Bravo for Dr. Marcus! He is being responsible about protecting the environment for the next generation.
Unfortunately 150,000 other dentists are not.
Let's do the math. He recycles 3 pounds of mercury a year. 3 X 150,000 = 450000 pounds or 225 tons of mercury are being discharged into the nations waste water annually. From there it goes into rivers and lakes or deposited on farms as fertilizer or in land fills to leach into the well water.
Dentistry with mercury is an environmental disaster.
Saturday, September 20, 2008
Mercury Wastewater Removal
Tuesday, June 17, 2008
FDA and Mercury hit the fan with BS
One of the primary reasons why the mercury from amalgam controversy has lasted so long is the volumes of misinformation that are pumped from both dental academia and the American Dental Association that gets quoted in the press as fact. The motto of the International Academy of Oral Medicine and Toxicology is;
For a brief video of mercury being released from set mercury/silver filling and a summary of the research funded by the International Academy of Oral Medicine and Toxicology (www.IAOMT.org) over the last 20 years watch the YouTube video
Earlier criticism by advocates for continued mercury use in dentistry have been addressed in a follow-up video from the documentary film
There is a great deal of misinformation in the recent press about the FDA's change of heart regarding the safety of implanting time-release mercury fillings in people's teeth that I will attempt to address with science. For example in the recent AP story:
First be aware that the "precautionary principle" was triggered in 1985 when Dr. Murray Vimy, founder of the IAOMT, published a detailed series of experiments in the peer reviewed scientific literature firmly establishing that massive amounts of mercury intermittently vaporize from set dental amalgam in the mouths of humans especially after chewing.
The Precautionary Principle requires: "Preventative anticipation - taking action if necessary before scientific proof is available on the grounds that a delay in the action will cause damage to nature and society."
There is no safe level of exposure to mercury therefore use should stop and that is exactly what the IAOMT called for in 1985. Our call for caution unfortunately was not heeded and as a result 50 tons a year more mercury has been implanted in American's teeth.
His claim about 99% of the people not being harmed is straight from the ADA's play book and a quote from the 1984 joint ADA/National Institute of Dental Research review of the biocompatibility of metals in dentistry. At that meeting the NIDR and ADA both acknowledged that mercury was released from set mercury/silver amalgam fillings but characterized the amount as small and said that it would only be a problem for the 1% of the population who are allergic to mercury.
The first point is that the amount has never been found to be small.
The second point is that allergy is only one of a myriad of problem related to mercury intake. Mercury can damage virtually every system in the human body but the heart, kidneys, brain and immune systems are particularly vulnerable.
The third point is that no research has ever found that only 1% of the population is allergic to mercury. The frequency of allergy apparently depends on the number and duration of mercury fillings present in the individual's mouth. Djerassi and Berova published in 1969, "The percentage of positive results to the (mercury) patch test is 5.80% in people with up to 5-years-old restorations; while the percentage in persons whose restorations are older amounts to 22.52%." They reported that among controls with no amalgam fillings 0% of those tested positive.
Implanting mercury/silver fillings exposes everyone present; the patient, staff and the dentist to mercury and will result in an inappropriate immune response in many.
I would be most interested to learn what safety steps are required because the IAOMT can find no published protective requirements for employees exposed to mercury during their regular duties except for general exposure standards that are widely ignored and not monitored. We recently petitioned the California Occupational Safety Standards Board to enact a vertical standard that would require that staff members be adequately protected. They are presently evaluating our request. There are numerous studies that have found mercury causes harm to dentists and dental personnel.
As for seeping into the environment that too is incorrect. Only where a few municipalities or other protectors of the environment mandate mercury separators for dental offices is the mercury discharge dramatically limited.
During the Burton/Watson congressional hearing at USC the San Francisco Regional Water Quality Control expert testified that only after they forced 100% of the mercury using or removing dentists to install mercury separators on their dental offices were they able to obtain a significant reduction in sewer water mercury. 30 days after these inexpensive devices were installed they discovered a 90% reduction in mercury. He further testified that 100% of the mercury problem in San Francisco sewage was due to dental mercury.
