Dr. Laidler’s criticism, Response to: "Smoking Teeth" - the truth gets "smoked out", reduces to the following propositions. First, he contends that what is actually being seen is water vapor; and second, since mercury is a heavier molecule than the other constituents of air (i.e. oxygen, nitrogen, carbon dioxide, etc) the mercury vapor could not rise, but would fall toward the floor. This analysis does is not consistent with the Laws of Physics and Chemistry for the following reasons.
First, atomic absorption spectrophotometry (AAS) is a well substantiated scientific analytical technique used to measure a wide range of elements in various materials such as metals, pottery and glass. It is based on the simple fact that some elements in the Periodic Table absorb specific wavelengths of light. This constitutes that materials fingerprint. In the case of mercury vapor the absorbance wavelength is 253.7nm.
Thus, when a pure material is vaporized by the application of heat, while specific wavelengths are sequentially shone at it, the wavelength absorbed tells one the element making up the sample. In it simplest form, gold miners employ this principle when mining for gold. In the natural state, gold has a very high attraction for mercury; the miner heats his ore sample in a dark container, while shining an ultraviolet light. If a vaporizing shadow is cast, then mercury is present and the sample is likely gold. The amount of light absorbed is proportional to the concentration of the mercury.
The video “Smoking Teeth = Poison Gas” is simply an application of this Miner’s Test, using an amalgam filling, containing approximately 50% mercury, as the sample. Water vapor will not absorb the wavelength from the Miner’s light; and, it will not cast a shadow. Therefore, for Dr. Laidler to suggest it will is unfounded. In the video, the vaporizing shadow is caused by mercury atoms absorbing the spectrum from the Miner’s light. A light, scientifically designed to identify the presence of mercury, not water. Water vapor cannot be visualized with a 254 mm light.
Secondly, Dr. Laidler is correct when he states, “When molecules vaporize, the volume they fill depends on the number of molecules and their temperature”. This is called the partial pressure and the partial pressure for mercury in air is 0.00185 mm at 250 C. However, Dr. Laidler fails to report that the vapor pressure of mercury doubles for every 100 C increase in temperature. Employing dubious calculations, Dr. Laidler concludes that because mercury is heavier than the other components of air, if what we saw was actually mercury vapor coming off those teeth, and not just water vapor, it should have been SINKING rather than rising - even at 370 degrees C.” This of course is false, since the mercury in the amalgam is being is heated, causing the mercury molecules to become more active and vaporize. Thus, the mercury vapor rises from the amalgam and spreads into the environment in accordance with Boyles Law of Gases, the Guy-Lussac Law, and Avogadro’s Law and the Law of Entropy. These laws indicate that gas molecules by natural law move away from each other. Therefore, concentrated mercury atoms near the tooth naturally move to a location where less mercury atoms reside. These laws of the behavior of gas have nothing to do with gravity as Dr. Laidler improperly assumes.
In conclusion, Dr. Laidler reports that “ever since (he) saw the video, (he) felt that there was something wrong with it.” Indeed, he is absolutely correct! It is wrong to place materials containing 50% poisonous elemental mercury into humans, while calling them “silver” fillings. It is wrong to promote such materials as safe, when there is no level of mercury exposure considered to be “safe”.
Dr. Laidler has tried to “Manufacture Uncertainty” where none actually exists.
Monday, April 2, 2007
Thursday, March 22, 2007
FDA Dental Materials Panelist Calls For Informed Consent
Dr. Michael Fleming, an International Academy of Oral Medicine and Toxicology dentist, served as a consumer representative on the recent FDA panel reviewing the so called "White Paper" on 'Silver' fillings. Since these fillings are more than 50% mercury is is consumer deception to call them 'silver'. A recent Zogby poll found that 76% of the public was not even aware that mercury is in an amalgam much less that it is the principle component.
Michael feels actually demands that the public be honestly informed about the risks they will be exposed to from having these mercury leaking, teeth cracking, baby killing fillings implanted in their teeth. His recent editorial published for the entire profession to read is reprinted here with permission of Dental Economics.
Friday, February 16, 2007
President's Message
Greetings from your newly installed president.
The International Academy of Oral Medicine and Toxicology’s 20 years of effort in funding primary research into the safety of dentistry had a lot to with the recent decision of the FDA advisory panels on amalgam.
