Posted by yxibow on June 13, 2008, at 3:53:05
In reply to Re: 'Growing Up Bipolar' in Newsweek, posted by linkadge on June 12, 2008, at 8:06:01
> I'd certainly get my fillings removed. My friend works for Environment Canada. He says that when somebody with murcury filligs goes up and breaths on one of their environmental mercury detectors the indicator registers a huge spike.
>
> There are supposedly processes for removing murcury fillings that do not result in acute elevations in murcury.
>
> About murcury in fluorecent tubes. Even if one breaks theres no way you're going to ingest the whole 5mg of murury.
>
>
> LinkadgeI didn't say ingest, I was making a comment that one could theoretically inhale mercury vapor as it warms up on the ground after breaking. And that microscopic amount probably exceeds the level of mercury in vaccines. Fortunately fluorescent tubes today don't contain the even more toxic fluorescent compound, beryllium used in the 40s and instead use zinc, calcium and complex rare earth doped compounds for specialized purposes.
I don't know about Environment Canada, and this is never going to be a rested idea, because people have their own belief concepts about mercury and amalgams and its their own choice. Some in the alternative community have even caused changes in government views about the whole idea, such as bans on mercury fillings in Norway, which is ironic as a fish-eating country, one would get more mercury from eating fish than any of the fillings or vaccines.
The ADA has stood clear that for more than 100 years they have stood up to safety tests, so have other governmental agencies, FDA, CDC, American Cancer Society, and the WHO.
It remains an open question -- I won't say that 100% of either side can prove 100% of their view, but one thing I can say is that removal of dental fillings would potentially introduce more mercury into the system and leave decades old cavities at extreme vulnerability not to mention it would cost out of pocket for someone with numerous cavities thousands of dollars.
At this point, dentists do have a choice and you have a choice to use epoxy/bonded or amalgam fillings -- the difference is that the plastics are generally used in the front areas and do not last as long, while the amalgam can reach areas behind and last much longer and protect teeth from decay which far surpasses any issues of mercury.
Its an open question I admit, and there are still ongoing longterm studies, both because agencies want to answer people with alternative beliefs, and to lay to rest conclusively with evidence based studies as to what is the best solution.
poster:yxibow
thread:833251
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/20080606/msgs/834418.html