IUBio Biosequences .. Software .. Molbio soft .. Network News .. FTP

Amalgam ban demanded in Germany

arie_ at hotmail.com arie_ at hotmail.com
Thu Sep 30 17:33:13 EST 1999


On Thu, 30 Sep 1999 16:11:19 GMT, Brian Sandle
<bsandle at southern.co.nz> wrote:

>In sci.med.dentistry arie_ at hotmail.com wrote:
>: On Mon, 27 Sep 1999 22:14:07 GMT, Brian Sandle
>: <bsandle at southern.co.nz> wrote:
>:>> > the tolerable levels were especially often exceeded.
>:>> >: This can be explained by the fact that the number of fillings in 
>:>> >: group is especially high with 9-11 fillings, compared to a mean o
>:>> >: in the general German population.
>:>> >
>:>> >So 8 fillings are safe.
>:>> 
>:>> Who said this?
>:> 
>:>They are saying that 9 to 11 makes the difference in that group compared 
>:>to 8 in the general population.
>
>: So what, what then makes your conclusion valid that 8 would be safe?
>
>It says that the tolerable levels were being exceeded in the 9 to 11 
>group compared to the general population of 8, giving the difference.

I assume these are average values. So that the average exposure that
occurs (on average) with 8 fillings is just below that tolerable level
that you mention. This doesn't mean that for one particular person 8
fillings is safe. The spreading in exposures is huge.
So, in order to be safe for everyone, a much lower maximum number of
amalgam fillings per person should be advised.

>:> And even if, then only on average. The interpersonal
>:>> variability is very large, so I wouldn't say even 1 is safe.
>:> 
>:>Or dangerous.
>
>: Indeed, but who said that 1 filling is dangerous?
>
>
>We both agree 1 could be a trouble for some people, as with any treament 
>some have trouble with it.
>
>:>> >[..]
>:>> >: than with any other available method. Hg can be present in both t
>:>> >: oral cavity and the gastrointestinal tract without being detectab
>:>> >: blood or urine. It is clear that blood and urine do not reflect t
>:>> >: Hg-concentration in the oral cavity/upper airways and in the
>:>> >: gastrointestinal tract.
>:>> >
>:>> >From that some conclusions might be hypothesised.
>:>> >
>:>> >a. that the mercury is not absorbed from either and or airways and 
>:>> >gastrointestinal tract.
>:>> 
>:>> Can you explain the reasoning behind this conclusion? I think it's
>:>> wrong, the mercury can be deposited in the organs before you
>:>> measure.
>:> 
>:>How did it get there except by the blood?
>
>: Please read: "the mercury can be deposited in the organs before you
>: measure"
>
>You have brought the other organs into this, they are not in the original 
>statement.

No, but its very well known that mercury accumulates in brain, kidney,
liver and fat.

>:> You also will have to take account for the bilary
>:>> excretion of mercury in the feces.
>:>> 
>:>> >b. that mercury does not stay long in the blood but gets irreversib
>:>> >stored in the body. That could be found from autopsies.
>:>> 
>:>> It is.
>:> 
>:>So how much is found in a person who has not had amalgams to one who has?
>
>: You know... that's one of the problems. Almost every dentist is
>: shouting that it's completely safe to use amalgams, but there's almost
>: no single study that has researched it very well. But it has been
>: posted here again and again that in autopsies there was especially
>: much mercury found in people with amalgam fillings, compared to pple
>: without. You can find that in the archives.
>
>There is disagreement.

I know that :)   But there are articles that report a correlation
found.

>:>> >c. that mercury is excreted via the intestinal tract through the bile 
>:>or some
>:>> >other pathway.
>:>> 
>:>> also.
>:> 
>:>Therefore it is not building up.
>
>: What a funny conclusion. Why couldn't (for example) half of it being
>: stored, the other half excreted?
>
>In some it might be, depending on metabolism and other nutrition. Better 
>check those first.

I can advise you to inform yourself about the dynamics of mercury (and
other materials) in the human body. It is well known that mercury has
some half-life time, which causes it to be (temporarily) stored in the
body if ingested (occasionally). With amalgams, the exposure is
continuous, so you will find a build up of the mercury in various
tissues and organs, simply because it's 'kept in store' before being
excreted. Now the half-life time in the brains is very long (order of
magnitude of 10 - 20 years), so you wouldn't rather have mercury
circulating continuously through your body, increasing the chance of
it being deposited in the brains.

>:>> >For a start, with a very large sample, as in this study, significan
>:>> >be claimed for only a tiny increase in symptoms.
>:>> 
>:>> Why is that?
>:> 
>:>If you go out in the street and see 10 males and 11 females that does 
>:>not show more females than males with much significance. It might be just 
>:>chance. Say you saw 103 females and 100 males, still not great 
>:>significance that there are more females than males. But once you see 
>:>1025 females to 1000 males you can claim some significance that there 
>:>are more females than males.
>
>: Yes. Meaning? 
>
>Significance does not mean large difference. It just means that any 
>difference is unlikely to be the result of chance.

Agreed, but is also doesn't say the difference is very small. And I
thought that this was what you suggested.

>So say that amalgam is significantly related to illness in 1% of the 
>population. In what percentage is abscesses related to illness - heart 
>valve involvement and brain abscesses?

I don't know. What I do know is that mercury exposure can be
diminished by just preventing amalgams to be placed. So that would be
wise to do, no?
  