I would like to express to you my deep concern over the issue of amalgam not only as a practicing dentist but a caring human being. It is absolutely important to protect the patient, the staff and the dentist during the mercury/silver filling removal process. Lungs are a prime portal of entry for the elemental mercury vapor and particulate amalgam. Surgical masks do not prevent the inhalation of micron-sized particles of pulverized mercury/silver amalgam fillings. The IAOMT has established simple protocols to protect everyone present. Regrettably, these precautions are routinely ignored by the majority of dentists.
If you are not familiar with patient protection I urge you to carefully review the simple procedures on our web site at http://www.iaomt.org. As a physician, be aware that if you suspect that a client may be experiencing an adverse reaction to mercury and merely direct them to their local dentist you may not be doing them a service. In the Wall Street Journal Rod Mackert, spokesperson for the American Dental Association, warned against removal because a large bolus dose of mercury is released during unprotected mercury/silver filling removal. Since the bolus dose is entirely preventable we concur with Dr. Mackert’s warning but certainly not his conclusion. What he failed to mention is that placement of a mercury/silver filling creates a similar bolus dose of mercury and that mercury exposure continues throughout the life of the filling. Do not needlessly allow harm to come to your patient. Protect them from preventable mercury exposure.
This eNewsletter is most likely our last issue before the March 15-17, 2007 meeting in Tucson Arizona. At that meeting we anticipate the star-studded premier of the FDA Neurology/Dental Panel highlights from the review of mercury/silver fillings IAOMT DVD. We have distilled two days and 48 hours of video to show you why 9 out of 10 neurologists and 4 our of 10 dentists voted to reject the FDA White Paper claiming to review the safety of mercury/silver fillings. You bring the Pizza and we’ll bring the beer. See you in Tucson.
The FDA Panel voted 13/7 for:
2) The draft FDA White paper does not objectively and clearly present the current state of knowledge about the exposure (to mercury) and health effects related to dental amalgam.
3) Given the amount and quality of information available for the draft FDA White Paper, the conclusions (amalgam is safe) are not reasonable.
My best regards,
Dr. Janet S. Stopka President IAOMT
The International Academy of Oral Medicine and Toxicology’s 20 years of effort in funding primary research into the safety of dentistry had a lot to with the recent decision of the FDA advisory panels on amalgam.
I would like to express to you my deep concern over the issue of amalgam not only as a practicing dentist but a caring human being. It is absolutely important to protect the patient, the staff and the dentist during the mercury/silver filling removal process. Lungs are a prime portal of entry for the elemental mercury vapor and particulate amalgam. Surgical masks do not prevent the inhalation of micron-sized particles of pulverized mercury/silver amalgam fillings. The IAOMT has established simple protocols to protect everyone present. Regrettably, these precautions are routinely ignored by the majority of dentists.
If you are not familiar with patient protection I urge you to carefully review the simple procedures on our web site at http://www.iaomt.org. As a physician, be aware that if you suspect that a client may be experiencing an adverse reaction to mercury and merely direct them to their local dentist you may not be doing them a service. In the Wall Street Journal Rod Mackert, spokesperson for the American Dental Association, warned against removal because a large bolus dose of mercury is released during unprotected mercury/silver filling removal. Since the bolus dose is entirely preventable we concur with Dr. Mackert’s warning but certainly not his conclusion. What he failed to mention is that placement of a mercury/silver filling creates a similar bolus dose of mercury and that mercury exposure continues throughout the life of the filling. Do not needlessly allow harm to come to your patient. Protect them from preventable mercury exposure.
This eNewsletter is most likely our last issue before the March 15-17, 2007 meeting in Tucson Arizona. At that meeting we anticipate the star-studded premier of the FDA Neurology/Dental Panel highlights from the review of mercury/silver fillings IAOMT DVD. We have distilled two days and 48 hours of video to show you why 9 out of 10 neurologists and 4 our of 10 dentists voted to reject the FDA White Paper claiming to review the safety of mercury/silver fillings. You bring the Pizza and we’ll bring the beer. See you in Tucson.
The FDA Panel voted 13/7 for:
2) The draft FDA White paper does not objectively and clearly present the current state of knowledge about the exposure (to mercury) and health effects related to dental amalgam.
3) Given the amount and quality of information available for the draft FDA White Paper, the conclusions (amalgam is safe) are not reasonable.
