Re: Dental toxicity

January 15, 1999

I ahve some Haley research on alzheimer's and mercury, along with some other

research:

Bibliography of Selected Scientific Research on the Health Effects of

Mercury Accumulation from Dental Amalgam

A THE ABSORPTION OF MERCURY FROM DENTAL FILLINGS

Fritz L. Lorscheider, Ph.D. and Murray S. Vimy, DDS. University of Calgary

Medical School, Alberta, Canada.

Drs. Lorscheider and Vimy have shown definitively that mercury is

continuously released from amalgam fillings, both as vapor and in

microscopic particles, once the fillings are placed in the teeth. The

mercury emitted from the fillings is transported to every part of the body

via the air pathways, the digestive tract and the Mood stream, and

accumulates in tissues and organ systems.

1. Dental Amalgam Mercury: Background. (A summary of research results on

dental amalgam mercury to date.)

M. J. Vimy and F. L. Lorscheider, Faculty of Medicine

and Medical Physiuology, University of Calgary, Cal-gary, Alberta. May,

1993.

2. Dental " Silver " tooth fillings: a source of mer-cury exposure revealed by

whole-body image scan and tissue analysis. By Leszek J. Hahn, Reinhard

Woiber, Murray J. Vimy, Yoshimi Takahashi, and Fritz L. Lorscheider. FASEB

Journal, Vol.3, Dec. 1989. pp.2641-2646.

3. Whole-body imaging of the distribution ofmer-cury released from dental

fillings into monkey tissues.

By Leszek J. Hahn, Reinhard Kloiber, W. Leininger, Murray J. Vimy,

and Fritz L. Lorscheider.

FASEB Journal, Vo. 4, Nov.1990, pp.3256-3260.

4. Mercury from dental " silver " tooth fillings im-pairs sheep kidney

function. By N.D. Boyd, H.

Benediktsson, M.J. Vimy, D.E. Hooper, and F. L. Lorscheider. American

Journal of Physiology, No.

261, 1991, pp. R1O1O-1014.

5. Maternal-fetal distribution of mercury (203HG) released from dental

amalgam fillings. By M.J. Vimy, Y. Takahashi, and F.L. Lorscheider. American

Jour-nal of Physiology, No.258, 1990, pp. R939-945.

6. SYMPOSIUM OVERVIEW: Toxicity Assess-ment of Mercury Vapor from Dental

Amalgams. By

L. Goering, W. Don Galloway, W. son, Fritz L. Lorscheider,

Maths Berlin and

S. Rowland. Journal of Fundamental and Applied Toxicology, vol.19,

1992, pp.319-329.

7. Evaluation ofthe safety issue of mercury release from dental fillings,

Fritz L. Lorscheider and Murray J. Vimy. The FASEB Journal, Vol.7, December

1993, p1432-1433.

8. ADP-Ribosylation of Brain Neuronal Proteins Is Altered by In Vitro and In

Vivo Exposure to Inor-ganic Mercury. Pawel Palkiewicz, Henk Zwiers, and

Fritz L. Lorscheider. Journal of Neurochemistry,, Vol.62, No.5, 1994,

pp.2049-2052

B. BASIC pHYSIOLOGICAL RESEARCH

ON THE RELATIONSHIP OF BRAIN

MERCURY ACCUMULATIONS FROM

DENTAL AMALGAM MERCURY TO

ALZHEIMER'S DISEASE

R. Markesbery, M.D., D. Ehmann, M.D., (and colleagues at the

University of Kentucky's -Brown Center on Aging).

Drs. Markesbery's and Ehmann's experiments have shown that there are higher

concentrations of mercury in the autopsied brains of patients who died of

Alzhe-imer's than are present in the autopsied brains of pa-tients who did

not have Alzheimer's. In the Alzheimer's patients' brains, there are also

lower concentrations of selenium and zinc, the two chief mineral antagonists

of mercury. Markesbery and Ehmann have also demon-strated that there are

higher concentrations of mercury in the brains of people who have more and

larger amal-gam dental fillings. Additional research is underway to link the

presence of amalgam mlings more closely with the incidence of Alzheimer's.

9. Trace element imbalances in isolated subcellular fractions of Alzheimer's

disease brains. By Wen-strup, D. Ehmann, and R.

Markesbery. Brain Research, No 533, 1990, pp. 125-130.

10. Mercury imbalances in patients with neurodegen-erative diseases. W. D.

Ehmann, E. J. Kasarskis, and W. R. Markesbery. (In Press)

C. MERCURY AS A CAUSE OF TUBULIN TANGLES SIMILAR TO THOSE FOUND

IN ALZHEIMER'S DISEASE, AND THE DEVELOPMENT OF A NON-INVASIVE

TEST FOR ALZHEIMER'S

Boyd E. Haley, Ph.D. (and colleagues.) Professor of

Medical Chemistry and Biochemistry, Markey Cancer Center, University of

Kentucky.

