Mercury Amalgam Fillings and Mercury Vapor - How Toxic?

davidkennedydds

New Member
I'm not sure why you would put out these videos which have some obvious problems and grossly exagerrate what is seen by the average viewer. I can only conclude that you are doing this for propaganda value.

Now there you go again getting personal when I try to have an intelligent discussion and this approach can have no value in science or even debunking malarky. Why would you go there unless you are out of reasons to disagree and refuse to open your mind up to demonstrable facts?

Why not ask me why I put these videos up for the public to see instead of calling it propaganda or some other denigrating term often used in propaganda?

FYI 76% of the public in a recent poll by Zogby did not even realize that silver amalgams "Contained" mercury and much less that mercury is the principal ingredient. This is after 150 years of use. That is what I call a consumer deception.

Af for exaggerated claims I will stand by what I say in them. I've clarified your misunderstandings I think sufficiently for you to agree. if not then I'll try to clarify some more. The science is irrefutable and thus since it does involve a fairly big paradigm shift I understand why it has met some resistance in those who do not use science as a guide.

Those of us who routinely rely upon science as a compass have had to make quite a few paradigm shifts in the last 50+ years as toxicological research has evolved.

In fact, one of the keys to an openminded scientist is how quickly he/she can abandon an old paradigm when a tiny bit of data refutes the previously held truth. Why? Because he/she knows that no matter how happy they were with the earlier theory once that bubble is popped it will not be put back together.

Dentists have claimed for over 100 years that amalgams do not leak mercury. In 1984 the NIDR/ADA admitted they did.

Next question then is how much and not can you prove that the amount released caused me to develop a named disorder. That is called the cigarette defense and totally violates the precautionary principal.
 

davidkennedydds

New Member
Also, in the video you show that mercury is not released from a tooth at ambient room temperature.

Well do you just sit around making stuff up so I can try to refute it or did you really not understand when you watched Dr. Layton first squirt water on the tooth to cool it down and stop ambient release of mercury as I said, "Dr. Layton first cools the amalgam"?
 

davidkennedydds

New Member
The problem I see with the claim you make in the video, that the 116 ug/m3​ gives a representative or even meaningful measurement of mercury being released is that the meter is sampling the same small volume over and over as it runs, and is being held so close to the filling that whatever is being released is concentrated into that very small volume.

What you say is correct about the volume of air being small but then all I was doing is showing a mercury analyzer jumps up and gives a big reading when placed over an ld amalgam filling.This absolutely supports the conclusion that I made in Smoking Teeth that "Any kind of stimulation released mercury vapor"
 

davidkennedydds

New Member
What I see is that you have placed a meter designed to measure ambient air quality for mercury which reads in ug/m3 ​Per cubic meter.

Actually if you take a better look it is milligrams/M3 but there is a tiny decimal point to the left to the reading that you may have missed. Just for accuracy's sake. That makes the reading 116 micrograms.
 

davidkennedydds

New Member
I'm 45, and had mercury fillings from age 10 to age 35when they were gradually replaced in the course of other work. My brain is fine, anecdotally. And my overall health did not improve between ages 35 and 45.


Two things you should know about low dose chronic mercury poisoning:

1. Because mercury poisons so many different systems (brain, immune, kidney, heart) the first detectable symptoms vary widely and can be delayed as much as 20 years.

2. Reversal of mercury poisoning once exposure has ceased does not necessarily reverse the injury.

In addition, unless your dentist followed the IAOMT patient protection procedures as approved by OSHA then in fact you've been recieveing more mercury as a result of your decision to remove these mercury-leaking implants hence my "SHOUT" to the previous postings about carless removal.
 

davidkennedydds

New Member
Dear Mick,

I really like the tools you have on this blog and appreciate your willingness to share your concerns and doubts. I have criticized the Debunkers for being too willing to accept the words of authority since history tells us that with all paradigm changes the authority is always wrong since it never changes until forced to do so. That is why the 1984 joint NIDR/ADA conference on the biocompatibility of metals was a pivotal moment in this long standing argument.

At that meeting when overwhelmed with scientific evidence that mercury was in deed leaking from so called "set" dental amalgam they admitted that it was.

Since there is no "safe" level of exposure only one with minimal risk which if you've been watching has steadily moved lower that should have been the end of the story. I totally stopped using any mercury that year because of that admission. If I could do it in 1984 and today several major counties have banned it entirely why then has the profession been sooooo slooow to adopt a precautionary approach?
 

davidkennedydds

New Member
Do you agree that a Jerome mercury Vapor Analyzer would not read anything if there were not mercury present in some amount?
.
---End Quote---
No, because I have read the manual for the Jerome mercury vapor analyzer.