When Dan Burton questioned the discrepancy between his early statement about the 90% reduction and his assertion that 100% was due to mercury leaking from amalgam he explained that the additional 10% was from mercury released from amalgam that passed through the gut of amalgam bearers.
Although the members of the IAOMT do not use mercury they do remove mercury consequently the IAOMT has strongly urged its members to voluntarily protect the environment by installing mercury separators.
Dr. Edmond Hewlett the ADA spokesperson calls the scientific evidence that mercury is leaking from so called "Silver" fillings "Junk Science". This is the first step of a PR approach to the issue and is called 'denigrate the opposition' and is not a reasonable approach to a major public health concern. It is not clear what he calls " misguided fears " but it would be reasonable to be concerned that a time-release mercury implant is in many people's teeth. Since the predominant source of human exposure to mercury is from mercury-leaking fillings this information should be given to the patient and not covered up with disinformation.
There is so much in this paragraph that is incorrect it is hard to know where to start. First, everyone is in agreement that composite does not require that a major portion of tooth be removed in order to be placed. Thus, using composite as a first choice leaves more tooth intact. This translates to a lifetime of better dental health and cost savings.
A conservative composite will last longer and is easier to replace or repair than the old mercury/silver fillings. In the long run this will save both teeth and dollars. This looks to me like it is Dr. Hewlett who is fear mongering.
I practiced for 30 years in general dentistry and during that time I never once found an area that I could not keep dry long enough to place a composite filling so I am not sure what areas Dr. Hewlett is referring to that can't be adequately restored using modern non-toxic fillings.
His final comment about using mercury/silver implants in people who grind their teeth is absolutely wrong. In 1987 Dr. Vimy installed slightly radioactive mercury/silver fillings in sheep in order to trace where the mercury released by chewing went. The results were shocking. In just 30 days mercury had distributed throughout the animal's entire body. It was even found in the hoof! See scan of Sheep.
At that time the ADA spokespersons criticized the experiment saying that "Sheep chew too much". A person who habitually clenches or grinds their teeth would chew even more than sheep. Sheep chew about 8 hours a day and about the same as a teenager with gum. In a situation like Hewlett describes the recipient of the mercury filling would be exposed to enormous amounts of elemental mercury vapor. Clearly mercury/silver fillings are not suitable for people who chew with their teeth. The sheep experiments were duplicated with monkeys and exactly the same distribution pattern was observed.
The studies referred to in the AP story are apparently the horribly unethical Children's Amalgam Trials that did not even tell the orphan's guardian that they were going to be implanted with mercury fillings.Link
What kind government agency pays investigators to implant time-release mercury in small children in order to measure the impact of mercury on their brains? Would any parent sign their child up for a similar experiment using for example lead? They claimed to have not found brain problems but now acknowledge in the latest publication that they did find kidney problems and disproportionate harm to boys. See Figure 3 Below:
Before they even began the experiment the investigators skewed the population under investigation by eliminating all the children who already had mercury related neurological damage such as Autistic and ADD.
Much has been made of the danger of mercury exposure to fetuses and during pregnancy but very little is being said about how much more toxic mercury is to some genetically susceptible individuals and especially to boys. Testosterone the male hormone and mercury form an extremely toxic complex that is much more toxic than mercury alone. Estrogen the female hormone apparently provides some protection from mercury.
The unethical Children's Amalgam Experiment found disproportionate harm to the young boy's kidneys. This is a complex sequence of events that can better be understood by a graph than by word descriptions. Figure 3 of the attached article shows the urine mercury first going up in all subjects who were implanted with mercury/silver fillings. But after 2 years the amount excreted through the urine began to decline in both boys and girls but the decline was greater in the boys. So dramatic in fact that by the end of the experiment the boys excreted no more mercury in their urine than the lucky children who had received the non-mercury releasing composite fillings. Over time the boys will accumulate ever more mercury.
