Elimination of mercury

"Vernon" there@atthere wrote in message
m...


I made the comment as a "relative" one, knowing the process the
manufacturers use and the glib nature of any cleaning of the surfaces
before shipping.


I've heard they give off mercury but that much is absurd

john wrote:
"Vernon" there@atthere wrote in message
m...


I made the comment as a "relative" one, knowing the process the
manufacturers use and the glib nature of any cleaning of the surfaces
before shipping.


I've heard they give off mercury but that much is absurd

Gosh, the idea of john, who added so much hilarity to the world with
his pages on "healing black lines" calling anything absurd

"john" wrote in message
...

"Vernon" there@atthere wrote in message
m...


I made the comment as a "relative" one, knowing the process the
manufacturers use and the glib nature of any cleaning of the surfaces
before shipping.


I've heard they give off mercury but that much is absurd


Define "that much"

"Jason Johnson" wrote in message
...
In article , "Vernon"
there@atthere wrote:

"Jason Johnson" wrote in message
...
In article , Mark Probert
wrote:

Jason Johnson wrote:
In article , Mark Probert
wrote:

Jason Johnson wrote:
In article , Mark Probert
wrote:

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/art...?artid=1280342

Abstract
Thimerosal is a preservative that has been used in manufacturing
vaccines since the 1930s. Reports have indicated that infants can
receive ethylmercury (in the form of thimerosal) at or above the
U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency guidelines for methylmercury
exposure,
depending on the exact vaccinations, schedule, and size of the
infant.
In this study we compared the systemic disposition and brain
distribution of total and inorganic mercury in infant monkeys
after
thimerosal exposure with those exposed to MeHg. Monkeys were
exposed
to
MeHg (via oral gavage) or vaccines containing thimerosal (via
intramuscular injection) at birth and 1, 2, and 3 weeks of age.
Total
blood Hg levels were determined 2, 4, and 7 days after each
exposure.
Total and inorganic brain Hg levels were assessed 2, 4, 7, or 28
days
after the last exposure. The initial and terminal half-life of Hg
in
blood after thimerosal exposure was 2.1 and 8.6 days,
respectively,
which are significantly shorter than the elimination half-life of
Hg
after MeHg exposure at 21.5 days. Brain concentrations of total Hg
were
significantly lower by approximately 3-fold for the
thimerosal-exposed
monkeys when compared with the MeHg infants, whereas the average
brain-to-blood concentration ratio was slightly higher for the
thimerosal-exposed monkeys (3.5 ± 0.5 vs. 2.5 ± 0.3). A higher
percentage of the total Hg in the brain was in the form of
inorganic
Hg
for the thimerosal-exposed monkeys (34% vs. 7%). The results
indicate
that MeHg is not a suitable reference for risk assessment from
exposure
to thimerosal-derived Hg. Knowledge of the toxicokinetics and
developmental toxicity of thimerosal is needed to afford a
meaningful
assessment of the developmental effects of thimerosal-containing
vaccines.

--------------------

Clearly, the claim by the Mercury Militia that it accumulates
after
each
vaccination is not supported by this research. Ethyl Mercury, the
byproduct of thimerosal metabolism is eliminated rapidly, and is
gone
before the next vaccination.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

How was this study funded?

Is that the best you can do? Whine about funding. Obviously, you did
not
bother to even attempt to read it. You answer is at the link I
posted.
Do your own homework. Read the study and try to find fault with
methodology, etc.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Mark,
I read the study that is posted above and have read other research
studies
that have had similar conclusions. I have also read other research
studies
that have had different conclusions.

I posted the link since the entire study is available.

Now, specify what other *studies*, with references, have different
findings? I cannot find fault with this studies methodology.

Chemistry does not change.

Completely independant of taking any side here, Chemistry (the
observation
of elemental constructs and reactions) always changes.


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Vernon,
It depends on what Mark meant when he used the term "chemistry". Mark
should explain what the meant. Perhaps he was referring to "natural laws".

It's been over 25 years since I have taken any science classes but seem to
recall learning that natural laws never change.
Jason
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Sort of my point.

Add what I posted to a constant change in what people, especially college
professor book writers define as "Natural laws". Add to that the basic fact
that very few professors have a clue about the various elemental (not
chemistry) effects on statistics.

Your link MAY be 100% accurate, but still mostly opinion.

"Vernon" there@atthere wrote in message
m...

"john" wrote in message
...

"Vernon" there@atthere wrote in message
m...


I made the comment as a "relative" one, knowing the process the
manufacturers use and the glib nature of any cleaning of the surfaces
before shipping.


