Re: Meaning of high mercury in blood

May 2, 2008

Hi Dave,

Thank you for your interest. The results of the blood analysis of my

friend were 18 mcg/dl of Hg. (the reference of the lab was: no exposed

people <10, exposed people <15, quantification limit: 5) Additionally,

he obtained 23 mcg/dl of lead.

The result of a similar Hg analysis of samples taken one day after

this one were 14 mcg/dl.

Some days before the analysis he went to the dentist for a dental work

non related with amalgam removal. The dentist was not mercury-free. I

don't know if this can justify this levels.

The employed technique was atomic absorption spectrophotometry. I have

no idea if this measures Hg in plasma or RBC.

>

> .

>

> I'm curious about your friend's situation, since I'm dealing with

> someone who may have ongoing exposure, and i'm trying to figure out if

> getting a blood test might be a way of detecting it. What kind of test

> is this? Is it plama or RBC? Was it ordered by an MD or some other

> route? Can you tell me how high the mercury was? What is the range

> that is usually accepted above which is considered " high " ?

>

> Thanks -

> Dave.

>

> Posted by: " " JuliusLulaby@...

> Wed Mar 26, 2008 1:40 am (PDT)

>

> Hi,

>

> I have a friend with high mercury in blood in spite of the removal of

> amalgams several years ago. I would say that this means that there is

> a hidden source of mercury somewhere which is still intoxicating him.

> Is this true or maybe there could be some other reason?

>

> Thanks in advance,

>

May 3, 2008

Thanks .

I know 23mcg/dl is quite high for lead. I believe this means that he is

dealing with ongoing exposure. Has he looked into what the sources

might be? You might consider telling him to take a lot of calcium and

avoid both vitamin D and the sun, until he can eliminate his exposures.

It looks like they are using similar ranges for mercury as for lead.

When I asked Andy about testing for ongoing exposure, he said that it is

hard to test the person. He suggested that the only way would be to

test once, and then a second time when they have been away from the

exposure for a month. Comparison would give some idea. For some

reason, he didn't think that testing once would be enough, even to

identify lack of exposure. I'm not sure I understand why - it seemed to

me that if the results are low enough, then that should be indicative.

Dave.

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

Posted by: " " JuliusLulaby@...

Fri May 2, 2008 11:04 am (PDT)