Dr. Haley has produced tubulin defects in laboratory cultures of brain

tissue by adding a low concentration of mercury plus EDTA, a common food

additive. Tubulin defects are thought to be the mechanism which produces the

neuro fibrillary tangles characteristic of Alzheimer's Disease. Haley has

also identified the first biochemical marker for Alzheimer's, that is, an

enzyme found in Alzheimer's patients cerebro-spinal fluid which is not found

in normal persons and which could be used as one basis of diagnosis for the

disease.

11. HG2+ induces GTF-Tubulin interactions in rat

brain similar to those observed in Alzheimer's Disease.

E. Duhr, C. Pendergrass, E. Kasarskis, J. Slevin & B. Haley. FASEB Journal,

1992. Abstract Dated December 3, 1991.

12. HgEDTA Complex Inhibits GTP Interactions With The E-Site of Brain

Beta-Tubulin. F. Duhr, C. Pendergmass, T. Slevin, and Boyd

E. Haley. Toxicol. Appl. Pharmacol., 1993.

13. DMSA acid partially restores tubulin intereac-tions to both Alzheimer's

Diseased brains and to HG-EDTA treated control brains. J.C. Pendergrass,

E.F. Duhr, J.T. Slevin, and B. E. Haley. Experimental Biol-ogy 93 Abstract,

dated November 17, 1992.

14. Aberrant Guanosine Triphosphate-Beta- Tubulin Interaction in Alzheimer's

Disease. Sabiha Khatoon, Ph.D., R. , B.S., Boyd E. Haley,

Ph.D.

and T. Slevin, M.D. ls of Neurology, Vol.26, No.2, August 1989, pp.

210-215.

15. Detection of glutamine synthetase in the cerebro-spinal fluid

ofAlzheimer diseased patients: A Potential diagnostic biochemical marker.

Debra Gunnersen and Boyd Haley. Proceedings of the National Academy of

Science, Vol.89, pp. 11949-11953, December 1992, Bio-chemistry.

D. MERCURY CHELATING AGENTS AND

MERCURY ABSORPTION MEASUREMENT

H. Vasken Aposhian, Ph.D., University Department of Molecular and Cellular

Biology, University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona.

Dr. Aposhian has established, through carefully con-structed experiments,

that in people who have amalgam fillings two-thirds of the total body burden

of mercury is the product of mercury absorption from amalgam dental

fillings. He has also created a scoring system based upon the number of

fillings and the number of surfaces on the fillings, quantifying the

expression of the amount of dental amalgam in an individual's mouth.

Finally, he has also been experimenting with chelating agents which might

remove mercury accumulations from the body.

16. Urinary mercury after administration of 2,3 di-mercaptopropane-

1 -sulfonic acid: correlation with den -tal amalgam score. H. Vasken

Aposhian, C. Bruce, Wilfred Alter, C. Dart, M.

Hurlbut, and M. Aposhian. The FASEB Journal, Vo. 6, April 1992, pp.

2472-2476.

17. DMSA and DMPS-Water soluble antidotes for heavy metal poisoning. H.

Vasken Aposhian. American Review of Pharmacology and Toxicology, 1983,

Vol.23,

193-215.

18. Determination and Metabolism ofDithiol Chelat-ing Agents, XII.

Metabolism and Pharmacokinetics of Sodium 2, 3-Dimercap top

ropane-2-Sulfonate in Hu-mans. M. Maiorino, C. Cart, Dean E.

and H. Vasken Aposhian. The Jourmal of Phar-macology and Experimental

Therapeutics, 1991, Vol. 259 No.2, pp.808-814.

19. MESO-2, 3 -DIMERCAPTOS UCCINIC ACID:

Chemical, Pharmacological and Toxicological Proper-ties of an Orally

Effective Metal Chelating Agent. H. Vasken Aposhian and M. Aposhian.

E. MERCURY AND RENAL DISEASE

S. Woods, Battelle Seattle Research Center and the University of

Washington, Seattle, Washington, and colleagues.

Dr. Woods has been investigating how kidney tissue is damaged by the

presence of maercury. He has also identified ways in which porphyrin

relationships are disrupted by the presence of mercury, which could pro-vide

another type of marker to test for the presence of mercury in body tissues.

20. Mercury-induced H202 production and lipid per-oxidation in vitro in rat

kidney mitochondria. Bert-Ove Lind, Dennis M. and S. Woods.

Biochemi-cal Pharmacology, Vol.42, 1991, Suppl. pp. S181-S187. Pergamon

Press.

21. Urinary Porphyrin Profiles as Biomarkers of Trace

Metal Exposure and Toxicity: Studies on Urinary Pro-phyrin Excretion

Patterns in Rats during Prolonged

Exposure to Methyl Mercury. S. Woods, Miriam A. Bowers, and Holly A.