Please enlighten me as to what you believe the jerome measures besides mercury.
 

davidkennedydds

New Member
Do you agree that a Jerome mercury Vapor Analyzer would not read anything if there were not mercury present in some amount?
.
---End Quote---
No, because I have read the manual for the Jerome mercury vapor analyzer.

Please enlighten me as to what you believe the jerome measures besides mercury.
 

Attachments

  • Sheep scan.jpg
    Sheep scan.jpg
    277.6 KB · Views: 366

davidkennedydds

New Member
While it is true that the ATSDR in the latest rendition discounts human exposure to mercury that was not true in the earlier version. So if they are correct that humans are not exposed to significant amounts of mercury from fillings why is the amount found in your body the day you die proportional to the number and size of mercury/silver fillings in your mouth?

This study seems to eliminate the possibility that dietary or even environmental exposure poses as a significant source of body burden.
Eggleston, D.W., et.al., Correlation of dental amalgam with mercury in brain tissue, J. Prosth. Dent., v.58, no.6:704-707 (1987).


I can give you several other studies but this was the largest.
 

davidkennedydds

New Member
The question is what is the average daily uptake from this, and is it dangerous?


Actually that is two questions.
1. Average daily intake has to be above 263 µg if you have 12 fillings and live in Sweden as Skare found. You simply cannot have 263 µg coming out your butt and not have that much and more going in. All EPA standards are based upon ingestion and not retention but presumably with 263 coming out the stool an amount greater than that went in to account for retention. (See monkey scan below)

There are plenty of studies on this topic.

Actually there are not. What we haver are many opinions masquerading as studies but when you look for numbers measured suing modern analytical methods there are only a few and they all agree with Eggleston cited above.

The "smoking tooth" video is just showmanship.

Thank you but as merely the videographer I cannot take credit for discovering how to visualize elemental mercury vapor emitted from old amalgam following stimulation. Dr. Roger Eichman has that privilege.Monkey Mercury.jpg
 

davidkennedydds

New Member
Have you read what others say about the Quackers? It isn't pleasant and has virtually nothing to do with a discussion of the relevant scientific literature but has everything to do with maintaining the status quo and avoiding addressing reality.
 

davidkennedydds

New Member
The question is what is the average daily uptake from this, and is it dangerous?

You tell me how many micrograms have been harmless?

Do you know the most common reason for a person living in the US to need a heart transplant?

A disorder called idiopathic Dilated Cardiomyopathy. You do recall that the heart is a common target for mercury?

Frustaci et al., found 22,000 times more mercury in hearts that stopped due to IDCM than ones that stopped due to a heart attack.

Frustaci, A. et al, A. Marked elevation of myocardial trace elements in idiopathic dilated cardiomyopathy compared with secondary cardiac dysfunction J Am Coll Cardiology Vol. 33 pp.1578-1583, 1999

If you were to inject 22,000 more mercury into anyones heart it would likely stop beating so my question to you is not this sufficient evidence of a causal relationship between mercury and IDCM?

So clearly causal in fact that the only remaining question is where on earth did all these IDCM patients get all that mercury correct?

To begin to answer that question I would direct your attention to the 1987 table from the study I previously noted by Eggleston below. Sorry for the bad copy but the study has been in my files for 25 years.

While the average amount in brain doubled look closely at the range outliers. Note how some brains had almost 10 times more than average. That is the problem with using averages since an average person may be unharmed but yet a substantial portion would suffer grievous harm hence the necessity to apply the Precautionary Principal. When in doubt leave it out.

Screen Shot 2012-09-10 at 4.37.23 PM.png
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
You tell me how many micrograms have been harmless?

Do you know the most common reason for a person living in the US to need a heart transplant?

A disorder called idiopathic Dilated Cardiomyopathy. You do recall that the heart is a common target for mercury?

Frustaci et al., found 22,000 times more mercury in hearts that stopped due to IDCM than ones that stopped due to a heart attack.


If you were to inject 22,000 more mercury into anyones heart it would likely stop beating so my question to you is not this sufficient evidence of a causal relationship between mercury and IDCM?

So clearly causal in fact that the only remaining question is where on earth did all these IDCM patients get all that mercury correct?

