From: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Subject: Re: Mercury in dental fillings?
Organization: WP Group
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 02:09:03 GMT

From article <1992Aug12.204244.22637@athena.cs.uga.edu>, by PRICKRIL@bscf.uga.edu (BEN PRICKRIL):
bp> Amid all the hoopla you refer to concerning mercury amalgam 
bp> fillings, there are a few studies which together indicate that 
bp> mercury amalgam fillings have at least some potential to pose a 
bp> health threat.  The following have been reported in the 
bp> literature (refs available on request): 
bp>
bp> -In humans, dental "silver" amalgam tooth fillings (ca.  50% 
bp> mercury by weight) continuously release mercury vapor.  Moreover, 
bp> the release rate of this mercury is enhanced within 10 minutes 
bp> following chewing or tooth brushing.  
bp> 
bp> -A single amalgam filling will release 15 ug/day into mouth air.
bp> 
bp> -The amount of mercury absorbed by the body from fillings, 
bp> although variable from study to study, is about 10 ug/day 
bp> (consensus value), vs.  2.3 ug/day absorbed from food, water, and 
bp> air.  Furthermore, autopsy studies have demonstrated significantly 
bp> higher mercury levels in brain and kidney of subjects with dental 
bp> amalgams compared to control subjects lacking amalgams.  
bp> 
bp> -Preliminary studies in humans indicate that both fertility and 
bp> brain function may be altered due to exposure to dental amalgam 
bp> mercury.  

Please post your references.  I'm intimately familiar with most of the
anti-amalgam studies on the market, and without exception, every one of
the anti-amalgam studies I've seen is seriously flawed.

bp> Politics and money aside, I think its clear that although the verdict
bp> isn't yet in, we have plenty of reasons to continue to be concerned about
bp> possible health effects from amalgam fillings.

The verdict is in.  Literally hundreds of studies have established
the fact that amalgam is quite safe in the vast majority of humans.  The
exceptions are those extremely rare individuals with genuine mercury 
allergies.  On the other hand, the material that anti-amalgamists often
recommend as a replacement for amalgam (acrylic composite) is short
on durability and wear-resistence, high on leakage, and extremely likely
to cause pulpal inflammations, if not pulpal death.  References on
request.

Incidently, I'd like to point out that the ADA and the AGD deserve
a lot of credit for coming clean on this "toxic amalgam" issue back
in 1987-1988.  For years, both of these organizations sat on their hands
while a growing number of quacks got rich preaching about the 
evils of mercury.  The upshot was that the scam grew rapidly, 
adversely affected millions of dental patients, and caused quite 
a bit of consternation among honest dentists who feared that
their own reluctance to participate in this public fraud
might cause them to end up in the poor house.

Of the 100,000 (plus/minus) dentists in north america, I'll bet that
99% of them had prayed (literally or figuratively) at one time or
another that amalgams really were toxic;  yet the scientific research
demonstrated that this simply wasn't the case.  Both the ADA and 
the AGD took a lot of flak after exposing the prevalence 
and nature of this particular bit of quackery, and several 
employees very nearly lost their jobs because they stood up for 
the truth, rather than economic self-interest. 

-- 
Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000
russ@wpg.com   uunet!wpg!russ