. Toxicology and Applied Pharmacology, Vol.110, 1991, pp.464-476.

22. Enhancement of Gamma-Glutamylcysteine Syn-thetase mRNA in Rat Kidney by

Methyl Mercury. S. Woods, Holly A. , and P. Baer. Archives

of Biochemistry and Biophysics, Vol. 296, No.1, July 1992, pp. 350-353.

23. Quantitative Determination of Porphyrins in Rat and Human Un tie and

Evalution of Urinary Pro-phyrin Profiles during Mercury and Lead Exposures.

Miriam A. Bowers, Lauri J. Aicher, Holly A. , and S. Woods. The

Journal of Laboratory and Clinical Medicine, St. Louis. Vol.120, No.2,

pp.272-281, August, 1992.

F. ANTIBIOTIC RESISTANCE

Anne 0. Summers, Ph.D., Department of Molecular Biology and Microbiology,

University of Georgia, Ath-ens, Georgia

Dr. Summers has been engaged in research on gastro-intestinal tract bacteria

and their resistance to antibi-otics, which is a serious and widespread

medical prob-lem. With the collaboration of Drs. Lorscheider and Vimy and

Dr. Stuart Levy at Tufts University, she has demonstrated that bacterial

resistance to antibiotics can be created by exposing g.i. tract bacteria to

mercury, such as that absorbed into the g.i. tract through the presence of

amalgam dental fillings in the mouth.

24. " Silver " Dental Fillings Provoke An Increase in Mercury and Antibiotic

Resistant Bacteria in the Mouth and Intestines of Primates. Anne 0. Summers,

Murray Vimy and Fritz Lorscheider, The Alliance for the Pru-dent Use of

Antibiotics (APUA) Newsletter, Fall 1991, Vol.9, No.3, pp.4-5.

25. Mercury Released from Dental " Silver " Fillings provokes an increase in

Mercury- and Antibiotic-Resis-taut Bacteria in Oral and Intestinal Flora of

Primates.

Anne 0. Summers, Joy Wireman, Murray J. Vimy, Fritz L.Lorscheider, Bonnie

Marshall, Stuart B. Levy, Sam , and Lynne Billard. Antimicrobial

Agents and Chemotherapy, April 1993, Vol.37, No.4, p.825-834.

G. CLINICAL MEDICAL TREATMENT OF DENTAL-FILLING MERCURY TOXICITY

Alfred V. Zamm, M.D., FACA, FACP, ill Maiden Lane, Kingston, New York

12401-4597

Reports on clinical treatment of a wide variety of illnesses linked to

dental amalgam mercury toxicity by a dermatologist and allergy specialist.

26. Candida Albicans Therapy: is there ever an end to it? Dental Mercury

Removal: an effective adjunct. Alfred V. Zamm, M.D., FACA, FACP. Journal of

0rthomolecu-lar Medicine, Vol.1 No.4, pp.261-266.

27. Dental Mercury: A Factor That Aggravates and Induces Xenobiotic

Intolerance. Alfred V. Zamm, M.D., FACA, FACP. Journal of Orthomolecular

Medicine, Vo. 6 No.2, Second Quarter 1991, pp.67-77.

28. Mercury and Dentistry: What the Sensitive Patient Should Know. Alfred V.

Zamm, M.D., FACA, FACP. The Mercury in Medicine and Dentistry Newsletter

Quar-terly, Vol.1 No.1, Autumn 1986, pp.1-8.

29. Removal of Dental Mercury: Often an Effective Treatment for the Very

Sensitive Patient. Alfred V

Zamm, MD, FACA, FACP. Journal of Orthomolecular Medicine, Vol.5, No.3, Third

Quarter 1990, pp.138-

H. RESEARCH ON THE IMPACT OF DENTAL MERCURY ON THE IMMUNE SYSTEM, BRAIN, AND

NEUROLOGICAL SYSTEM. Eggleston, D.D.S.

30. Effect of dental amalgam and nickel alloys on T-lymphocytes: preliminary

report. Eggleston, W. DDS. Journal of prosthetic dentistry: May 1984,

Vol 31, No.5.

31. Correlation of dental amalgam with mercury in brain tissue. Eggleston

W. DDS, Magnus Nylan-der DDS, et al. J. Pros. Dent. 58:704-7,1987

32. Dental Amalgam: A Review of the Literature. Eg-gleston, DW: Compend.

Cont. Ed. Dent. Vol. X, No.9.

Re: Thank you

>>>X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Windows 95 sub 224

>>>

>>>Some ammunition for your root canal theory is that my heart problem

>started

>>>about 1 week after my 6 year old root canal abscessed. I had to delay

>>getting

>>>it fixed because I went throught the heart problem first. Interesting.