The gene CPOX makes humans more vulnerable to neurological harm from mercury. Children who were CPOX positive were identified during these experiments but as yet over 2 years after the often repeated grandiose claims of amalgam safety were made the COPX data is not available of independent study. It is likely that when the various vulnerable subsets are analyzed individually that these experiments will show exceptional harm to these children. Prospective experiments on children with known neurotoxins are blatantly unethical.
Another genotype APOe is also associated with mercury accumulation in brain and linked to autism and Alzheimer's. When you consider the susceptibility of boys, APOe and CPOX you have more than 50% of the population and not 1% as claimed by the ADA and quoted by Kieburtz.
The original report on the [unethical] Children Amalgam Trials CAT stated that the children who were implanted with the time-release mercury/silver fillings received on average 2 fillings on day zero and about 1 filling annually thereafter. The graph from figure 3 from The Contribution of Dental Amalgam to Urinary Mercury Excretion in Children James S. Woods, et al Environmental Health Perspectives Vol. 115 # 10 Oct. 2007 clearly shows urinary mercury going down in the third year of the trial after rising dramatically for the first two years.
When the boys are analyzed separately from the girls the effect is even more obvious and in fact Dr. Woods has commented on the disproportionate harm to boys from their fillings. It is extremely difficult to understand how Woods can even write the first sentence since this research after 7 years firmly established the opposite. There was no significant difference in the boy's urinary mercury than non-exposed controls.
It is unlikely that this is a true statement because looking at Figure 3 you will see that by the end of 7 years there was no difference in the urine mercury of the boys with a lot of mercury/silver fillings and the boys with zero mercury fillings. How then could there possible be a "strong correlation" between urine mercury and the number of fillings?
This basically confirms the Sheep Kindney study the IAOMT funded in 1987 and is exactly why experimentation on children with poison metal fillings not only is unethical but unkind and unwise.
www.Saveteeth.org
http://emporium.turnpike.net/P/PDHA/health.htm
davidkennedy-dds@cox.net
"show me the evidence"
They don't have any evidence of safety so they obfuscate what we do know and pontificate about relative risks. The IAOMT has enumerated numerous clear and cogent reasons to avoid using mercury fillings.LinkFor a brief video of mercury being released from set mercury/silver filling and a summary of the research funded by the International Academy of Oral Medicine and Toxicology (www.IAOMT.org) over the last 20 years watch the YouTube video
"Smoking Teeth"
Earlier criticism by advocates for continued mercury use in dentistry have been addressed in a follow-up video from the documentary film
"The Beautiful Truth"
There is a great deal of misinformation in the recent press about the FDA's change of heart regarding the safety of implanting time-release mercury fillings in people's teeth that I will attempt to address with science. For example in the recent AP story:
Science operates on "a precautionary principle," said Dr. Karl Kieburtz, a University of Rochester neurologist who co-chaired the 2006 FDA advisory committee and praised the new warning. "For 99 percent-plus of people, there probably isn't harm. But if there is a group of people who might be at risk, they should at least have the knowledge that may be so," he said.
First be aware that the "precautionary principle" was triggered in 1985 when Dr. Murray Vimy, founder of the IAOMT, published a detailed series of experiments in the peer reviewed scientific literature firmly establishing that massive amounts of mercury intermittently vaporize from set dental amalgam in the mouths of humans especially after chewing.
The Precautionary Principle requires: "Preventative anticipation - taking action if necessary before scientific proof is available on the grounds that a delay in the action will cause damage to nature and society."
There is no safe level of exposure to mercury therefore use should stop and that is exactly what the IAOMT called for in 1985. Our call for caution unfortunately was not heeded and as a result 50 tons a year more mercury has been implanted in American's teeth.
His claim about 99% of the people not being harmed is straight from the ADA's play book and a quote from the 1984 joint ADA/National Institute of Dental Research review of the biocompatibility of metals in dentistry. At that meeting the NIDR and ADA both acknowledged that mercury was released from set mercury/silver amalgam fillings but characterized the amount as small and said that it would only be a problem for the 1% of the population who are allergic to mercury.
