Guest guest Posted January 2, 2001 Report Share Posted January 2, 2001 > >++++++ Mercury Poisoning from Dental Amalgam > ><AMALGAM@L...> ++++++ > > > >Noel, > >I had very high levels of arsenic when I first became sick. I have > no idea > >where the arsenic could have come from. It was fairly consistly > >high....higher than mercury or lead, which were also above normal > range even > >one year after having amalgams removed. > > > >Do you know why cancer patients present with high levels of > arsenic? > > > >Freya > > > ><< > > I am not aware that there is arsenic in dental materials. > > > > We see arsenic in our cancer patients and consider it very > important that it > > be removed. > > > > Saunas & DMSA are the best methods. > > > > Regards > > Noel > > >> > > > >+++++++++++++ http://www.listserv.gmd.de/archives/amalgam.html > >++++++++++++++ > > ------------------------------ > > Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2000 01:30:07 -0700 > From: Dabney <ltldab1@J...> > Subject: Metal taste in jaws > > ++++++ Mercury Poisoning from Dental Amalgam > <AMALGAM@L...> ++++++ > > > I can taste the metal in my jaws. After amalgam removal I was > able to > taste the mercury that had seeped into my jaw bone. This metal > taste is > slowly going down. Also I went from NICO to what is termed as > burning > mouth syndrome. For more infomation on burning mouth syndrome go to > messages/govinfo and you will find a post > concerning the condition. This condition is also slowly leaving > me. > ps there is alot of other information at govinfo > you > may find useful. > > ------------------------------ > > > > Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2000 10:51:11 -0400 > > From: Mikhail Blank <Mikhail.Blank@C...> > > Subject: Re: TESTS MERCURY & ARSENIC > > > > ++++++ Mercury Poisoning from Dental Amalgam > > <AMALGAM@L...> ++++++ > > > > , can you elaborate on this? What do you mean by > 'tasting > > the > > mercury'? > > > > Mike. > > > > ------------------------------ > > Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2000 12:35:22 EDT > From: Freya Koss <FreKoss@A...> > Subject: Re: arsenic in rootfillings > > ++++++ Mercury Poisoning from Dental Amalgam > <AMALGAM@L...> ++++++ > > Vera, > > YOUR ARE CORRECT. > At the July,2000 Committee on Government Reform hearing on vaccines, > upon > questioning by Congressman Burton as to whether vaccines with > Thirmerisol > were still being used in this country (I think they were > specifically > discussing Hep B, but I'm not certain), the FDA proudly said NO. > When Burton > asked what the pharmaceutical companies were doing with the > remainder of the > vaccines with Thimerisol, the FDA admitted that they are sending > vaccines > with Thimerisol to third world countries. > > CAN YOU IMAGINE.....NOW WE'RE POISONING CHILDREN IN AFRICA, and Bill > Gates' > Founding is funding this project. I wonder if he's aware of the > catasphrophy. > > From all that I've learned about our government's politics....I'm > not the > least bit surprised. > > What was the tenure of the article in the Swedish paper? Were any > judgemental comments made? > > Freya > > << As far as I recall, arsenic together with phenylmercury and other > " beauties " were used as a components of rootfilling material called > N2 in > Sweden and other countries in Europe. > The reason was to keep bugs away from root cannals. > N2 was officially forbidden in Sweden years ago but it is smuggled > in and > used illegally. > There also used to be a club of dentists favoring N2 (!). > After the official ban, the material was succesfully sold to > countries of > former eastern block such as Polen and Czechoslovakia. > The parallel now exists regarding vaccines, in Swedish newspapers > there was > a note that US offers vaccination help free of charge for African > children. > I suppose the deposition of mercury-containing vaccines?! >> > > ------------------------------ > > Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2000 12:37:16 EDT > From: Freya Koss <FreKoss@A...> > Subject: Re: arsenic in rootfillings > > ++++++ Mercury Poisoning from Dental Amalgam > <AMALGAM@L...