On Mon, 27 Sep 1999 22:14:07 GMT, Brian Sandle
<bsandle at southern.co.nz> wrote:
>In sci.med.dentistry arie_ at hotmail.com wrote:
>>> On Mon, 27 Sep 1999 13:03:23 GMT, Brian Sandle
>> <bsandle at southern.co.nz> wrote:
>> >: Freiburg/Bonn, 28 January 1997
>> >: Since it has already been demonstrated that the mercury in the sa
>> >: is dissolved but not particulate, one has to calculate with a muc
>> >: higher absorption and mercury load than previously supposed. Of
>> >: importance is that in the 20-39 year old group (including women i
>> >: fertile ages)
>> >Women can be fertile outside those ages.
>>They are trying to do emotive writing.
>> > 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?
> And even if, then only on average. The interpersonal
>> variability is very large, so I wouldn't say even 1 is safe.
Indeed, but who said that 1 filling is dangerous?
>> >: 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
>>How did it get there except by the blood?
Please read: "the mercury can be deposited in the organs before you
> 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.
>> >c. that mercury is excreted via the intestinal tract through the bile
>> >other pathway.
>>Therefore it is not building up.
What a funny conclusion. Why couldn't (for example) half of it being
stored, the other half excreted?
>> >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.
>> >That significance could then have other explanations.
>> >That is that people with the symptoms of:
>> >: Mouth-oral cavity: Bleeding gingiva, metal taste, burning tongue.
>> >: Central nervous system: Concentration difficulties, impaired memo
>> >: sleep disturbances, lack of initiative, nervousness.
>> >are likely to be clenching and grinding the teeth more,
>>>> or chewing gum
>>with greater force.
>>>>> >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
>>>> 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.
>> > In addition the oral cavity
>> >: will be affected by the Hg-vapor released by the fillings. Experi
>> >: with cell cultures demonstrated that the Hg-levels measured in th
>> >: oral tissues (up to 8000 ng/g in the mucosa)
>> >What form of Hg? Also in vivo the blood constantly brings in good new
>> >nutrietns, if in the diet - selenium &c.
>>>> In that amounts?
>>I am not sure how much antioxidants etc have to come in to be protective.
>>>>> > can lead to damage to
>> >: human cells. It has also been described that unpolished amalgam
>> >: fillings can damage nearby cells more than polished ones.
>> >The abrasion would not help. But please take some care with the pol
>> > :
>> >: Also for the gastrointestinal tract it has been demonstrated that
>> >: there are high levels of mercury in the intestinal wall, intestin
>> >: lymph nodes and in feces. The cause of this is that the mercury w
>> >: is swallowed with the saliva is only absorbed to 10% and the rest
>> >: remains in the gastrointestinal tract.
>> >Or comes from the bile.
>> >Obviously this Tubingen lot is not serious or they would have taken
>> >account the study which I have cited a couple of times from the `Sc
>> >of the Total Environment.'
>>>> Please remind me what study that was?
>>I need to go back to the source to see whether blood cell mercury
>figures related to amalgam fillings are given.
>You might want to refer to "The Science of the Total Environment"
>126 (1992) 61-74 "Fish as a source of exposure to mercury and
>>1. "Metallic and inorganic mercury distributes about equally between
>erythrocytes and plasma, while exposure to methyl mercury causes much
>higher levels in erythrocytes (blood cells) compared to plasma."
>>2. "Absorbed methyl mercury" (as from fish - I add) "is mainly excreted
>via faeces, while inorganic mercury" (from fillings - I add) "to a much
>higher extent is excreted in urine."
>>3. "The observed correlation between plasma selenium and erythrocyte
>mercury is most probably explained by the fact that fish is a major
>source of both selenium and methyl mercury and intakes of these
>compounds occur simultaneously. Indeed, this combined exposure might be
>of value because of the possible interaction of selenium and methyl
>mercury in the body."
thanks for the quotes.
>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
Then why would dentist associations in Germany advise against amalgam
treatment in pregnant women?
>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.
>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
>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.
>>> >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.
>> >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
>> >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.
thanks for the quotes.
>> >: under the name SALIVAGAM a dental metal test. This can be mediate
>> >: all pharmacies.
>> >Sales ploy.