The first point is that the amount has never been found to be small.
The second point is that allergy is only one of a myriad of problem related to mercury intake. Mercury can damage virtually every system in the human body but the heart, kidneys, brain and immune systems are particularly vulnerable.
The third point is that no research has ever found that only 1% of the population is allergic to mercury. The frequency of allergy apparently depends on the number and duration of mercury fillings present in the individual's mouth. Djerassi and Berova published in 1969, "The percentage of positive results to the (mercury) patch test is 5.80% in people with up to 5-years-old restorations; while the percentage in persons whose restorations are older amounts to 22.52%." They reported that among controls with no amalgam fillings 0% of those tested positive.
Implanting mercury/silver fillings exposes everyone present; the patient, staff and the dentist to mercury and will result in an inappropriate immune response in many.
Dental workers make amalgam fillings by mixing liquid mercury with powdered ingredients, requiring special safety steps and filters to limit waste seeping back into the environment.
I would be most interested to learn what safety steps are required because the IAOMT can find no published protective requirements for employees exposed to mercury during their regular duties except for general exposure standards that are widely ignored and not monitored. We recently petitioned the California Occupational Safety Standards Board to enact a vertical standard that would require that staff members be adequately protected. They are presently evaluating our request. There are numerous studies that have found mercury causes harm to dentists and dental personnel.
As for seeping into the environment that too is incorrect. Only where a few municipalities or other protectors of the environment mandate mercury separators for dental offices is the mercury discharge dramatically limited.
During the Burton/Watson congressional hearing at USC the San Francisco Regional Water Quality Control expert testified that only after they forced 100% of the mercury using or removing dentists to install mercury separators on their dental offices were they able to obtain a significant reduction in sewer water mercury. 30 days after these inexpensive devices were installed they discovered a 90% reduction in mercury. He further testified that 100% of the mercury problem in San Francisco sewage was due to dental mercury.
When Dan Burton questioned the discrepancy between his early statement about the 90% reduction and his assertion that 100% was due to mercury leaking from amalgam he explained that the additional 10% was from mercury released from amalgam that passed through the gut of amalgam bearers.
Although the members of the IAOMT do not use mercury they do remove mercury consequently the IAOMT has strongly urged its members to voluntarily protect the environment by installing mercury separators.
"We don't want these choices taken away based on junk science. We don't want them taken away based on misguided fears," said Dr. Edmond Hewlett, a dental professor at the University of California, Los Angeles, and an American Dental Association adviser.
Dr. Edmond Hewlett the ADA spokesperson calls the scientific evidence that mercury is leaking from so called "Silver" fillings "Junk Science". This is the first step of a PR approach to the issue and is called 'denigrate the opposition' and is not a reasonable approach to a major public health concern. It is not clear what he calls " misguided fears " but it would be reasonable to be concerned that a time-release mercury implant is in many people's teeth. Since the predominant source of human exposure to mercury is from mercury-leaking fillings this information should be given to the patient and not covered up with disinformation.
They're cheaper than alternatives roughly $100 for an amalgam filling versus $150 or more for a composite, Hewlett estimates and they're known as particularly durable. Hewlett said two conditions that demand amalgams: Spots on back teeth that dentists can't keep dry long enough for a composite filling to bond, and in people who forcefully grind their teeth.
There is so much in this paragraph that is incorrect it is hard to know where to start. First, everyone is in agreement that composite does not require that a major portion of tooth be removed in order to be placed. Thus, using composite as a first choice leaves more tooth intact. This translates to a lifetime of better dental health and cost savings.
A conservative composite will last longer and is easier to replace or repair than the old mercury/silver fillings. In the long run this will save both teeth and dollars. This looks to me like it is Dr. Hewlett who is fear mongering.
I practiced for 30 years in general dentistry and during that time I never once found an area that I could not keep dry long enough to place a composite filling so I am not sure what areas Dr. Hewlett is referring to that can't be adequately restored using modern non-toxic fillings.