I've heard they give off mercury but that much is absurd


Define "that much"


More than a given in a vaccine shot, or given off by amalgam every day

In article , "Vernon"
there@atthere wrote:

"Jason Johnson" wrote in message
...
In article , "Vernon"
there@atthere wrote:

"Jason Johnson" wrote in message
...
In article , Mark Probert
wrote:

Jason Johnson wrote:
In article , Mark Probert
wrote:

Jason Johnson wrote:
In article , Mark Probert
wrote:

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/art...?artid=1280342

Abstract
Thimerosal is a preservative that has been used in manufacturing
vaccines since the 1930s. Reports have indicated that infants can
receive ethylmercury (in the form of thimerosal) at or above the
U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency guidelines for methylmercury
exposure,
depending on the exact vaccinations, schedule, and size of the
infant.
In this study we compared the systemic disposition and brain
distribution of total and inorganic mercury in infant monkeys
after
thimerosal exposure with those exposed to MeHg. Monkeys were
exposed
to
MeHg (via oral gavage) or vaccines containing thimerosal (via
intramuscular injection) at birth and 1, 2, and 3 weeks of age.
Total
blood Hg levels were determined 2, 4, and 7 days after each
exposure.
Total and inorganic brain Hg levels were assessed 2, 4, 7, or 28
days
after the last exposure. The initial and terminal half-life of Hg
in
blood after thimerosal exposure was 2.1 and 8.6 days,
respectively,
which are significantly shorter than the elimination half-life of
Hg
after MeHg exposure at 21.5 days. Brain concentrations of total Hg
were
significantly lower by approximately 3-fold for the
thimerosal-exposed
monkeys when compared with the MeHg infants, whereas the average
brain-to-blood concentration ratio was slightly higher for the
thimerosal-exposed monkeys (3.5 ± 0.5 vs. 2.5 ± 0.3). A higher
percentage of the total Hg in the brain was in the form of
inorganic
Hg
for the thimerosal-exposed monkeys (34% vs. 7%). The results
indicate
that MeHg is not a suitable reference for risk assessment from
exposure
to thimerosal-derived Hg. Knowledge of the toxicokinetics and
developmental toxicity of thimerosal is needed to afford a
meaningful
assessment of the developmental effects of thimerosal-containing
vaccines.

--------------------

Clearly, the claim by the Mercury Militia that it accumulates
after
each
vaccination is not supported by this research. Ethyl Mercury, the
byproduct of thimerosal metabolism is eliminated rapidly, and is
gone
before the next vaccination.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

How was this study funded?

Is that the best you can do? Whine about funding. Obviously, you did
not
bother to even attempt to read it. You answer is at the link I
posted.
Do your own homework. Read the study and try to find fault with
methodology, etc.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Mark,
I read the study that is posted above and have read other research
studies
that have had similar conclusions. I have also read other research
studies
that have had different conclusions.

I posted the link since the entire study is available.

Now, specify what other *studies*, with references, have different
findings? I cannot find fault with this studies methodology.

Chemistry does not change.

Completely independant of taking any side here, Chemistry (the
observation
of elemental constructs and reactions) always changes.


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Vernon,
It depends on what Mark meant when he used the term "chemistry". Mark
should explain what the meant. Perhaps he was referring to "natural laws".

It's been over 25 years since I have taken any science classes but seem to
recall learning that natural laws never change.
Jason
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Sort of my point.

Add what I posted to a constant change in what people, especially college
professor book writers define as "Natural laws". Add to that the basic fact
that very few professors have a clue about the various elemental (not
chemistry) effects on statistics.

Your link MAY be 100% accurate, but still mostly opinion.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Vernon,
Good points. Many college science professors are teaching lots of false
information to their students. They want to be politically correct so
teach students that global warming is caused by pollution. Of course,
pollution may play a role. However, anyone that has a degree in natural
science knows that global warming happened several times in the history of
the earth even before mankind was on the earth. Global warming could very
well be the result of
those same factors that caused global warming before mankind was on this earth.
Any science professor employed by a state university would be fired (by
his politically correct bosses) if he taught his or her students that
global warming was NOT caused by pollution. If a science professor in a
state university developed a theory that conflicted with evolution theory,
that professor would be fired by his politically correct bosses. Academic
freedom is no longer a reality.
Jason
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Jason Johnson wrote:
In article , "Vernon"
there@atthere wrote:

"Jason Johnson" wrote in message
...
In article , "Vernon"
there@atthere wrote:

"Jason Johnson" wrote in message
...
In article , Mark Probert
wrote:

Jason Johnson wrote:
In article , Mark Probert
wrote:

Jason Johnson wrote:
In article , Mark Probert
wrote:

