On Thu, 30 Sep 1999 16:11:19 GMT, Brian Sandle
<bsandle at southern.co.nz> wrote:
>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.
I assume these are average values. So that the average exposure that
occurs (on average) with 8 fillings is just below that tolerable level
that you mention. This doesn't mean that for one particular person 8
fillings is safe. The spreading in exposures is huge.
So, in order to be safe for everyone, a much lower maximum number of
amalgam fillings per person should be advised.
>:> 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
>statement.
No, but its very well known that mercury accumulates in brain, kidney,
liver and fat.
>:> 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.
I know that :) But there are articles that report a correlation
found.
>:>> >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.
I can advise you to inform yourself about the dynamics of mercury (and
other materials) in the human body. It is well known that mercury has
some half-life time, which causes it to be (temporarily) stored in the
body if ingested (occasionally). With amalgams, the exposure is
continuous, so you will find a build up of the mercury in various
tissues and organs, simply because it's 'kept in store' before being
excreted. Now the half-life time in the brains is very long (order of
magnitude of 10 - 20 years), so you wouldn't rather have mercury
circulating continuously through your body, increasing the chance of
it being deposited in the brains.
>:>> >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.
Agreed, but is also doesn't say the difference is very small. And I
thought that this was what you suggested.
>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?
I don't know. What I do know is that mercury exposure can be
diminished by just preventing amalgams to be placed. So that would be
wise to do, no?
>[...]
>:>> >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.
Excuse me? You wouldn't call a correlation factor of .99 of
significance?
>[...]
>:>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
>: fillings?
>>Maybe a little is converted by the bacteria in the mouth.
Interesting, I haven't read the paper, is there a mention of this? Do
you have other sources that supports in vivo methylation?
>: Then why would dentist associations in Germany advise against amalgam
>: treatment in pregnant women?
>>Playing safe, possibly. Maybe polishing produces some vapour.
Playing safe, yes, very wise to 'play safe' :)
Only you interpret 'playing safe' as "very unlikely that it's unsafe".
I understand that they consider that IS unsafe.
>:>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.
Yes, I saw that, that's also what I meant.
>:>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?
I don't know if they didn't mention that.
>:>>:>> >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.
I told you I don't have it :)
>:>> >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
>:>fillings.
>:>>:>[...]
>:>> >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 don't know.
>I have reported how I was even having trouble with reading out aloud
>when I had root infection.
I feel sorry for you :-)
arie
>: arie
>: thanks for the quotes.
>:>:>> >: under the name SALIVAGAM a dental metal test. This can be mediate
>:>> >: all pharmacies.
>:>> >
>:>> >Sales ploy.