His final comment about using mercury/silver implants in people who grind their teeth is absolutely wrong. In 1987 Dr. Vimy installed slightly radioactive mercury/silver fillings in sheep in order to trace where the mercury released by chewing went. The results were shocking. In just 30 days mercury had distributed throughout the animal's entire body. It was even found in the hoof! See scan of Sheep.
At that time the ADA spokespersons criticized the experiment saying that "Sheep chew too much". A person who habitually clenches or grinds their teeth would chew even more than sheep. Sheep chew about 8 hours a day and about the same as a teenager with gum. In a situation like Hewlett describes the recipient of the mercury filling would be exposed to enormous amounts of elemental mercury vapor. Clearly mercury/silver fillings are not suitable for people who chew with their teeth. The sheep experiments were duplicated with monkeys and exactly the same distribution pattern was observed.
The agency still is studying whether the small amount of mercury vapor released by chewing and brushing is enough to cause neurologic disorders or other problems in youngsters. There have been only a handful of rigorous studies comparing children given either amalgam fillings or tooth-colored resin composite fillings that are mercury-free and those studies haven't detected any brain problems.
The studies referred to in the AP story are apparently the horribly unethical Children's Amalgam Trials that did not even tell the orphan's guardian that they were going to be implanted with mercury fillings.Link
What kind government agency pays investigators to implant time-release mercury in small children in order to measure the impact of mercury on their brains? Would any parent sign their child up for a similar experiment using for example lead? They claimed to have not found brain problems but now acknowledge in the latest publication that they did find kidney problems and disproportionate harm to boys. See Figure 3 Below:
Before they even began the experiment the investigators skewed the population under investigation by eliminating all the children who already had mercury related neurological damage such as Autistic and ADD.
Much has been made of the danger of mercury exposure to fetuses and during pregnancy but very little is being said about how much more toxic mercury is to some genetically susceptible individuals and especially to boys. Testosterone the male hormone and mercury form an extremely toxic complex that is much more toxic than mercury alone. Estrogen the female hormone apparently provides some protection from mercury.
The unethical Children's Amalgam Experiment found disproportionate harm to the young boy's kidneys. This is a complex sequence of events that can better be understood by a graph than by word descriptions. Figure 3 of the attached article shows the urine mercury first going up in all subjects who were implanted with mercury/silver fillings. But after 2 years the amount excreted through the urine began to decline in both boys and girls but the decline was greater in the boys. So dramatic in fact that by the end of the experiment the boys excreted no more mercury in their urine than the lucky children who had received the non-mercury releasing composite fillings. Over time the boys will accumulate ever more mercury.
The gene CPOX makes humans more vulnerable to neurological harm from mercury. Children who were CPOX positive were identified during these experiments but as yet over 2 years after the often repeated grandiose claims of amalgam safety were made the COPX data is not available of independent study. It is likely that when the various vulnerable subsets are analyzed individually that these experiments will show exceptional harm to these children. Prospective experiments on children with known neurotoxins are blatantly unethical.
Another genotype APOe is also associated with mercury accumulation in brain and linked to autism and Alzheimer's. When you consider the susceptibility of boys, APOe and CPOX you have more than 50% of the population and not 1% as claimed by the ADA and quoted by Kieburtz.
Proof of Harm:
The original report on the [unethical] Children Amalgam Trials CAT stated that the children who were implanted with the time-release mercury/silver fillings received on average 2 fillings on day zero and about 1 filling annually thereafter. The graph from figure 3 from The Contribution of Dental Amalgam to Urinary Mercury Excretion in Children James S. Woods, et al Environmental Health Perspectives Vol. 115 # 10 Oct. 2007 clearly shows urinary mercury going down in the third year of the trial after rising dramatically for the first two years.