>>>

>>>Max

>>>

>>-------------------------------------------------

>>

>>It was about root fillings and heart attack:

>>

>>Weston Price would take a person who had had a heart attack, take out the

>>tooth with the root canal, take a little segment of it, put it under the

>>skin of a rabbit. In about 10 days that rabbit would die of a heart

attack.

>>

>>[Dr. Meinig] Root Canal Cover-Up

>>http://www.blarg.net/~aeion/bion/root_canal.html

>>

>>Root Canals Pose Health Threat - An Interview with Meinig, D.D.S.

>>http://rheumatic.org/teeth.htm

>>

>> " Dr. Price undertook his investigations in 1900. He continued until 1925,

>>and published his work in two volumes in 1923. In 1915 the National Dental

>>Association (which changed its name a few years later to The American

>>Dental Association) was so impressed with his work that they appointed Dr.

>>Price their first Research Director. His Advisory Board read like a Who's

>>Who in medicine and dentistry for that era. They represented the fields of

>>bacteriology, pathology, rheumatology, surgery, chemistry, and cardiology.

>>

>>At one point in his writings Dr. Price made this observation: " Dr.

>>Billings (M.D.), probably more than any other American internist, is due

>>credit for the early recognition of the importance of streptococcal focal

>>infections in systemic involvements. "

>>

>>What's really unfortunate here is that very valuable information was

>>covered up and totally buried some 70 years ago by a minority group of

>>autocratic doctors who just didn't believe or couldn't grasp - the focal

>>infection theory. "

>>

>>http://www.zip.com.au/~rgammal/root_therapies.htm

>> " you have kept dead, infected tissue, buried in the bone, within a couple

>>of inches from your brain. "

>>

>>Dusan

>>

>>------------------------------------------------------------------------

>>

January 15, 1999

This is the largest Norwegian site on Amalgam, with many scientific facts

that are proved !

http://home.sol.no/~reiersol/

Those facts are the reason that Danmark have banned Amalgam !

Dusan

------------------------------------------------------------------------

January 15, 1999

What toxicologists and medical researchers say about amalgam

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

----

A 1995 symposium report sums up the scientific controversy over amalgam in

this way:

The controversy concerning the safety of dental amalgam has intensified in

recent years. While proponents continue to reaffirm its safety by pointing

to the millions of dental cavities that are annually being filled with

amalgam without (apparently) causing any ill effects, opponents are

demanding the immediate ban of dental amalgam, citing studies which

demonstrate that substantial amounts of mercury from such fillings are

released and absorbed, causing mercury to accumulate in organs and tissues,

in pregnant women even in the fetus.

Although the health consequences of the accumulation of mercury in the

human body are not yet fully understood, mercury is receiving increasing

attention as an immunotoxic element and for this reason it is suspected to

play a role in the development of a variety of chronic diseases.

Proponents of amalgam consider these claims to be largely unproven. They

also point out that many of the symptoms attributed to chronic mercury

exposure from amalgam fillings are too non-specific to be relevant, and

they further argue that, in the absence of a suitable low-cost replacement,

a ban of amalgam would have serious practical and fiscal consequences.

However, in veiw of the mounting opposition against the use of amalgam,

dental professionals in many countries are increasingly revising their

previous positions and public officials are preparing regulations for the

restricted use and eventual ban of all amalgam-based dental materials. [1]

The following quotes are mostly from researchers who have contributed

significantly to current knowledge about the health risks of amalgam. All

of them are skeptical or negative to amalgam. There are many sources for

the opposite point of view, but the vast majority of them are from dental

organizations or researchers. These have done little relevant research of

their own, perhaps thinking that criticizing the work of others is

sufficient. One pro-amalgam source that is not dentistry-based is the 1994

report from an expert group appointed by the Swedish National Board of

Health and Welfare. I find this document strongly biased in its coverage of

the scientific literature. Unfortunately, you must be able to read Swedish

to form an independent opinion on that, since only the summary has been

translated into English.

Lars Friberg

Lars Friberg is the author of the 1991 WHO report on inorganic mercury and

has contributed to the standard texts on metal toxicology. In the

concluding remarks to the above-mentioned symposium, he says:

My own conclusion is that already in individuals with bruxism, 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 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. [2]

Mats Berlin

Mats Berlin is also one of the “old guard” of metal toxicology. His

publications are quoted no less than 5 times in Casarett and Doull's

Toxicology. In a 1992 article, although he still supports the continued use

of amalgam, he adds:

Such a decision [to continue using amalgam] should not be accompanied by a

smoke screen in the form of a general statement that amalgam is safe, which

is an untruth that only demonstrates deficient knowledge of fundamental

principles of environmental medicine... [3]

Recent risk assessments

A risk assessment by G. Mark and Margaret Allan was recently

published in a peer-reviewed risk assessment journal [4]. The authors

calculate a Tolerable Daily Intake (TDI) for mercury vapor, and find that

it corresponds to two (2) or (4) fillings using either of two different

exposure calculations. They also compare the two models to exposure limits

from risk assessments by the ATSDR (Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease