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/art...?artid=1280342

Abstract
Thimerosal is a preservative that has been used in manufacturing
vaccines since the 1930s. Reports have indicated that infants can
receive ethylmercury (in the form of thimerosal) at or above the
U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency guidelines for methylmercury
exposure,
depending on the exact vaccinations, schedule, and size of the
infant.
In this study we compared the systemic disposition and brain
distribution of total and inorganic mercury in infant monkeys
after
thimerosal exposure with those exposed to MeHg. Monkeys were
exposed
to
MeHg (via oral gavage) or vaccines containing thimerosal (via
intramuscular injection) at birth and 1, 2, and 3 weeks of age.
Total
blood Hg levels were determined 2, 4, and 7 days after each
exposure.
Total and inorganic brain Hg levels were assessed 2, 4, 7, or 28
days
after the last exposure. The initial and terminal half-life of Hg
in
blood after thimerosal exposure was 2.1 and 8.6 days,
respectively,
which are significantly shorter than the elimination half-life of
Hg
after MeHg exposure at 21.5 days. Brain concentrations of total Hg
were
significantly lower by approximately 3-fold for the
thimerosal-exposed
monkeys when compared with the MeHg infants, whereas the average
brain-to-blood concentration ratio was slightly higher for the
thimerosal-exposed monkeys (3.5 ± 0.5 vs. 2.5 ± 0.3). A higher
percentage of the total Hg in the brain was in the form of
inorganic
Hg
for the thimerosal-exposed monkeys (34% vs. 7%). The results
indicate
that MeHg is not a suitable reference for risk assessment from
exposure
to thimerosal-derived Hg. Knowledge of the toxicokinetics and
developmental toxicity of thimerosal is needed to afford a
meaningful
assessment of the developmental effects of thimerosal-containing
vaccines.

--------------------

Clearly, the claim by the Mercury Militia that it accumulates
after
each
vaccination is not supported by this research. Ethyl Mercury, the
byproduct of thimerosal metabolism is eliminated rapidly, and is
gone
before the next vaccination.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

How was this study funded?

Is that the best you can do? Whine about funding. Obviously, you did
not
bother to even attempt to read it. You answer is at the link I
posted.
Do your own homework. Read the study and try to find fault with
methodology, etc.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Mark,
I read the study that is posted above and have read other research
studies
that have had similar conclusions. I have also read other research
studies
that have had different conclusions.

I posted the link since the entire study is available.

Now, specify what other *studies*, with references, have different
findings? I cannot find fault with this studies methodology.

Chemistry does not change.

Completely independant of taking any side here, Chemistry (the
observation
of elemental constructs and reactions) always changes.


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Vernon,
It depends on what Mark meant when he used the term "chemistry". Mark
should explain what the meant. Perhaps he was referring to "natural laws".

No, he was referring to chemistry, which doesn't change.

Vernon appears to be incapable of saying that our understanding of
chemistry certainly progresses without redefining chemistry.

Chemistry, however, does not change.


It's been over 25 years since I have taken any science classes but seem to
recall learning that natural laws never change.
Jason
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Sort of my point.

No, not really.


Add what I posted to a constant change in what people, especially college
professor book writers define as "Natural laws". Add to that the basic fact
that very few professors have a clue about the various elemental (not
chemistry) effects on statistics.

Good lord, Vern, you're certainly good at saying nothing.


Your link MAY be 100% accurate, but still mostly opinion.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Vernon,
Good points.

There weren't any points, Jason. Do try and explain what vern's point's
were. Because it certainly looked to me as though our little Walter
Mitty was just trying to say that people with more education than him
simply don't know anything. Again.

Many college science professors are teaching lots of false
information to their students.

Really?

They want to be politically correct so
teach students that global warming is caused by pollution. Of course,
pollution may play a role. However, anyone that has a degree in natural
science knows that global warming happened several times in the history of
the earth even before mankind was on the earth. Global warming could very
well be the result of
those same factors that caused global warming before mankind was on this earth.
Any science professor employed by a state university would be fired (by
his politically correct bosses) if he taught his or her students that
global warming was NOT caused by pollution.

Really?

If a science professor in a
state university developed a theory that conflicted with evolution theory,
that professor would be fired by his politically correct bosses.

Only if he couldn't back it up with some evidence, Jason. Which, to
date, hasn't been done.

Academic
freedom is no longer a reality.

I'm sorry that you feel that people actually having to back up their
hypotheses with evidence indicates a lack of academic freedom, Jason.
Or more precisely, I'm sorry for you.


Jason
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"john" wrote in message
...

"Vernon" there@atthere wrote in message
m...

"john" wrote in message
...

"Vernon" there@atthere wrote in message
m...


I made the comment as a "relative" one, knowing the process the
manufacturers use and the glib nature of any cleaning of the surfaces
before shipping.