When the boys are analyzed separately from the girls the effect is even more obvious and in fact Dr. Woods has commented on the disproportionate harm to boys from their fillings. It is extremely difficult to understand how Woods can even write the first sentence since this research after 7 years firmly established the opposite. There was no significant difference in the boy's urinary mercury than non-exposed controls.
"In conclusion, in the present study we describe a strong, positive correlation between mercury exposure from dental amalgam fillings and urinary mercury excretion over a 7-year longitudinal course of amalgam treatment in children."
It is unlikely that this is a true statement because looking at Figure 3 you will see that by the end of 7 years there was no difference in the urine mercury of the boys with a lot of mercury/silver fillings and the boys with zero mercury fillings. How then could there possible be a "strong correlation" between urine mercury and the number of fillings?
"However, significant differences in urinary mercury concentrations between boys and girls with comparable levels of amalgam treatment and times since placement suggest sex-related differences in mercury handling and, possibly, susceptibility to mercury toxicity. These findings are relevant within the context of children health risk assessment and suggest directions for future research to determine whether differential sensitivities to mercury between boys and girls do exist."
This basically confirms the Sheep Kindney study the IAOMT funded in 1987 and is exactly why experimentation on children with poison metal fillings not only is unethical but unkind and unwise.
www.Saveteeth.org
http://emporium.turnpike.net/P/PDHA/health.htm
davidkennedy-dds@cox.net
Monday, June 16, 2008
Figure 3. Mean urinary mercury concentrations for the amalgam group and composite group separately for male (A) and female (B) participants. Error bars show 95% confidence intervals for the group means.
Differences between males and females in the amalgam group were statistically significant ( p<0.05)>
Monday, October 29, 2007
Fluorosis
I haven’t been over blogging on the IAOMT.blogspot.com site for many months simply because I’ve been besieged by comments on YouTube. In addition, I’ve been working on the problem of Poisoned Babies. No, I don’t have any children but I do care about my country. If you allow the dental industry to poison the brains of the children of this country then we lose the country.
Brain damage is what mercury causes. Only about 1% of the mercury in a human is in the brain but 90% of the symptoms are neurological (brain) symptoms. The classic symptom of mercury poisoning is tremor or shaking. That is because the brain is damaged and not sending the correct signals to the limb.
The classic symptom of overdosing a child during tooth development with fluoride is mottled teeth. In my latest YouTube video Fluorosis you can see several examples of mottled teeth and how it can damage a child’s self-image as well.
Unfortunately mottled teeth also indicates mottled bones and mottled brain. Studies in other countries have found that children with mottled teeth score lower on IQ tests for example than normal children. They also develop skeletal fluorosis at an earlier age than the non-mottled children. Skeletal fluorosis is seldom diagnosed in this country but that does not necessarily mean that it is not occurring.
The most frequently reported symptom of early skeletal fluorosis called Stage I is lower back pain. Millions of people in the US have lower back pain for years. What they get for care are killer drugs like Celebrex or some other kind of kidney destroying anti-inflammatory pain medication. That is like cutting the wires to your car’s oil pressure light because it keeps coming on. Don’t cut the wires . . . add oil.
Michael P. Whyte MD at the Division of Bone and Mineral Diseases, Washington University School of Medicine at Barnes-Jewish Hospital, St. Louis, Missouri reported the following case:
A 52-year-old white woman consulted in 1998 for dense lumbar vertebras discovered after twisting her back. Spinal discomfort and stiffness for 5 years reflected “disc disease.” She had never had a fracture. Chest radiographs after exposure to chlorine while manufacturing soap and bleach were unremarkable 16 years previously. She recounted no other chemical or heavy metal exposure. Review of family history revealed no skeletal problems. Only intake of unfiltered well water suggested fluorosis.
Radiographs from 1993 and 1998 documented the appearance of marked osteosclerosis and cortical thickening throughout the entire spine (especially the lumbar region) and pelvis during this 5-year period. The ribs were similarly affected. Dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry documented markedly elevated bone mineral density in the lumbar spine but normal density in the hip.
