>This is my reply to an EMAIL on the Amalgam issue -
Ade, PLEASE edit your posts a little to make them more
easy to read !!!
Amalgam is by far the most easy material to place. Sure it
has influenced those who still use it.
Now some gossip:
>Nylander and Berglund, "Does Hg from amalgam restorations
>constitute a health hazard?", Science of the Total Environment (1990)
Those are two nice guys with an incredible knowledge of amalgam.
Berglund started out as a professor many years ago within the food-
industry. He also been the consultant of a major drug companies.
He got caught by the issue mercury in fish.
Magnus Nylander has just completed a book titled "Free from Amalgam"
which is a comprehensive review on the whole dental amalgam issue.
No-one here on this list can present or compete with his knowledge.
He has the last few years been the head coach of the Norwegian cross-
country ski team - and they are really doing well ! The only problem
with Magnus is that I haven't seen him since we had a night on the
town some months ago ...
>In my view Huggins hurt the "anti amalgam" movement by trying
>to make money out of his "discovery" that Amalgam could
>be dangerous, and thus gave the dental industry a "get out"
>- they can now accuse *any* scientist (however credible they
>previously were) who happens to question amalgam safety of
I do not know in detail his doings, or wrongdoings, but I will meet
him later this month and hopefully ask him politely if he is such
a disaster. You may be right. Anyway I'll let you know.
>It is interesting to note that one of the original usages
>of the term "quack" was to attack the first dentists who
>used mercury in fillings in the early 19th century by
> "..I think there is no basis for such a statement... [that
> amalgam is safe to use for children]....
When amalgam was banned on children under the age of 20
in Sweden there was an small exception written in fine print:
it was, and still is, allowed on mentally retarded kids. Imagine
the field day any 2nd class lawyer will have once this gets out.
>Safe levels can easily be established by looking at the
Why aren't there any epidemiologists who say that?
Why is it not possible to establish the smallest piece of
epidemiological evidence correlating periodontal disease and
cardiac/circulatory pathology although 20%-25% of the arterio-
sclerotic plaque is made up by intra-oral organisms?
Maybe the epidemiological approach just isn't that effective?
>Bear in mind too his first language is Swedish..
"it is not right" in Swedish is often expressed as "it is wrong".
>We have lots of anecdotal evidence from lots of authorities
All science starts with anecdotal evidence. Where would
astronomy stand today without creative minds suggesting the
weirdest of idéas. The non-creative thinkers have always been
the main problem in science. And will always be.
>Typical rhetoric designed to ridicule, rather than argument
>based on fact.
Now, isn't that a paradox (whoever said that). Wanting an
argument based on facts by argueing against an argument
but not by facts.
>I personally know the person who was in charge of approving or
>disapproving the use of restorative materials during the height
>not the amalgam scam in the USA (Enid Neidle) and Neidle
>would deny this claim in a heartbeat.
why does ADA refuse to put their Seal of Approval on dental amalgam?
That would be really interesting to know ...