rate, and that the concentrations of mercury vapor in the oral cavity published in most earlier studies are the mercury concentrations in the measuring cell of the measuring apparatus and not the concentrations in the oral cavity. The consequences for the daily dose equations of the facts that the mercury source is present inside the oral cavity and that the amount of mercury released during a certain time is limited are discussed. It was found that most daily dose equations used have a questionable mercury distribution on inspiration, expiration, and swallowing. Re-calculations of almost all the available daily dose data showed a mean daily dose value of about 1.3 micrograms Hg/day (range, 0.3-2.2 micrograms Hg/day). The mean swallowed amount of mercury from intra-oral mercury vapor was calculated as being in the order of 10 micrograms Hg/day (range, 2.4-17 micrograms Hg/day), resulting in an estimated absorption of about 1 microgram Hg/day from the gastro-intestinal tract.

Even one of the quacks generally on your side (fearing anything having to do with "traditional" medicine) acknowledges the mercury exposure from fillings is insignificant compared with that from diet:
http://www.mercola.com/2003/apr/9/diet_mercury.htm

[philb]

20. scientific consensus is that dental amalgam is the largest source of mercu

ry for most people. I've posted documentation from U.S. Department of Health, Agency of Toxic Substances, the official source for such to this effect; from a major assessment by the World Health organization that showed people with amalgam fillings get much more exposure from amalgam than from fish, from U.S. EPA and the Association of Municipal Sewer Agencies who did measurements showing that those with several fillings excreted an average of 30 micrograms per day down sewers- resulting in high levels in sewers and much higher levels in people than from other sources. I've provided the documentation and references, you have none to the contrary.
You posted an article by Mackert who is a paid lobbyist for the American Dental Association, but the study is not a serious study
and was not published in a peer-reviewed medical journal- rather in a dental journal. The article has no science, no measurements,
and is purely a review article stating his opinion- has no measurements. Note that the ADA has acknowledged in Court that they should not be considered to have expertise on this issue. Their information was found lacking in court. Likewise I supplied medical studies that they supplied to the FDA that supports what I've said.

I've cited information from medical labs based on hundreds of thosands of medicals tests(fecal tests and urine tests) by labs such as Doctors Data Lab, Great Smokies Diagnostic Lab, and Biospectron(European Lab) that fully supports the information of EPA and the
municipal sewer agencies regarding the extremely high levels of mercury in feces and urine of those with amalgam fillings.
Oral tests using a Jerome mercury vapor meter consistently show high and dangerous levels of mercury in oral air of those with amalgam fillings(higher than Gov't health standards) due to the fact that mercury is a gas at room temperature and mercury in amalgam continuously vaporizes into oral air and saliva. If I need to I can post as many of the 4000 peer-reviewed studies I've cited, but since you still persist, I'll post a few more based on measurements of mercury in saliva of those with amalgam:


A large study was carried out at the Univ. Of Tubingen Health Clinic in which the level of mercury in saliva of 20,000 persons with amalgam fillings was measured(199). The level of mercury in unstimulated saliva was found to average 11.6 ug Hg/L, with the average after chewing being 3 times this level. Several were found to have mercury levels over 1100 ug/L, 1 % had unstimulated levels over 200 ug/L, and 10 % had unstimulated mercury saliva levels of over 100 ug/L.. The level of mercury in saliva has been found to be proportional to the number of amalgam fillings, and generally was higher for those with more fillings. The following table gives the average daily mercury exposure from saliva alone for those tested, based on the average levels found per number of fillings and using daily saliva volumes of 890 ml for unstimulated saliva flow and 80 ml for stimulated flow (estimated from measurements made in the study and comparisons to other studies). It also gives the 84th percentile mercury exposure from saliva for the 20,000 tested by number of fillings. Note that 16% of all of those tested with 4 amalgam fillings had daily exposure from their amalgam fillings of over 17 ug per day, and even more so for those with more than 4 fillings.

Table: Average daily mercury exposure in saliva by number of amalgam fillings(199)
Number of fillings: 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
Av. Daily Hg(ug) 6.5 8 9.5 11 12.4 14 15.4 16.9 18.3 19.8 21.3 22.8 24.3
84th percentile(ug) 17 23.5 26 30.5 35 41.5 43.8 48.6 50.3 46.7 56.6 61.4 64.5

Saliva tests for mercury are commonly performed in Europe, and many other studies have been carried out with generally comparable results(292,315,79,9b,335,179,317,352). Another large German study(352) found significantly higher levels than the study summarized here, with some with exposure levels over 1000 ug/day. These studies found that the amount of mercury in saliva increased about 1.5 to 2.5 micrograms for each additional amalgam filling(199,352).
References: http://www.home.earthlink.net/~berniew1/amalg6.html (this article has over 4000 peer-reviewed studies cited)

note that this is just in saliva; the largest amounts of mercury measured in those with amalgam is in the feces- as noted by
the studies by EPA and Municipal Sewer Agencies and thousands of tests by medical labs that I've cited.
Why do you think that the main U.S. Federal agency responsible for this issue(ATSDR) is incorrect about exposure levels and
on what basis do you dispute the over 1000 page World Health Organization study to the same effect.
Call or contact a medical lab such as Doctors Data Lab and ask them how the urine mercury levels of those with amalgam compare
to those without. Just like the studies I've cited, the labs have found(and state in their test data based on hundreds of thosands of tests) that those with amalgam average mercury levels over 5 times that of those without. I can cite you over ten peer-reviewed
studies from the URL just listed that document the same thing.
Likewise there are hundreds of thousands of people who've had their amalgam fillings replaced, and it is clearly documented by the
peer-reviewed medical studies and by medical lab tests that after replacement the level of mercury in their urine decreases from 60 to 80%, while the level in their saliva and feces is reduced by over 90%.