Diagnosis: Skeletal fluorosis from drinking natural fluoride from well water and substantial amounts of Lipton Instant ice Tea.
This single case report does not make an epidemic but the epidemic has begun. Heller, Eklund, Burt, all strong fluoridation advocates reluctantly reported in 1997 on the study done in 1987 that 30% of the children in fluoridated communities now have dental fluorosis.
Why reluctantly you ask? Because the study was done in 1987 and although the court under the Freedom of Information Act ordered the National Institute of Dental Research to give up their tooth decay and dental fluorosis data from this study to Dr. John Yiamouyiannis they steadfastly refused. He eventually was able to obtain the decay data which clearly showed that fluoridation was of NO benefit but the NIDR claimed in court that they had “lost” the fluorosis data. (obstruction of justice, perjury come to mind)
Well, apparently they found it and gave it to their go-to spinners to figure out how to make an awful picture look rosy. So the spinners went to work on the data and after 10 years had managed to get the number of damaged children down to that 30% figure I just mentioned. What they did is in my opinion unconscionable. They threw out all the data on children with just one tooth permanently scared by an overdose of fluoride during development. They don’t count.
Next they decided to use the second most damaged tooth as the classification of the child’s injury and us a spinner terminology that calls damage to the entire tooth only ‘moderate’. To get to severe dental fluorosis you had to have at least two teeth missing part of the enamel.
So for example if one tooth were entirely scared from tip to gum and the second most damaged tooth was 49.9% mottled the classification became Mild! Think about it. If I took a blowtorch and removed all the paint from one fender of your car and 49.9% of the second fender and told you that your car has a mild spot would you think I was trying to minimize the harm I had caused?
We now know why so many children in fluoridated communities have dental fluorosis. It is the fluoridation of drinking water that is causing it. If the child was breast fed and didn’t brush their teeth with a fluoridated tooth paste dental fluorosis was rare. If on the other hand the majority of children fed on a baby bottle had dental fluorosis. Dr. Kathleen Thiessen explains before the Metropolitan Water District in LA exactly why this occurs on my YouTube video Poisoned Babies.
Breast milk contains virtually no fluoride while tap water has a big load. Some infants on the bottle get 100 times more fluoride than the amount found in breast milk and 4 times the amount the EPA says causes harm (RfD 0.06 mg/kg).1 it is no wonder that so many children have to bleach their teeth today just to look normal. Fluoridation of water has been great for the dentists business and as the latest report shows tooth decay is increasing at the same rate as increased water fluoridation. I am convinced that fluoridation does nothing but harm our children, our nation and our future. Won’t anybody stand up and protect the children?
What children are fed on a bottle? Poor people’s children are harmed of course. Mom has to work. That makes water fluoridation cause disproportionate harm and this disproportionate harm has been shown in studies since the 1950’s. Go watch the videos and I’ll tell you more soon.
1. EPA (IRIS—the RfD)
Bumper stickers are available from the IAOMT Office.
Brain damage is what mercury causes. Only about 1% of the mercury in a human is in the brain but 90% of the symptoms are neurological (brain) symptoms. The classic symptom of mercury poisoning is tremor or shaking. That is because the brain is damaged and not sending the correct signals to the limb.
The classic symptom of overdosing a child during tooth development with fluoride is mottled teeth. In my latest YouTube video Fluorosis you can see several examples of mottled teeth and how it can damage a child’s self-image as well.
Unfortunately mottled teeth also indicates mottled bones and mottled brain. Studies in other countries have found that children with mottled teeth score lower on IQ tests for example than normal children. They also develop skeletal fluorosis at an earlier age than the non-mottled children. Skeletal fluorosis is seldom diagnosed in this country but that does not necessarily mean that it is not occurring.
The most frequently reported symptom of early skeletal fluorosis called Stage I is lower back pain. Millions of people in the US have lower back pain for years. What they get for care are killer drugs like Celebrex or some other kind of kidney destroying anti-inflammatory pain medication. That is like cutting the wires to your car’s oil pressure light because it keeps coming on. Don’t cut the wires . . . add oil.