> ++++++ > > Hi Vera, > I don't think I have any root canals, but still have high levels of > arsenic. > Is it possible that arsenic is in bonding materials? > > Freya > > > << As far as I recall, arsenic together with phenylmercury and other > " beauties " were used as a components of rootfilling material called > N2 in > Sweden and other countries in Europe. > The reason was to keep bugs away from root cannals. > N2 was officially forbidden in Sweden years ago but it is smuggled > in and > used illegally. > There also used to be a club of dentists favoring N2 (!). > After the official ban, the material was succesfully sold to > countries of > former eastern block such as Polen and Czechoslovakia. > >> > > ------------------------------ > > Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2000 17:32:24 EDT > From: Pat Kultgen <WindstarPK@A...> > Subject: arsenic > > ++++++ Mercury Poisoning from Dental Amalgam > <AMALGAM@L...> ++++++ > > Fluoride Action Network > > October 24, 2000 > > How Much Arsenic is Fluoridation Adding to the Public Water Supply? > > by Connett > > Ninety percent of the fluoride we use to fluoridate U.S. water > systems > comes directly from the pollution scrubbing systems of the phosphate > fertilizer industry. Recently, there has been a lot of concern > amongst > clean water activists about the purity of this industrial grade > fluoride, > known as hydrofluosilicic acid. As Florida fluoride researcher > > Glasser has pointed out, this hydrofluosilicic acid contains > trace=20 > amounts of heavy metals such as lead, mercury, and arsenic. > > Proponents of fluoridation, however, claim that while heavy metals > are > found in the acid, they are at such low levels as to be of no > concern. > As > Reeves of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention > recently > stated, " the point I'm trying to make is it's really not a problem " > (Wenatchee World, October 20, 2000). > > After a quick look at the numbers, Reeves would seem to be right. > After > all, the hydrofluosilicic acid is diluted down approximately 186,000 > times > when added into the public's drinking water. If, therefore, these > heavy > metals are in concentrations of parts per million in the undiluted > fluorosilicic acid, they will be much lower after being diluted down > 186,000 to 1. > > However, while this argument sounds legitimate, a careful look at > the > numbers reveals a different picture. > > Take for instance, arsenic. > > In a recent letter (July 7, 2000) to Congress, The National > Standards > Foundation (NSF) submitted the results of tests it has conducted on > hydrofluosilicic acid over the past few years. According to the > NSF,=20 > the most common contaminant found was arsenic. (Arsenic was found > about=20 > 5 times more frequently than any other contaminant and at > considerably=20 > higher levels). > > While not all hydrofluosilicic acid was found to contain arsenic, > the > NSF > states that where found, the average level of arsenic in the acid > would > lead to arsenic water levels, after dilution, of 0.43 parts per > billion > (ppb). (When the " non-detects " are factored in, the average arsenic > level > would be 0.1 ppb). The maximum levels of arsenic found by the NSF > would > result in arsenic water levels of 1.66 parts per billion. > > Putting the numbers into Perspective > > To the ordinary person, these numbers seem small and insignificant, > which > is exactly what the NSF and the CDC's Reeves claim. However, > in > examining their arguments, one finds that the NSF and Reeves are > basing > their reasoning on the fact that 0.43 parts per billion arsenic > falls > below > the EPA's Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL). In other words, they are > looking > to the letter of the law, and the letter of the law says adding this > much > arsenic to the water is ok. > > But the letter of the law on arsenic is currently under serious > challenge. > > According to a 1999 review done by the National Academy of > Sciences,=20 > " it is the subcommittee's consensus that the current EPA MCL for > arsenic=20 > in drinking water of 50 =B5g/L (50 parts per billion) does not > achieve > EPA's > goal for public-health protection and, therefore, requires downward > revision as promptly as possible. " > > The National Resources Defense Council (NRDC) states that the > EPA's=20 > current Maximum Contaminant Level for arsenic, " is grossly > inadequate=20 > for protecting public health. " The NRDC points out that the EPA's > Maximum > Contaminant Level was set in 