>[...]
>:>> >therefore increasing 
>:>> >the mercury in the saliva. If your correlation were any other than 
>:>> >I am sure you would be reporting it rather than leaving it to the 
>:>> >imagination.
>:>> 
>:>> There was no mention of 'very low', only of 'significant'.
>:>> I'm not reporting anything, just copied the text.
>:> 
>:>`Significant' does not mean `appreciable.' It means that there is only 
>:>some 1 to 5 chances in 100 that it is occurring by chance. It could be a 
>:>very tiny difference, just not likely to be the result of chance.
>
>: 99 in 100 cases is also significant.
>
>Not in the technical meaning of the term.

Excuse me? You wouldn't call a correlation factor of .99 of
significance?

>[...]
>:>This paper does support that fish is a more
>:>important source of mercury than amalgam fillings, as seen in the blood
>:>cell mercury rather than the plasma mercury. Of course the methyl mercury,
>:>the culprit, of possible danger especially to a developing embryo, DOES NOT
>:>SHOW UP IN THE URINE TEST.
>
>: Interesting, have they also measured methyl mercury from amalgam
>: fillings?
>
>Maybe a little is converted by the bacteria in the mouth.

Interesting, I haven't read the paper, is there a mention of this? Do
you have other sources that supports in vivo methylation?

>: Then why would dentist associations in Germany advise against amalgam
>: treatment in pregnant women?
>
>Playing safe, possibly. Maybe polishing produces some vapour.

Playing safe, yes, very wise to 'play safe'  :)
Only you interpret 'playing safe' as "very unlikely that it's unsafe".
I understand that they consider that IS unsafe.

>:>The Science of the Total Environment paper (kept in Engineering Library at
>:>the university here) gives a diagram with some correlation between plasma
>:>mercury and number of teeth with fillings. 0 to 4 teeth with fillings would
>:>give a figure of 0.5 to 1.2 ng/g plasma Hg, while 18 filled teeth would
>:>give about 0.5 to 3 ng/g.
>
>: Could be about right.
>
>That is the plasma level, not the blood cell level.

Yes, I saw that, that's also what I meant.

>:>It gives also a table which includes the following:
>:> 
>:>Fish meals/week     0     <1      1      2      3     >3                 
>:> 
>:>Plasma Hg (ng/g)   0.5    0.5    0.4    1.1    0.9    0.4
>:>                   to     to     to     to     to     to
:>                   1.8    2.5    2.4    4.9    3.8    2.6
>:>Average            1.0    1.3    1.6    2.6    2.1    1.2
>:> 
>:>Blood cell 
>:>Hg (ng/g)         1.4           3.3     2.6    4.2    2.8
>:>                  to            to      to     to     to
>:>                  3.0           18      42     22     22
>:>Average           2.1           8.4     11.9   11.3   8.3
>:> 
>:>Urinary           0.4    0.4   0.2      1.0    0.9    0.4
>:>Hg (ug/g)         to     to     to      to     to     to
>:>                  3.9    5.2   10       6.2    3.1    3.4
>:>Average           1.8    2.5    2.8     2.7    1.7    1.3
>:> 
>:>The group with the highest fish consumption (more than 3 fish meals per
>:>week) have unexpectedly low levels of mercury in blood and blood cells.
>:>However the 13 members of this group all caught fish off shore (salmon and
>:>herring) which has low levels of mercury compared to the fish from local
>:>lakes and coastal areas consumed by substantial parts of the groups with 2
>:>and 3 fish meals per week.
>:>**************
>:> 
>:>So did they cite this study? It showed a long time 
>:>ago that mercury intake of the methyl type - from fish does not appear 
>:>in the urine.
>:> 
>:>Did they check plasma and blood cell mercury?
>
>: It was just a study to the mercury content in saliva.
>
>They were saying  the saliva mercury is not related to blood or urine 
>mercury. Whole blood, plasma or blood cell?

I don't know if they didn't mention that.

>:> 
>:>> >For a start give us the level of correlation.
>:>> 
>:>> I would if I had.
>:> 
>:>So it might be 1 in a hundred being affected, or 1 in 1,000, just that 
>:>the number is unlikely to be just chance.
>
>: Yes, or 900 in 1000.
>
>So say what it was, do not leave us guessing.

I told you I don't have it :)

>:>> >Just by what per centage were the symptoms increased?
>:>> 
>:>> Who's talking about 'increase'???
>:> 
>:>It is quite possible to have those symptoms without having had amalgam 
>:>fillings.
>:> 
>:>[...]
>:>> >false conclusion.
>:>> >If the alternatives lead to more abscesses then that may be a worse
>:>> 
>:>> Does it? (composites)
>:> 
>:>I have tried to find out from you how your composite replacements fared.
>:> 
>:>As I said my dentist said it is said in the trade that composite is the 
>:>endodentists' best friend because it kills so many teeth pulps 
>:>necessitating endodontic treatment.
>:  
>: Ah, that abscesses.
>
>So what is the abscess effect on the health compared to amalgam?

I don't know.

>I have reported how I was even having trouble with reading out aloud 
>when I had root infection.

I feel sorry for you :-)

arie

>: arie
>: thanks for the quotes.
>:  
>:>> >: under the name SALIVAGAM a dental metal test. This can be mediate
>:>> >: all pharmacies.
>:>> >
>:>> >Sales ploy.




More information about the Toxicol mailing list

Send comments to us at biosci-help [At] net.bio.net