Michael P. Whyte MD at the Division of Bone and Mineral Diseases, Washington University School of Medicine at Barnes-Jewish Hospital, St. Louis, Missouri reported the following case:
A 52-year-old white woman consulted in 1998 for dense lumbar vertebras discovered after twisting her back. Spinal discomfort and stiffness for 5 years reflected “disc disease.” She had never had a fracture. Chest radiographs after exposure to chlorine while manufacturing soap and bleach were unremarkable 16 years previously. She recounted no other chemical or heavy metal exposure. Review of family history revealed no skeletal problems. Only intake of unfiltered well water suggested fluorosis.
Radiographs from 1993 and 1998 documented the appearance of marked osteosclerosis and cortical thickening throughout the entire spine (especially the lumbar region) and pelvis during this 5-year period. The ribs were similarly affected. Dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry documented markedly elevated bone mineral density in the lumbar spine but normal density in the hip.
Diagnosis: Skeletal fluorosis from drinking natural fluoride from well water and substantial amounts of Lipton Instant ice Tea.
This single case report does not make an epidemic but the epidemic has begun. Heller, Eklund, Burt, all strong fluoridation advocates reluctantly reported in 1997 on the study done in 1987 that 30% of the children in fluoridated communities now have dental fluorosis.
Why reluctantly you ask? Because the study was done in 1987 and although the court under the Freedom of Information Act ordered the National Institute of Dental Research to give up their tooth decay and dental fluorosis data from this study to Dr. John Yiamouyiannis they steadfastly refused. He eventually was able to obtain the decay data which clearly showed that fluoridation was of NO benefit but the NIDR claimed in court that they had “lost” the fluorosis data. (obstruction of justice, perjury come to mind)
Well, apparently they found it and gave it to their go-to spinners to figure out how to make an awful picture look rosy. So the spinners went to work on the data and after 10 years had managed to get the number of damaged children down to that 30% figure I just mentioned. What they did is in my opinion unconscionable. They threw out all the data on children with just one tooth permanently scared by an overdose of fluoride during development. They don’t count.
Next they decided to use the second most damaged tooth as the classification of the child’s injury and us a spinner terminology that calls damage to the entire tooth only ‘moderate’. To get to severe dental fluorosis you had to have at least two teeth missing part of the enamel.
So for example if one tooth were entirely scared from tip to gum and the second most damaged tooth was 49.9% mottled the classification became Mild! Think about it. If I took a blowtorch and removed all the paint from one fender of your car and 49.9% of the second fender and told you that your car has a mild spot would you think I was trying to minimize the harm I had caused?
We now know why so many children in fluoridated communities have dental fluorosis. It is the fluoridation of drinking water that is causing it. If the child was breast fed and didn’t brush their teeth with a fluoridated tooth paste dental fluorosis was rare. If on the other hand the majority of children fed on a baby bottle had dental fluorosis. Dr. Kathleen Thiessen explains before the Metropolitan Water District in LA exactly why this occurs on my YouTube video Poisoned Babies.
Breast milk contains virtually no fluoride while tap water has a big load. Some infants on the bottle get 100 times more fluoride than the amount found in breast milk and 4 times the amount the EPA says causes harm (RfD 0.06 mg/kg).1 it is no wonder that so many children have to bleach their teeth today just to look normal. Fluoridation of water has been great for the dentists business and as the latest report shows tooth decay is increasing at the same rate as increased water fluoridation. I am convinced that fluoridation does nothing but harm our children, our nation and our future. Won’t anybody stand up and protect the children?
What children are fed on a bottle? Poor people’s children are harmed of course. Mom has to work. That makes water fluoridation cause disproportionate harm and this disproportionate harm has been shown in studies since the 1950’s. Go watch the videos and I’ll tell you more soon.
1. EPA (IRIS—the RfD)
Bumper stickers are available from the IAOMT Office.
Monday, April 2, 2007
Smoking Teeth Confusion
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.
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.
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