1942, " before arsenic was known to > cause > cancer. " Arsenic, which has since been classified as a Class 1 human > carcinogen, is now known to cause cancer of the skin, and cancer of > the > internal organs, particularly the lung and bladder. > > In light of the growing accumulation of scientific literature on > arsenic, > the NRDC is currently calling on the EPA to set a new Maximum > Contaminant > Level for arsenic at 3 parts per billion. However, the NRDC argues > that > even 3 parts per billion is not a satisfactory level. For as they > state, > " Based on an extrapolation of NAS's risk estimates, even a > relatively > strict arsenic standard of 3 ppb could pose a fatal cancer risk > several > times higher than EPA has traditionally accepted in drinking water. " > > In fact, according to data from the National Academy of Sciences, > just=20 > 0.5 parts per billion arsenic in the water " presents the highest > cancer=20 > risk EPA traditionally allows in tap water. " (see chart 1 > below)(NRDC, > 2000) > According to NAS data, the National Resources Defense Council > estimates > that drinking water containing just 0.5 parts per billion presents > the > public with a 1 in 10,000 risk of developing cancer. > > Recent epidemiological work from Finland (Kurttio, et. al, 1999) > found > that > people drinking water with 0.1 to 0.5 parts per billion arsenic, had > an > approximately 50 percent greater risk of getting bladder cancer than > their > countrymen drinking water with arsenic levels less than 0.1 parts > per > billion (NRDC, 2000). The range 0.1 to 0.5 ppb is the range of > arsenic > we > can expect to add to the water from the use of hydrofluosilicic > acid. > > According to Dr. Connett, Professor of Chemistry at St. > Lawrence > University, NY, and an outspoken critic of fluoridation, " I was > shocked > by > these numbers. Like many others I once thought that the dilution > factor > would take these toxic metal concentrations below levels of concern. > To > have arsenic near a cancer risk level of 1 in 10,000 is very > serious. " > > Connett added that, " the US EPA normally likes to keep exposure to > carcinogens below a risk level of 1 in a million. 1 in 10,000 is > unacceptably high for a practice which yields very small, if any,=20 > benefits and for which there are simpler and safer alternatives. " > > In conclusion: What do we know? > > * 90% of the fluoride used to fluoridate US water systems comes from > the > pollution scrubbing devices of the phosphate fertilizer industry. It > is > industrial grade, not pharmaceutical grade. > > * The most common contaminant found with the captured fluoride acid > (hydrofluosilicic acid) is arsenic. > > * When detected, the average amount of arsenic found in the acid > would=20 > lead to levels of arsenic in drinking water of 0.43 parts per > billion. > > * If we include the samples that did not contain arsenic, the > average > amount of arsenic fluoridation is adding to the water would be 0.1 > ppb. > > * The level of arsenic in hydrofluosilicic acid varies, reaching > levels > high enough to produce concentrations of 1.66 parts per billion in > water. > > * According to data from the National Academy of Sciences, drinking > water > containing 0.5 parts per billion arsenic presents a 1 in 10,000 risk > of > developing cancer. > > * A study from Finland (Kurttio, et al, 1999) found that people > drinking > water with 0.1 to 0.5 parts per billion arsenic had a 50% greater > risk > of > developing bladder cancer than people drinking water with less than > 0.1 > ppb. > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- -- > > Chart 1: Lifetime Risks of Dying of Cancer from Arsenic in Tap Water > Based upon the National Academy of Sciences' 1999 Risk Estimates* > > From the National Resource Defense Council's February 2000 Report=20 > " Arsenic & Old Laws " > http://www.nrdc.org/water/drinking/arsenic/chap1.asp > > Arsenic Level in Tap Water > (in parts per billion, or ppb) > > Approximate Total Cancer Risk > (assuming 2 liters consumed/day) > > > 0.5 ppb 1 in 10,000 (highest cancer risk EPA usually allows in tap > water) > 1 ppb 1 in 5,000 > 3 ppb 1 in 1,667 > 4 ppb 1 in 1,250 > 5 ppb 1 in 1,000 > 10 ppb 1 in 500 > 20 ppb 1 in 250 > 25 ppb 1 in 200 > 50 ppb 1 in 100 > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- -- > > References: > > Gilstrap, Kathleen. (2000). Fluoride battle heats up: Vote is > non-binding, > but that won't make this election any less volatile. Wenatchee > World. 