My best regards,
Dr. Janet S. Stopka President IAOMT
Tuesday, January 30, 2007
IAOMT eNewsletter Vol. 1 #3
The President’s Message
Is it not, therefore, hypocritical for JAMA to publishJAMA papers perpetuate the myth
the severely flawed, ethically challenged children's
mercury exposure experiments?
more…
Our physician colleagues at the American Medical Association, sadly and surprisingly, allowed two seriously flawed papers about mercury silver dental fillings to be published in its flagship journal, JAMA, on April 19, 2006
more…
NIDCR funded researchers looked for mercury in all the wrong places
Seven major flaws in the two studies, recently published in JAMA, invalidate the authors’ comparison of children with dental mercury fillings with youngsters who were amalgam free.
more…
IAOMT filed ethical complaints with IRBs of universities whose personnel conducted the children’s mercury exposure study of orphans and indigent children.
On the same day the two children mercury exposure studies above were published, the IAOMT filed 5 ethical complaints with the university Institutional Review Boards responsible for allowing these investigators to violate the very basic principles of informed consent and patient protection during human experiments.
more…
Safe removal of amalgam fillings
Mercury-free dentists have devised strategies to reduce the amount of mercury exposure to both patients and dental staff during amalgam removal. The strategies are the barrier and ventilation techniques as well as the “biological support” nutritional methods that “treat” the anti-oxidant and excretory systems stressed by heavy metal exposure.
more…
The Scientific Case Against Amalgam
Since its introduction early in the 19th century, dental amalgam has been controversial because of its poisonous mercury content. Throughout the years, those defending mercury fillings only could claim that the mercury exposure had to be too small to hurt anyone. Over time, though, a great body of evidence has accumulated showing that mercury is release from amalgam in significant quantities, that it spreads around the body, including from mother to fetus, and that the exposure causes physiological harm. A growing number of dentists, physicians, researchers, citizen activists, politicians, and regulators have concluded that the time has come to consign amalgam to the “dustbin of history.”
more…
Friday, January 26, 2007
President's Message
When I received what was then the latest edition of The Merck Manual, the compendium of differential diagnosis and treatment in internal medicine, I discovered that this centenary edition included a facsimile of the first publication printed in 1899. Recently, out of curiosity, I went to the index of that slender volume and counted 19 different mercury compounds listed for various therapeutic applications. Opening to the index in the 1999 edition, I found only one entry for mercury: Mercury Toxicity. Yet, the American Dental Association, in the manner of a strong trade organization, holds onto this 170-year-old technology through ignorance, deceit and denials.
How can it be that the medical profession has totally removed mercury from its pharmacopoeia in the past 100 years, even belatedly beginning to eliminate thimerosal, the ethyl-mercury preservative, from vaccines, while the dental profession is not far removed from the medieval practice our dental forefathers of shaving silver coins into elemental mercury?
Is it not, therefore, hypocritical of the JAMA to publish the severely flawed children’s amalgam trial (which I refer to as the children’s mercury exposure experiments)? How ironic that the AMA that expresses such concern about mercury in the environment and rejects its use in any form of medication, feels that it finds “safe haven” in the mouths of our patients.
To stretch the time line of one of Dr. Boyd Haley’s aphorisms: “is this what it’s like to have a 170-year-long argument with the town drunk?”
Opinion’s of IAOMT President Terrence Messerman <TMesserman@aol.com>
How can it be that the medical profession has totally removed mercury from its pharmacopoeia in the past 100 years, even belatedly beginning to eliminate thimerosal, the ethyl-mercury preservative, from vaccines, while the dental profession is not far removed from the medieval practice our dental forefathers of shaving silver coins into elemental mercury?
Is it not, therefore, hypocritical of the JAMA to publish the severely flawed children’s amalgam trial (which I refer to as the children’s mercury exposure experiments)? How ironic that the AMA that expresses such concern about mercury in the environment and rejects its use in any form of medication, feels that it finds “safe haven” in the mouths of our patients.
To stretch the time line of one of Dr. Boyd Haley’s aphorisms: “is this what it’s like to have a 170-year-long argument with the town drunk?”
Opinion’s of IAOMT President Terrence Messerman <TMesserman@aol.com>
Safe removal of amalgam fillings
Mercury-free dentists have devised strategies to reduce the amount of mercury exposure to both patients and dental staff during amalgam removal. The strategies are the barrier and ventilation techniques as well as the “biological support” nutritional methods that “treat” the anti-oxidant and excretory systems stressed by heavy metal exposure.
Full Article in Adobe Acrobat format from link:
Full Article in Adobe Acrobat format from link:
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
