Talk:Dental amalgam controversy

message: There is an article for Dental amalgam controversy, then Amalgam (dentistry) and Mercury poisoning.
Wikipedia tries not to repeat the development of content. Persons wishes to write about the dental amalgam controversy should do so at the article for that, and not at the articles for amalgam or mercury poisoning. Those articles should link to the "dental amalgam controversy" article, so that discussion can be centralized. I am looking at these articles now and intend to merge all content from amalgam and mercury poisoning to the controversy article, then make sections in each of those articles based on the lede of the controversy article.
My intent is to direct people to the controversy article if they want to read about the controversy. Please discuss my doing this only at Talk:Dental_amalgam_controversy, not on the talk pages of the other articles, to the extent that it is reasonable to have this conversation in one place.  Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:58, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I merged content from amalgam and mercury poisoning to here. This is all the content, and in those articles, I replaced the section on "Dental amalgam toxicity" with a portion of the lede here and a link to this article. I did this only because the content was being independently developed in multiple places.  Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:27, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Should the article discuss or link to oral galvanism? Although not exclusive to amalgam, the latter is probably the most common cause of it and it's effects have been raised as a health concern.Freddie Orrell 21:29, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Forked content - Dental amalgam controversy

message: I often edit health articles. WikiProject Medicine, the community of editors which collaborate to develop health content, recommends that health articles comply with the order of sections in the medical manual of style. I tried to apply that guideline, MEDMOS, to this article by rearranging all the sections here and making some placeholder sections for headings which would typically exist in a disease article. I do not think I deleted any existing content or added anything substantial. My intent was only to make this match the order of other health articles.  Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:32, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Rearranged article

message: Hello. I work for Consumer Reports, an organization which does health communication. In my opinion, Consumer Reports gets its information from conservative sources which are supposed to be noncontroversial.
I just rearranged this article in lots of ways as described above. When I was doing this I tried to avoid changing existing content, and feel that I was doing general cleanup which should not be controversial.
After the cleanup, I added content to the article relating to my work at my organization. Here is that content repeated:
The American College of Medical Toxicology and the American Academy of Clinical Toxicology say that research confirms that mercury from amalgams does not cause illness because the amount of mercury that they release is not enough to cause a health problem. In response to some people wanting their existing amalgam removed for fear of mercury poisoning, these societies advise that the removal of filling is likely to cause a greater exposure to mercury than leaving the fillings in place. These societies warn that removal of amalgam fillings, in addition to being unnecessary health care and likely to cause more mercury exposure than leaving them in place, is expensive.
Normally when I add health information to Wikipedia articles I just say the health practice. In this case, I qualified the information saying that it came from particular health organizations, just because that is what has already been happening in this article and because I did not want to enter or try to resolve any existing controversy. If anyone has questions please ask me. I do this as part of a project to develop health information on Wikipedia which I have described at WP:Choosing Wisely.  Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:54, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: 1.) The statement of the two toxicology associations is just an opinion and not based on science. There is no scientific study at all - peer reviewed or not -, where the amount of mercury vapour escaping from dental amalgam fillings was measured, the toxic properties of mercury considered with the conclusion, that this amount of mercury is safe and not able to produce any harm to the patient. 2.) The removal of dental amalgam fillings is dangerous to patient and dental staff only if appropriate safety measures against mercury vapour are not used. The mission of IAOMT is to spread education at this item. 217.233.205.198 (talk) 12:01, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you have some published science to share? Do IAOMT or their members publish science?  Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:33, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a wealth of published science about mercury and dental amalgam, but unfortunately a lot of misleading studies. Mutter discusses common errors about this subject in Is dental amalgam safe for humans? The opinion of the scientific committee of the European Commission. Here you can find a lot of studies, most of them in English language, some in German. IAOMT is, as far as I know, an international association of dental professionals (not a scientific community), dedicated to dental therapies with minimum harm to patients, in particular by avoiding unhealthy material when replacing tooth substance. They do it by considering the state of science - e.g. in scientific conferences - and by education of dentists. 217.233.205.198 (talk) 11:15, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: It is great your organization is doing this. It seem wikipedia has become a magnet for pseudoscience and junk science. The more members who have some knowledge in evidence-based medicine and dentistry the better.Dig Deeper (talk) 05:45, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Statements from medical societies