Obviously it's NOT a clear causal relationship. Correlation is not causation. Now if you could correlate that with intake, then you might have something. But all this shows is that they have in increase uptake of trace elements in the heart muscles. They also had 12,000 times as much antimony. Is this evidence of a causal relationship between antimony and IDCM? What about 11x gold? Gold causes IDCM?

http://content.onlinejacc.org/article.aspx?articleid=1125760
In particular, in pts with IDCM mean mercury concentration was 22,000 times (178,400 ng/g vs. 8 ng/g), antimony 12,000 times (19,260 ng/g vs. 1.5 ng/g), gold 11 times (26 ng/g vs. 2.3 ng/g), chromium 13 times (2,300 ng/g vs. 177 ng/g) and cobalt 4 times (86,5 ng/g vs. 20 ng/g) higher than in control subjects.
Content from External Source
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member


Actually that is two questions.
1. Average daily intake has to be above 263 µg if you have 12 fillings and live in Sweden as Skare found. You simply cannot have 263 µg coming out your butt and not have that much and more going in. All EPA standards are based upon ingestion and not retention but presumably with 263 coming out the stool an amount greater than that went in to account for retention.

263? Really? Can you quote the abstract from the paper that figure is in?

How does it tally with this:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7944571

In 35 healthy individuals, the number of amalgam surfaces was related to the emission rate of mercury into the oral cavity and to the excretion rate of mercury by urine. Oral emission ranged up to 125 micrograms Hg/24 h, and urinary excretions ranged from 0.4 to 19 micrograms Hg/24 h. In 10 cases, urinary and fecal excretions of mercury and silver were also measured. Fecal excretions ranged from 1 to 190 micrograms Hg/24 h and from 4 to 97 micrograms Ag/24 h. Except for urinary silver excretion, a high interplay between the variables was exhibited. The worst-case individual showed a fecal mercury excretion amounting to 100 times the mean intake of total Hg from a normal Swedish diet. With regard to a Swedish middle-age individual, the systemic uptake of mercury from amalgam was, on average, predicted to be 12 micrograms Hg/24 h
Content from External Source
 

MikeC

Closed Account
That is incredible! In fact virtually impossible! Did they do a challenge or merely a blood, urine, or fecal test. The reason I ask is that simple tests never measure mercury that is sequestered in tissues.

It was blood, about 11 yrs ago and part of a battery of tests to determine the levels of heavy metal among a bunch of friends - we are all wargamers who cast a lot of our own miniature figures using printers type, and one of us had had high lead levels found in a work blood test (he worked at a ceramics factory where they regularly did such tests). The rest of us were fine for all materials tested for - the only problem was his lead levels, which were determined to be due to something else entirely.

BTW I am not surprised you've reached the grand old age of 53 and are unaware of any disorder. The dentists that have been tested in numerous studies were perfectly confident that they were fine as well. However, careful neurological examination following a DMPS challenge found a dose dependent impairment. That is why we use scientific measurements of brain activity instead of using blunt measures such as simple survival.

A "dose dependent impairment"?? So dose is actually important then? And if their "impairment" was not actually noticeable then just how impaired were they??? Got a reference for this?

Seriously, I'd be interested to know how the mercury was measured because fi you listen to the media we've got a lot of mercury in our foods especially fish and air so it seems unlikely with 25 fillings and breathing for 53 years you could have avoided all exposure.

I don't eat fish - haven't been able to since I was very young.

I doubt I have avoided exposure too - but the tests showed no current levels.
 
W

Wilde

Guest
Dentists have claimed for over 100 years that amalgams do not leak mercury. In 1984 the NIDR/ADA admitted they did.

This was around the same time I was considering the removal of seven amalgam fillings, but not because of the NIDR/ADA warning. I had done considerable research on mercury amalgams and was giving serious consideration to having them replaced with composites. I had read several books on the subject including one by Hal Huggins, "It's All in Your Head: The Link Between Mercury Amalgams and Illness." There was a test that I believe Dr. Huggins suggested for determining if your fillings were leaking mercury, involving the use of a mercury vapour analyzer.

At the time I was working at a government facility with an OSH department and part of their function was to monitor air quality at industrial workplaces that manufacture batteries and the like. Since they had a mercury vapour analyzer in their lab, I asked one of the personnel if I could run the test and they complied. It's a simple procedure that places a tube in the mouth that you breathe into. After the air is analyzed, you chew on a piece of gum for 10 minutes and repeat the test. Just to insure the procedure wouldn't be compromised, I had the gum analyzed for any mercury content prior to the test.

