POL: why ..

pcsol pcsol at tcp.co.uk
Mon Aug 31 18:30:20 EST 1998

Post from alt.health.dental-amalgam
TRI.DOC at t-online.de (Dr. Hannes Cohnert) wrote:

>ed58 at my-dejanews.com schrieb:
>> -snippage-  It is in the dentists best
>> interests to suggest that there is no problem.

>Hi ed,
>sometimes it´just the opposite: telling your patients that amalgam is crap will fill your pockets in
>no time, with less effort. Only problem: You´ll need the patients with the big wallets.
>some figures:
>Estimated additional cost for using casted restorations (gold inlays) instead of amalgam in
>germany/ year: DM (~ 7.870.000.000 US $)

Brilliant, quote the most expensive material.
But what about composites? Glass Ionomers? etc..

>Total spending of public health insurance companies (covering ~90 % of german citizens)/ year
>in 1995: DM (~ US $)
>Estimated total cost of replacement of all existing amalgam fillings in Germany: DM
>(~78.700.000.000 US $)
>There are ~ 55.000 dentists in germany.
>Now get out your calculator. Who could be interested in replacing amalgam ?

Obviously not you.

>Best regards

Now add into equation - potential liability costs to the 
dental industry & the ADA if sucsessfully sued 
by someone with CFS/ME/MS/ALS/etc that could be
proven to be caused by mercury leeched from Amalgam,
then you will get some idea why some dentists 
defend usage..

Remember, huge legal cases are already on
the way in Canada & other countries..

Also the above costs are not realistic - once "cheap"
amalgam is no longer available, market forces will
make other materials cheaper. Furthermore once
Amalgam usage has stopped, composite 
restorations should last *longer* - because
most resorations will be in teeth not damaged
by implanting Amalgam in the first place.

In short, ask independant toxicologists about
Amalgam - not dentists or anyone with ties to
the dental industry..



"My own conclusion is that already in individuals with bruxism, 
[bruxism is habitual grinding of teeth]
which is common in the population, exposure may well be compared 
with industrial exposure that has given rise to effects. Furthermore, 
despite negative results in epidemiological studies, the statistical 
power [of these studies] is not high enough to exclude the occurrence 
of effects in a few percent of the population at still lower 
exposure levels. As amalgam is used so widely already, an effect in 
a few percent of the exposed population would mean that very 
large population groups could be affected. 
 The evidence from experimental and human studies at higher exposure
levels clearly indicates that mercury from the toxicological point 
of view is an unsuitable element to use in dentistry. It is my 
opinion that it is prudent to conclude that mercury from dental 
amalgam is not safe to use for everyone."
  (Dr Lars Friberg, Former Chief Adviser to the World 
  Health Organisation on Mercury safety. 1995 Symposium report.)

More information about the Toxicol mailing list

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