Dagfinn Reiersol <reiersol at online.no> wrote:
: Brian Sandle <bsandle at southern.co.nz> wrote:
:>He appeared to be saying that because mercury is more dense then there
:>will be more toxin in the volume of a filling of amalgam than of
:>composite.
: Yes, there will be more by weight, which is the relevant because
: toxicity data are always given in weight measures.
What do you include `by' for? `Of' would have been better, but nothing at
all is best.
Some difficulty with English is to be expected, but your expression is
giving what you say a sort of technical sound, but it is not correct.
You could have said `more toxin because of more weight,'
`by' in English could mean `per' or `divided by' - a rate.
You would not be speaking of the rate of toxin per weight at that point
of reply to what I said.
Your talk of moles
: is a red herring.
I wanted to get people back to thinking of the process, not just
accepting what you said with your poetic swing of their feelings.
: So there is more toxic substance and it's hundreds of times more
: toxic.
So now I am putting this on the toxicology newsgroup for comment.