Registry a branch of the US Public Health service) and the USEPA. This

works out to (0) mercury fillings for the USPHS Standard, nine (9) and

eleven (11) mercury fillings for the USEPA Standard. They conclude:

It is apparent, therefore, that there is uncertainty in what constitutes a

level of Hg vapor exposure that is acceptable, tolerable, or of minimal

risk. Subsequently, there is uncertainty in the precise number of

amalgam-filled teeth that can be considered acceptable, tolerable, or of

minimal risk. However, it is also apparent that the continued unconditional

and unlimited use of amalgam as a dental restorative material, the placing

of up to 25 amalgam fillings in one individual, is not supported by the

available risk information.

Lorscheider, Vimy and Summers

Three medical researchers, Lorscheider, Vimy and Summers, were asked by the

FASEB Journal to review recent scientific findings on amalgam. The FASEB

Journal is one of the world's most prestigious scientific publications.They

state that “research evidence does not support the notion of amalgam

safety”, and conclude:

The experimental evidence indicates that amalgam Hg has the potential to

induce cell or organ patophysiology. At the very least, the traditional

dental paradigm, that amalgam is a chemically stable tooth restorative

material and that the release of Hg [mercury] from this material is

insignificant, is without foundation. [5]

Return to amalgam page

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

----

1) Friberg LT, Schrauzer GN. Preface. In: Friberg LT, Schrauzer GN. Status

Quo and perspectives of amalgam and other dental materials. International

symposium proceedings. G. Thieme Verlag Stuttgart, 1995.

2) Friberg LT. Concluding remarks. In: Friberg LT, Schrauzer GN. Status Quo

and perspectives of amalgam and other dental materials. International

symposium proceedings. G. Thieme Verlag Stuttgart, 1995: 134-136.

3) GM, Allan M: A Monte Carlo Assessment of Mercury Exposure and

Risks from Dental Amalgam. Human and Ecological Risk Assessment 1996; 2

(4): 709-761.

4) Berlin M: Är amalgam i tandfyllningar en hälsorisk? [is amalgam in

dental fillings hazardous to health?]. Lakartidningen 1992; 89 (37):

2918-23. [My translation from the Swedish]

5) Lorscheider F, Vimy MJ, Summers AO: Mercury exposure from " silver " tooth

fillings: emerging evidence questions a traditional dental paradigm. FASEB

Journal 1995; 9: 504-8 .

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

----

Feedback is welcome!

reiersol@...

Last updated: August 6, 1997

Dagfinn Reiersøl, Løvåsveien 3, N-0870 Oslo, Norway

------------------------------------------------------------------------

January 15, 1999

World Health Organization:

Estimated average daily intake and retention (mg/day) of total mercury and

mercury compounds in the general population not occupationally exposed to

mercurya

---------------------------------------------------------

Exposure Elemental Inorganic Methyl

mercury mercury mercury

vapour compounds

-----------------------------------------------------------

Air 0.030 0.002 0.008

(0.024) (0.001) (0.0064)

-----------------------------------------------------------

Food: fish 0 0.600 2.4

(0.042) (2.3)

-----------------------------------------------------------

Food: non-fish 0 3.6 (0.25) 0

-----------------------------------------------------------

Drinking-water 0 0.050 0

(0.0035)

-----------------------------------------------------------

Dental amalgams 3.8-21 0 0

(3- 17)

-----------------------------------------------------------

Total 3.9-21 (3.1-17) 4.3 (0.3) 2.41 (2.31)

a From: Environmental Health Criteria 101: Methylmercury (WHO, 1990).

Values given are the estimated average daily intake; the figures in

parentheses represent the estimated amount retained in the body of an adult.

Values are quoted to 2 significant figures.

Other research that supports the WHO figures

The table shows a number of estimates of total mercury exposure from diet.

Most of the estimates lie in the 1.5-4 microgram range. There are two

notable exceptions, both of which are fish-eating indigenous peoples.

Source Year Population Exposure

----------------------------------------------------------

Tsuda et al. 1995 Japan Four estimates: 3.5, 4.3, 4.3, 9.9

Cuadrado et al. 1995 Spain 4- 7

1995 Canada 3.93

Chan et al. 1995 Canada (Inuit) 65, 97

Abe et al. 1995 Papua New Guinea 73

Cuadrado et al. 1992 Spain 4

Becker &

Kumplainen. 1991 Sweden 1.8

Ellen et al. 1990 Netherlands 2

--------------------------------------------------------

References:

IPCS, Environmental health criteria 118. Inorganic mercury. Geneve: World

Health Organization, 1992: 112.

