Amalgam ban demanded in Germany

Brian Sandle bsandle at southern.co.nz
Thu Sep 30 11:11:19 EST 1999

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.

:> 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 

:> 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.

:>> >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.

:>> >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.

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?

:>> >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.

:>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

: Interesting, have they also measured methyl mercury from amalgam
: fillings?

Maybe a little is converted by the bacteria in the mouth.

: Then why would dentist associations in Germany advise against amalgam
: treatment in pregnant women?

Playing safe, possibly. Maybe polishing produces some vapour.

:>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.

:>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?

:>> >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.

:>> >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.

So what is the abscess effect on the health compared to amalgam?

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

: 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