I've misplaced the results since then, but I recall that the initial test showed a reading that was barely negligible on the digital scale. After chewing the gum, the increase was nearly 20X higher; a level the lab worker stated was in the range high enough to have a workplace shut down! These were fillings that had been in place for 10 years or more so it's safe to assume much of the mercury had already been released. Needless to say, it was enough to convince me to have the all the metal removed and replaced with ceramic fillings. That was 20 years ago and I've never regretted it.
 
As someone who had chronic health problems associated with low level mercury poisoning for 20 years, and then acute multi-systemic health problems as a result of mercury poisoning from my dental amalgam fillings for 12 months before finally getting diagnosed and treated, I can tell you yes, it is dangerous, especially if you have the wrong gene type, ApoE4, that does not clear mercury well. There is great variability, because the health impacts are polymorphic, they vary by gene type. The tests are not that reliable, because they measure excretion, not retention, while retention is the problem. I did have an elevated blood mercury level, and terrible symptoms, which went away when amalgams in my upper bicuspids were replaced. These included escalating dermatological problems and food sensitivities, fibromyalgia, significant short-term memory problems, balance issues, finger tremors, peripheral neuropathy, falling immune markers, and much more. I was apparently grinding my teeth at night, and my symptoms were always worse in the middle of the night and early morning. Between replacement with biocompatible materials, gradual oral detox, lymph drainage massage, and treating some hidden dental infections the horrific symptoms, and 20 years of chronic disease, resolved rapidly in large measure I was very fortunate. I have my life, my mind, my health, my livelihood, my soul, and my self back.

It has been expensive, because the FDA's refusal to follow the recommendations of its 2010 scientific advisory panel and restrict amalgam means that our dental insurance companies, that have decades of our and our employers' premiums, won't pay more than the cost of putting more amalgam back in the back of my mouth, because it is not in my "smile area," where they would cover it for cosmetic reasons.

This is not an academic exercise or pedantic discussion for those susceptible to mercury amalgam toxicity. It is much more prevalent than you think, it presents as, and/or makes us susceptible to, a host of chronic, devastating, costly diseases that plague our aging population and our younger population in the U.S., with health disparities in those with highest incidences and lifetime exposures to dental amalgam and other forms of mercury exposure.

Let us all resolve to review the latest science with open ears, eyes, noses, hearts and minds. Read James S. Woods retraction of his earlier findings of no harm from amalgam in children in:
James S. Woods et al., Modification of neurobehavioral effects of mercury by a genetic polymorphism of coproporphyrinogen oxidase in children. Neurotoxicology and Teratology 34 (2012) 513–521
There is much more to read as well, google to find the cutting edge research on this in the U.S. and abroad. Science knows no borders, but politics and money does, to our detriment.
 
U

Unregistered

Guest
yes they are extremley toxic and a really bad idea never get this shit in your mouth!!!
 
U

Unregistered

Guest
Leeds university has invented the p11/4 peptide that can teach teeth how to heal themselves this is the future of dentistry not drilling and filling into teeth. The problem is when your dentist gets his drill out he is seeing dollar signs and this is why there so desperate to keep putting a toxic poison in our mouths!!!!
 

Mercury

New Member
(added the important quote).

I'm not sure it's correct though, this video seems to show slightly warmed pure mercury having the same effect.


The suggestion that mercury would sink because it's heavier seems a bit bogus. The vapor (or possibly aerosol) of mercury would be essentially transported by the air it is mixed in. There's not enough of it for the different density to do anything other than very slowly settle out if the air is perfectly calm. Very minor convection currents in the air could cause this effect.

Still, I'd like to see some scientists weigh in on what the "smoke" actually is.


ARE YOU SERIOUS? This video clearly shows that mercury under UV light does NOT release any vapor. What this video does show is the substance in the flask even prior to being poured on the mercury is releasing vapor. As for the vapor from the flask, if the mercury is being heated by warm water then the most logical conclusion as to what is steaming from the flask would be...WATER VAPER aka steam.
 

Mercury

New Member
Leeds university has invented the p11/4 peptide that can teach teeth how to heal themselves this is the future of dentistry not drilling and filling into teeth. The problem is when your dentist gets his drill out he is seeing dollar signs and this is why there so desperate to keep putting a toxic poison in our mouths!!!!


Lol! The dentist would be making alot more money placing p11/4 peptide on teeth. Maybe p11/4 peptide can also be used to bring the dead to life because as I doubt it can restore necrotic/dead tissues or stimulate dentin or enamel formation. The best way to keep amalgam and other restorative materials out of your mouth...brush and floss your teeth.
 
Top