Abe T, Ohtsuka R, Hongo T, Suzuki T, Tohyama C, Nakano A, Akagi H, Akimichi

T: High hair and urinary mercury levels of fish eaters in the nonpolluted

environment of Papua New Guinea. Archives of Environmental Health 1995; 50

(5): 367-73.

Becker W, Kumpulainen J: Contents of essential and toxic mineral elements

in Swedish market-basket diets in 1987. British Journal of Nutrition 1991;

66 (2): 151-60.

Chan HM, Kim C, Khoday K, Receveur O, Kuhnlein HV: Assessment of dietary

exposure to trace metals in Baffin Inuit food. Environmental Health

Perspectives 1995; 103 (7-8): 740-6.

Cuadrado C, Kumpulainen J, Moreiras O. Lead, cadmium and mercury contents

in average Spanish market basket diets from Galicia, Valencia, Andalucia

and Madrid. Food Additives & Contaminants 1995;12: 107-18.

GM, M, Coad S et al: Exposure to mercury in Canada: a

multimedia analysis. Water, Air and Soil Pollution Journal 1995; 80: 21-30.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

January 16, 1999

At 09:18 PM 1/15/99 EST, you wrote:

>In a message dated 1/15/99 Joan<Jplane1@...>,>writes:

> There is a wonderful material called Targis Dextris that is non-metal

and

>stronger than metal, better than plastic, fairly new on the market. They

even

>make metal free bridges now.

Of what is Targis Dextris composed; what guarantee is there that this

wonderful [new] material has less potential for toxicity or other

harmful effects than did the [wonderful, old] materials?

Brownell

mailto:brownll@...

=========================

In a message dated 1/15/99 8:32:49 PM Eastern Standard Time, annette@...

writes:

><< BTW when hulda recommends plastic in our mouth is this going to be any

>safer? >>

>Annette,

> There is a wonderful material called Targis Dextris that is non-metal

and

>stronger than metal, better than plastic, fairly new on the market. They

even

>make metal free bridges now. The company is in California, if anyone is

>interested in the information, I would be happy to look it up and post it

on a

>later e-mail. This company will supply, at no cost, a number of videos,

>audios, articles, and brochures to the dental office that is considering

using

>their product. I have obtained and converted dentists in my area. These

>dentists have had excellent results with this new material and one of them

has

>decided to just go with it 100% in place of metals. The price is

>approximately the same as the old materials.

>Warmest regards,

>Joan

>

------------------------------------------------------------------------

January 16, 1999

In a message dated 1/16/99 3:33:02 AM Eastern Standard Time, brownll@...

writes:

<< Of what is Targis Dextris composed; what guarantee is there that this

wonderful [new] material has less potential for toxicity or other

harmful effects than did the [wonderful, old] materials? >>

,

Since Micro Laboratories only distribute their information to licensed

dentists, I remain unable to answer your questions in detail. I understand

that this Targis Dextris, (and I may be misspelling this as I am spelling it

the way it is pronounced), is simply bound fibers in such a way that they are

actually stronger than metals. Also, there is emerging, a new breed of

dentistry that use subtle energy testing equipment while performing their

work. This testing equipment does determine the harmonic value of any

substance either entering or being removed from the mouth. This particular

breed of dentists who are utilizing such equipment have experienced much

difficulty continuing with their work in this way. The American Dental

Association seems to like to pull the licenses from these 'renegade dentists'.

To me, it really is a sign of a dedicated dentist to be willing to risk his

license for sake of the welfare of his patients. I hope that there will come

a time that people will be able to choose for themselves the type of dentistry

that they want without having to go out of the country to get it.

Warmest regards,

Joan

------------------------------------------------------------------------

January 16, 1999

I still have two amalgam fillings in my mouth. I decided to do it slowly.

But, I have never had more than 4 fillings in my head at the same time.

My wife have had 8 fillings. She decided to take it all out in the same

time. She was aware of the real danger of amalgam replacement.

She was waiting for this replacement for more than 7 years. Every time she

wanted to replace amalgam, she was either pregnant, either breast feeding -

not the best time for replacement. (We have 5 kids.)

So, a year ago she finaly found a best " anti-amalgam " dentist in Norway,

and made appointment.

She changed all 8 fillings in three days. (We have to take kredit from a

bank to pay that bill).

This dentist have stoped puting amalgam in the teeth for last 20 years. He

have all necessery equipement, except an alternative source of air supplay,

that is important, if patient should 100% avoid breathing mercury foams. He

have very strong vacum machine to suck air around teeth.

One month after this replacement, my wife has got a lung infection. (She

never have lung infection, she don't eat sugar or other refined products.)

She was using electrical devices to cure infection. But infection was

always comeing back. We figure it out that is best to let that infection go

its way. She stopped treating herself with electrical devices. She have

had a lot of mucuse, and that infection - lung cleans have lasted for more

than a month. (She have had many liter of mucuse discarge through this

infection.) Already after first week of this infection, we figure it out

that it has something to od with amalgam replacemnt.