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Dental amalgam controversy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120229035622/http://aappolicy.aappublications.org:80/cgi/content/full/pediatrics;108/1/197 to http://aappolicy.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/pediatrics%3B108/1/197
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090211053845/http://www.fda.gov:80/cdrh/consumer/amalgams2002.html to http://www.fda.gov/cdrh/consumer/amalgams2002.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20140924170254/http://www.government.se/sb/d/11459/a/118550 to http://www.government.se/sb/d/11459/a/118550
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 09:27, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Dental amalgam controversy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.time.com/time/columnist/jaroff/article/0,9565,235009,00.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110713033557/http://www.osha.gov:80/SLTC/healthguidelines/mercuryvapor/recognition.html to http://www.osha.gov/SLTC/healthguidelines/mercuryvapor/recognition.html
*Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.iaomt.org/where.htmf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20051220094930/http://www.kemi.se:80/upload/Trycksaker/Pdf/Rapporter/Rapport4_04.pdf to http://www.kemi.se/upload/Trycksaker/Pdf/Rapporter/Rapport4_04.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20141223231541/http://www.government.se:80/sb/d/2969/a/223295 to http://www.government.se/sb/d/2969/a/223295
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 17:41, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Some problematic word use:
:*The Crawcours were a family of five Polish dentists who acquired a "superficial knowledge" of dentistry in France before unleashing themselves on the English public in the 1780s.
:*In 1833, two members of the Crawcour family invaded the growing United States of America with a cheap coin silver amalgam they called "royal mineral succedaneum".
:*The Crawcours set up elegant dental "parlours" in New York City and competed with the ethical dentists and catered to the wealthy and influential residents of the city.
This article isn't an epic retelling of the battle between ethical, safe, amalgam dentists and the villains trying to ruin their good name. --72.226.86.106 (talk) 23:12, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Almost a year has passed, this is still the case.--Adûnâi (talk) 23:30, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Section about Crawcour Family doesn't read like an encyclopedia 

message: FYI, there is currently a discussion about this article at WP:FT/N. Alexbrn (talk) 10:06, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fringe 

message: The following points haven't been taken into account.
1) It is scientifically known that metallic mercury is mostly absorbed through the lungs. Therefore the most likely scenario that mercury from amalgam fillings would cause signs of toxicity would be after a VO2Max type of physical activity such as sprinting/running or sexual activity.
2) Glutathione and Metallothionein are proteins that neutralize and remove mercury from the body, respectively. These proteins require Calcitriol (Active Vitamin D) for their genetic expression. Vitamin D deficiency is endemic in many countries. Vitamin D is also required to prevent degeneration by promoting healthy growth. Therefore the notion that amalgam fillings are safe for everyone in all situations is incorrect.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Essereio (talk • contribs) 07:46, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: This is not a forum for general discussion of the topic nor is this a place to post original research. If you are proposing this content be added, then it needs be based on reliable sources per WP:MEDRS. Jytdog (talk) 19:07, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Consideration 

message: In this section there is a claim about the amount of mercury exposure compared to weekly fish consumption. However, the claim is not cited, it simply says "One dental textbook says...". This is not a legitimate claim unless you can back it up with a source.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.84.129.48 (talk) 16:01, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: You can add  anywhere in articles to tag "citation needed". You might have noticed these tags while reading various articles on Wikipedia. I have found that every paragraph in the Mercury exposure ends with a source, so I personally don't know where to add "citation needed". Best, Altanner1991 (talk) 04:42, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mercury Exposure 

message: In some countries dentists will charge lots and wear special masks if an
amalgam filling needs to be drilled (during replacement.)
So it would be best not to have any new ones installed, if ever planning
to travel internationally. Jidanni (talk) 16:59, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mention international travelers / immigrants 

message: Any thoughts about https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3025977/ from 2011? It contradicts the 2008 "it's safe" advice from the Scientific Committee on Emerging and Newly Identified Health Risks (SCENIHR). Johnuniq (talk) 05:28, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: That is not a review, rather an opinion by Joachim Mutter. Mutter is absolutly unreliable, advocating conspriray theories. Julius Senegal (talk) 11:26, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh. Thanks. Johnuniq (talk) 04:31, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Review article contradicts SCENIHR 

message: Since the vote to ban in Eu in Jan 2024 this needs updated Jamesks (talk) 08:32, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  This needs updated to incluse the new ban