20 > October 2000: http://www.wenworld.com/news/friday/news.html > > Kurttio P, Komulainen H, Hakala E, Kahelin H, Pekkanen J. (1998). > Urinary > excretion of arsenic species after exposure to arsenic present in > drinking > water. Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 34: 297-305. > > National Resources Defense Council. (2000). Arsenic and Old Laws: A > Scientific and Public Health Analysis of Arsenic Occurrence in > Drinking > Water, Its Health Effects, and EPA's Outdated Arsenic Tap Water > Standard. > http://www.nrdc.org/water/drinking/arsenic/aolinx.asp > > Hazan, Stan. (2000). Letter to Rep. Ken Calvert from Stan Hazan, > General > Manager, Drinking Water Additives Certification Program, National > Standards > Foundation International. 7 July 2000. > http://www.citizens.org/Food_Water_Safety/Fluoridation/Materials/NSF_ > response.pdf > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- -- > > A Note about Current Levels of Arsenic in US Water Systems > > According to analysis of water conducted in 25 US states, > approximately > 70% > of the tap water tested was found to contain between 0 > (non-detectable) > to > 3 parts per billion arsenic. See > http://www.nrdc.org/water/drinking/arsenic/chap1.asp > > ------------------------------ > > Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2000 09:26:39 +0200 > From: Cheryl Welch <squirel@W...> > Subject: Test ForMethyl-mercury > > ++++++ Mercury Poisoning from Dental Amalgam > <AMALGAM@L...> ++++++ > > Hi all > > I am new to this list and am considering amalgam removal. > I have had cfs for 24 years and suspect it may be due to having 7 > amalgams > installed within a week at the age of 12. > Shortly after I got orthodontic braces on my teeth which I have > heard an > make mercury leech out of fillings more rapidly. > I was also exposed to several broken thermometers around the same > age. One > of the first symptoms to occur was numbness in my feet which over > time > spread to my whole body. At the time I had no idea this could be > mercury > poisoning. At age 15 I got some sort of bug and came down with full > Cfs. > Maybe mercury exposure caused this. > Anyway I have been reading on Pubmed that inorganic mercury can be > converted > by candida and some other > bowel bacteria to methyl-mercury. This form of mercury I believe is > far more > toxic. It would then follow that a much > lesser amount of methyl-mercury is needed to induce toxicity in > people. With > a bacterial ( Fungal ) flora which encourages methyl-mercury > production this > could tip the balance. Eg two people with the same levels of mercury > excretion and similar amalgam mercury leeching could have very > different > levels of methyl-mercury, owing to different balances of oral and > gut > bacteria. These differences would not show up in testing, leading to > the > belief that no mercury poisoning had occurred. I believe it is > possible that > antibiotics and antifungals help some patients with cfs by reducing > levels of mercury converting bacteria. In a study I read on Pubmed > it was > found that candida could convert inorganic > mercury to methyl-mercury. It is then bound in the cell wall. I > imagine when > the candida dies off the methyl-mercury is released into the gut. > > What I would love to know is whether there is a urine test > especially for > methyl-mercury and whether toxic levels especially for > methyl-mercury have > been determined. > > Regards Cheryl > > ------------------------------ > > Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2000 19:54:24 -0500 > From: Dorothy Barron <Jeanba45@W...> > Subject: Re: Metal taste in jaws > > ++++++ Mercury Poisoning from Dental Amalgam > <AMALGAM@L...> ++++++ > > , > Can the info you're referring to be posted on this site? Or are you > able to summarize the info? > I went to the egroup listing, but didn't began to know where to look > among the numerous postings listed. > Thanks > Dorothy > > ------------------------------ > > End of AMALGAM Digest - 26 Oct 2000 to 27 Oct 2000 (#2000-291) > ************************************************************** --- End forwarded message --- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.