Today, I know, that infection was good, and that it has helped her cleans

her body.

It is now more than a year since she have replaced her alamgam.

Her Chronic Fatique Sindrome symptomes have dissapeared, Metal taste in

her mouth have dissapeared. (She have replaced amalgam with glass fillings.

Those fillings are first shaped to fit the hole, and then they are glued

inside. Glass is 100% safe material, glue is toxic for les than one hour.).

Her digestion is much better.

She is sleeping better.

She is never tired any more.

She is happy that she have replaced her Amalgam.

As I said, I still have two in my head. Last year I have taken one out, and

this year I will take those last two. I have never had some serious

symptoms of amalgam poisoning.

Make sure you print out this Amalgam removal protocol and you give it to

your dentist!

Do not replace amalgam at the dentist ofice that have no this equipement,

or your replacement may cause much higher intoxication than the one you

were exposed from your teeth !

Dentists and dentist office stuf have very high rate of suicides!?

It is also very high rate of child birth defects between dentists!?

Densists are much more suffering of CFS, Chronic Fatique Sindrome!?

Explain to your dentist that this protocol is also for his own good !

Women who are pregnant shouldnot be exposed to mercury!

Pregnant women should not work in dentist office!

Amalgam Can Cause Brain Damage in Children! (Read the article on the end of

this letter )

Dusan : ))

Protocol for Amalgam/Mercury/Silver Filling Removal

---------------------------------------------------

By International Academy of Oral Medicine and Toxicology

PATIENT PROTECTION

Protection of the patient from additional exposure to mercury. This is

especially true of the mercury toxic patient. The mercury toxic patient may

have been exposed to varying amounts of mercury from diet, environment,

employment or from mercury/silver dental fillings. All forms are cumulative

and can contribute to the body burden. The goal of this preferred procedure

is to minimize any additional exposure of the patient, ourselves, or staff

to mercury.

During chewing the patient is exposed to intraoral levels which are several

times the EPA allowable air concentration. 2 During the removal or

placement of amalgam the patient can be exposed to amounts which are a

thousand times greater than the EPA allowable concentration.3 Once the

drill touches the filling temperature increases immediately vaporizing the

mercury component of the alloy. There are 8 steps to greatly reducing

everyone's exposure.

1. Keep the fillings cool

All removal must be done under cold water spray with copious amounts of water.

Once the removal has begun, the mercury vapor will be continuously released

from the tooth.

2. Use a high volume evacuator

Therefore, a high volume evacuator tip should be kept near the tooth (1/2

inch) at all times to evacuate this vapor from the area of the patient.

Polishing amalgam can create very dangerous levels of mercury and should be

avoided especially for the mercury toxic patient.

3. Provide an alternative air source

All patients having amalgam removed or placed should be provided with an

alternative air source and instructed to not breathe through their mouth

during treatment. A nasal hood such as is used with the nitrous oxide

analgesia equipment is excellent. Air is best and oxygen is acceptable

although not required. If just air is used it should be clean and free of

mercury vapor preferably from outside the dental office.

4. Immediately dispose of the mercury alloy

Particles of mercury alloy should be washed and vacuumed away as soon as

they are generated. The filling should be sectioned and removed in large

pieces to reduce exposure.

At present the International Academy of Oral Medicine and Toxicology

(IAOMT) has approved removal both with and without the use of a rubber dam.

Some evidence exist to support both views since high levels of mercury and

amalgam particles can be found under the dam. All members are agreed that

whether or not a rubber dam is used the patient should be instructed to not

breathe through their mouth or swallow the particles. Some experts feel

that it is better to remove the amalgam first and then apply the dam if

needed for restorative procedures.

5. Lavage, and change gloves

After the fillings have been removed, take off the rubber dam if one was

used and lavage the patients mouth for at least 30 seconds with cold water

and vacuum. Remove your gloves and replace them with a new pair. If a

restorative procedure is next then reapply a new dam and proceed.

6. Immediately clean patient

Immediately change patient's protective wear and clean their face.

7. Consider nutritional support

Consider appropriate nutritional support before, during and after removal.

8. Keep room air pure

Install room air purifiers or ionizers and fans for everyone's well being.

STAFF PROTECTION

OSHA4 5 requires that employees be given written informed consent before

the use of any toxic chemicals of which mercury is one. Elemental mercury

vapor is one of the most toxic forms of mercury and should not breathed.

Women of child bearing age should be exposed to no more than 10% of the

OSHA MAC6. Women who are pregnant should be exposed to no mercury.7 If you

use mercury or remove mercury in any form the National Institute of

Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) has recommended that your employees

be medically monitored annually.

ANY MERCURY EXPOSURE REQUIRES THAT THE EMPLOYEE WEAR AN APPROVED MERCURY

FILTER MASK.