* After filling replacement levels of mercury in the blood, urine, and feces typically temporarily are increased for a few days, but levels usually decline in blood and urine within 6 months to from 60 to 85% of the original levels(57,79,82,89,196,303). Mercury levels in saliva and feces usually decline between 80 to 95% (79,196,335,386)
references: http://www.home.earthlink.net/~berniew1/amalg6.html


In other words all clinical tests and studies fully support that dental amalgam is clearly the largest source of mercury exposure in most of those with amalgam fillings.
Do you now agree?????? If not why. I can keep posting additional peer-reviewed and Gov't agency documentation if needed,
but there is none to the contrary. I've been researching mercury exposures for over 20 years and am extremely familiar with the literature. there is consensus among clinical studies and scientists on this- only
articles by dentists expressing opinions without test results and published in dental journals express opinions to the contrary- but without any support. All the science supports what I've said. I know you can't find any credible evidence tot he contrary because there have been millions of tests by medical labs and studies and they all support what I've said.

[philb]

22. 40 more studies documenting amalgam is largest source in people with amalg

Mercury vapor from amalgam is the single largest source of systemic mercury intake for persons with amalgam fillings, ranging from 50 to 90 % of total exposure. (14,16,17,19,36,57,61,77-83,94,129,130,138,161,167,183,191,196,211,216,273,292,303,332,), averaging about 80% of total systemic intake.

The number of amalgam surfaces has a statistically significant correlation to :

(a) blood plasma mercury level (13d,17,22,23,49,79,89,133,211)(usually not as strong as other measures)
(b) urine mercury level (38,49,57,76,77,79,82,83,134,138,167,176,254,303,332,335)
© oral air(16,18,100,176,335)
(d) saliva and oral mucosa(18,30,77,79,117,179,174,199,211,222,292,315,317)
(e) feces mercury (25,79,80,83,115,117,182,335,386)
(f) pituitary gland (19,20,25,85,99,273/274)
(g) brain occipital cortex (14,16,19,25,34,85,211,273,348,366/274)
(h) renal(kidney) cortex(14,16,19,20,85,254,273,348,366)
(I) liver(14,19,85,366)
(j) motor function areas of the brain & CNS: brain stem, cerebellum, rhombencephalon, dorsal root ganglia, and anterior horn motor neurons (48,291,327,329,442,35.)
(k) fetal and infant liver/brain levels(61,112,186,231,22) related to maternal fillings.
(the numbers refer to reference numbers in the following- peer-reviewed studies)

references: http://www.home.earthlink.net/~berniew1/amalg6.html

you can find most of these studies abstracted in NIH National Library of Medicine
http://www.nlm.nih.gov

[trotsky]

24. Since you completely ignored my post

and simply parroted your own talking points once again, I'm done.

[philb]

27. More documentation: high exposures meansured in those with amalgam

4. "using a newly developed, amalgam specific chew test, in 2223 subjects,
average of 1 microgram mercury released per minute of chewing." (so how many micrograms per day-lots & consistent with previous)

5."for patients exceeding the 75th centile in chew tests, total Hg intake exceeds the WHO PTWI by about 50%, even at the low limit of intake from food. After removal of dental amalgams, chew tests no longer exhibit oral Hg exposure, while basal urine Hg content and DMPS induced excretion display an exponential decrease." (the U.S. EPA/ATSDR standard is much lower than the old WHO standard quoted here, so even more of those with amalgam exceep the U.S. EPA/ATSDR standard found in references I've previously listed)

Reference:Evaluation of the mercury exposure of dental amalgam patients by the Mercury Triple Test. Hansen G, Victor R, Engeldinger E, Schweitzer C. Occup Environ Med. 2004 Jun;61(6):535-40.


note: although you object and apparently don't read what I post, I've supplied hundreds of studies and thousands of clinical tests results supporting everything I've stated, while you have found none to the contrary so far. The reason is there are none.