An approved mask is appropriate for wearing during all dental procedures

which will expose you or your staff to mercury.8

The manner in which dentists operate their equipment dramatically affects

the amount of mercury released. Never drill on mercury high dry. It is

hazardous to you, your staff, and your patient. Levels as high as 4000 m

g/M3 have been measured 18 " from the drill when used high dry. Levels over

1000 m g/M3 are measurable upon opening an amalgam mixing capsule.

One out of 7 California dental offices tested over the OSHA TWA of 50 m g/M

3 . 100% of the vacuum cleaner exhaust tested over 100 m g/M 3 . Any office

where mercury is used should be tested regularly and staff should be

monitored for exposure. Testing services are available and a mercury sensor

badge is available for personnel monitoring. They should test inside

storage areas and along baseboards where mercury might have dropped. Office

spills can go undetected for years and are extremely hazardous.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

---

REFERENCES

1 IAOMT Standards of Care Preferred Procedure Approved 9/27/92

2 EPA United States Environmental Protection Agency Office of Health and

Environment Assessment Mercury health effects update Final Report

EPA-600/8-84-019F 1971 EPA

3 Cooley RL, Barkmeier WW: Mercury vapor emitted during ultraspeed cutting

of amalgam. J Indiana Dent Assoc 57:28-31, 1978

4 OSHA Job Health Series: Mercury.(2234)8/1975

5 Hazard Communication Program Federal Register/ Vol. 52. No. 163 / Monday,

August 24, 1987

6 OSHA MAC is Threshold Limit Value of 100 micrograms/ cubic meter or 100

PPM This is a never to be exceeded standard.

7 Koos BJ and Lango LD , Mercury Toxicity in the pregnant woman, fetus, and

newborn infant. A review Am J Obstetrics and Gynecology 126(3):390-409, 1976

8 Mine Safety Association high levels and 3M mercury dust mask lower levels

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

----

Amalgam Can Cause Brain Damage in Children

-----------------------------------------

Courtesy of Kaupi " Heavy Metal Bulletin "

From the Press conference of the Swedish Council for Planning and

Coordinating Research. Stockholm, 19 February 1998 " Amalgam can cause brain

damage in children. " -Move over amalgam - at last!

In the debate that followed, he also said that previously doctors and

dentists tried to protect patients from unnecessary worries by not always

tell what they knew or suspected, but " nowadays we tell the truth. " He also

said that pregnant women should be examined for the presence of mercury and

that special clinics should be established to help patients.

According to Dr. Magnus Nylander, Hg exposure from amalgam fillings could

be as high as 100 mc/day. brain autopsies support these figures. Prof. em.

Lars Friberg, expressed his satisfaction with the investigation and a hope

that in the future research funds will be granted by committees with

medical competence and not mainly by odontologists.

Mercury from amalgam may damage the brain, kidneys and the immune system of

a great number of people. The effects in fetus and children are of most

concern. Those are the conclusions of a report soon to handed to the

Government. " There is no conflict any more, " says Gunnar Goude from the

board of the Swedish Council for Planning and Coordinating Research (FRN),

after reviewing the comprehensive documentation from the four seminars.

" There is total agreement among the Board members that it is time to move

forward and leave amalgam behind. " The Board will, in their coming report

to the Government, recommend discontinuing the use of amalgam as a dental

material.

The reason why the first report, prepared by Prof. Jerelov, was not

presented at the press conference as planned was that it was unanimously

rejected by the Board (18 members). Its message - that old conflicts have

now been settled - was not clear enough.

At the press conference, the printed documentation from the seminars was

presented. Prof. Jernelov held a speech, telling that there is hope for an

end of the conflict. He also presented a few examples from the

documentation. Genetic difference in individual sensitivity and varying

absorption were emphasized in the report.

Commissioned by the Council to make an additional literature search of all

studies on amalgam published after 1993, Prof. em. Maths Berlin reported

that Hg vapor (the form of mercury emitted from amalgam) affects the CNS

and the kidneys (which may lead to the need for dialysis). His major

concern is, however, that Hg may affect the development of the brain of the

fetus. The exposure in some individuals is as high as that in industrial

workers, levels which cause CNS effects. Since the symptoms are similar to

those of many other disorders, there may be many patients who do not know

that they are affected by amalgam. " If you remove amalgam from an adult,

he/she will get healthy, provided the cause was mercury, but the effects in

a fetus are irreversible...the risk is serious enough to be unacceptable.

Therefore exposure to amalgam should be avoided in children and women in

fertile age. "

In his opinion it is unlikely that all people who claim to be ill from

amalgam are right about the cause of their problems (some may be victims of

suggestion). About 1 % of the population may be affected. His estimate was

contradicted by other participants who claimed that from 5,000 to 5000,000

Swedes could be affected.