[philb]

21. Real scientists assess Mackert article, which had no data-only opinion

Dr. Rod Mackert, a dentistry professor at the Medical College of Georgia and one of the ADA's main spokesmen on the issue:

"The comments by Rod Mackert are false. Mercury from amalgams is the
major source of body mercury body burden and have been documented so in
refereed literature, one done in 1998 at the NIH. Why Mackert keeps
stating this falsehood and getting by with it amazes me. His data is based
on an "estimate" that he and another person of undetermined credentials
came up with and this "estimate" is at odds with the rest of the scientific
world."
Boyd E. Haley Chair Department of Chemistry, Univ. of Kentucky
Prof. Noel Campbell P O Box 137 Parkville VIC 3052 Australia

Since you keep quoting ADA lobbyists rather than scientists or doctors, note that ADA has stated they should not be considered
to be authorities on this subject:

"The American Dental Association, which for so long has promoted the use of mercury amalgams, has recently divested itself of any culpability with regard to mercury. In a case before the Superior Court of the State of California, lawyers for The ADA and others stated: ‘The ADA owes no legal duty of care to protect the public from allegedly dangerous products used by dentists. The ADA did not manufacture, design, supply or install the mercury-containing amalgams. The ADA does not control those who do. The ADA’s only alleged involvement in the product was to provide information regarding its use. Dissemination of information relating to the practice of dentistry does not create a duty of care to protect the public from potential injury.’"

Dr. Williamson goes on to make an observation: "Now, an obvious question arises: if mercury were safe, as the dental profession has insisted for years, why would the American Dental Association feel obligated to claim nobody can hold it responsible for the harm it has caused? Their statement is just a way of saying, ‘the stuff’s dangerous, but don’t blame us if it hurts you."
Charles Williamson, M.D., co-director of the Toxic Studies Institute in Boca Raton, Florida and colleague, Jordan Davis, M.D.,
http://www.lef.org/magazine/mag2001/may2001_report_mercury_1.html


the 2nd article you cite is one of those reviewed in my posted article that summarizes 4000 articles, see my article regarding that one- which is a minor article on a minor issue- not related to total mercury exposure- which is well documented by clinical tests
and amalgam replacement test results that I've cited.
The Mercola article also has no data or test results- was simply a comment supporting mercury from fish being a major problem.
Mercola is credible, but there is no substance regarding the question at hand in the URL you posted. Millions of tests by
medical labs are the most credible evidence of exposure levels of those with and without amalgams, and the test results are clear.

[philb]

25. Doctors Data Lab: those with amalgam have 10 times more mercury

Based on thosands of medical tests & supported by similar clinical tests by other labs in peer-reviewed studies

METALS Reference RANGE mg/kg(68th percentile)
Mercury <.05 w/o amalgams*
Mercury < .5 with amalgams*

Analysis of elements in feces provides a comprehensive evaluation of environmental exposure, accumulation and endogenous detoxification of potentially toxic metals. For several toxic elements such as mercury, cadmium, lead, antimony and uranium, biliary excretion of metals into feces is the primary natural route of elimination from the body. Studies performed at DDI demonstrate that the fecal mercury content and number of amalgam surfaces are highly correlated, as is the case for post-DMPS urine mercury levels and amalgam surface area.
Results are reported as mg/kg dry weight of feces to eliminate the influence of variability in water content of fecal specimens. The reference values that appear in this report have been derived from both published data and in-house studies at DDI. *Due to exposure to mercury in the oral cavity, people with dental amalgams typically have a considerably higher level of mercury in the feces than individuals without dental amalgams; therefore, two reference ranges have been established for mercury.
To provide guidance in interpretation of results, patient values are plotted graphically with respect to percentile distribution of the population base. Since this test reflects both biliary excretion (metals to which the patient is exposed may not be absorbed) and exposure, it may not correlate with overt clinical effects. Further testing can assist in determining whether the metals are from endogenous (biliary excretion) or exogenous (oral exposure) sources.
1. Bjorkman, L, Sandborgh-Englund, G, and Ekstand, J,. Mercury in Saliva and Feces after Removal of Amalgam Fillings. Toxicology & Applied
Pharmacology 144: 156-162 (1997)
2. Zalups, R, Progressive Losses of Renal Mass and the Renal and Hepatic Disposition of Administered Inorganic Mercury. Toxicology & Applied
Pharmacology 130: 121-131 (1995)
3. Adamsson, E., Piscator, M., and Nogawa, K., Pulmonary and Gastrointestinal Exposure to Cadmium Oxide Dust in a Battery Factory.
Environmental Health Perspectives, 28: 219-222 (1979)
4. Smith,J., et al., The Kinetics of Intravenously Administered Methyl Mercury in Man. Toxicology & Applied Pharmacology 128:251-256 (1994)
5. Bass, D., et al., “Measurement of Mercury in Feces”, Poster presentation 1999 AACC
http://www.doctorsdata.com/docs/pdf/fecal.pdf

DOCTOR’S DATA, INC. y ADDRESS: 3755 Illinois Avenue, St. Charles, IL 60174-2420 y LABORATORY DIRECTOR: James T. Hicks, MD, Ph.D., FCAP TOLL FREE: 800.323.2784 y TEL: [phone] y FAX: [phone] y EMAIL: [e-mail] y WEBSITE: WWW.doctorsdata.com

Do you believe clinical test results from many thousands of tests by a medical lab?
Is that sufficient to settle this that its clear amalgam is the largest source of mercury in those with mercury fillings?