I've heard they give off mercury but that much is absurd


Define "that much"


More than a given in a vaccine shot, or given off by amalgam every day


Much more, but in a short period of time.
As has been stated over and over that the amount in today's vaccine and in
amalgam is minute, maybe way too much, but overall not the largest source of
mercury in our or the young's environment.

Notice how it does not see Mark responding to Jason

"cathyb" wrote in message
oups.com...

Jason Johnson wrote:
In article , "Vernon"
there@atthere wrote:

"Jason Johnson" wrote in message
...
In article , "Vernon"
there@atthere wrote:

"Jason Johnson" wrote in message
...
In article , Mark Probert
wrote:

Jason Johnson wrote:
In article , Mark Probert
wrote:

Jason Johnson wrote:
In article , Mark Probert
wrote:


http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/art...?artid=1280342

Abstract
Thimerosal is a preservative that has been used in
manufacturing
vaccines since the 1930s. Reports have indicated that infants
can
receive ethylmercury (in the form of thimerosal) at or above
the
U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency guidelines for methylmercury
exposure,
depending on the exact vaccinations, schedule, and size of the
infant.
In this study we compared the systemic disposition and brain
distribution of total and inorganic mercury in infant monkeys
after
thimerosal exposure with those exposed to MeHg. Monkeys were
exposed
to
MeHg (via oral gavage) or vaccines containing thimerosal (via
intramuscular injection) at birth and 1, 2, and 3 weeks of age.
Total
blood Hg levels were determined 2, 4, and 7 days after each
exposure.
Total and inorganic brain Hg levels were assessed 2, 4, 7, or
28
days
after the last exposure. The initial and terminal half-life of
Hg
in
blood after thimerosal exposure was 2.1 and 8.6 days,
respectively,
which are significantly shorter than the elimination half-life
of
Hg
after MeHg exposure at 21.5 days. Brain concentrations of total
Hg
were
significantly lower by approximately 3-fold for the
thimerosal-exposed
monkeys when compared with the MeHg infants, whereas the
average
brain-to-blood concentration ratio was slightly higher for the
thimerosal-exposed monkeys (3.5 ± 0.5 vs. 2.5 ± 0.3). A higher
percentage of the total Hg in the brain was in the form of
inorganic
Hg
for the thimerosal-exposed monkeys (34% vs. 7%). The results
indicate
that MeHg is not a suitable reference for risk assessment from
exposure
to thimerosal-derived Hg. Knowledge of the toxicokinetics and
developmental toxicity of thimerosal is needed to afford a
meaningful
assessment of the developmental effects of
thimerosal-containing
vaccines.

--------------------

Clearly, the claim by the Mercury Militia that it accumulates
after
each
vaccination is not supported by this research. Ethyl Mercury,
the
byproduct of thimerosal metabolism is eliminated rapidly, and
is
gone
before the next vaccination.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

How was this study funded?

Is that the best you can do? Whine about funding. Obviously, you
did
not
bother to even attempt to read it. You answer is at the link I
posted.
Do your own homework. Read the study and try to find fault with
methodology, etc.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Mark,
I read the study that is posted above and have read other research
studies
that have had similar conclusions. I have also read other research
studies
that have had different conclusions.

I posted the link since the entire study is available.

Now, specify what other *studies*, with references, have different
findings? I cannot find fault with this studies methodology.

Chemistry does not change.

Completely independant of taking any side here, Chemistry (the
observation
of elemental constructs and reactions) always changes.


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Vernon,
It depends on what Mark meant when he used the term "chemistry". Mark
should explain what the meant. Perhaps he was referring to "natural
laws".

No, he was referring to chemistry, which doesn't change.

Vernon appears to be incapable of saying that our understanding of
chemistry certainly progresses without redefining chemistry.

Chemistry, however, does not change.


It's been over 25 years since I have taken any science classes but seem
to
recall learning that natural laws never change.
Jason
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Sort of my point.

No, not really.


Add what I posted to a constant change in what people, especially college
professor book writers define as "Natural laws". Add to that the basic
fact
that very few professors have a clue about the various elemental (not
chemistry) effects on statistics.

Good lord, Vern, you're certainly good at saying nothing.


Your link MAY be 100% accurate, but still mostly opinion.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Vernon,
Good points.

There weren't any points, Jason. Do try and explain what vern's point's
were. Because it certainly looked to me as though our little Walter
Mitty was just trying to say that people with more education than him
simply don't know anything. Again.

Many college science professors are teaching lots of false
information to their students.

Really?

They want to be politically correct so
teach students that global warming is caused by pollution. Of course,
pollution may play a role. However, anyone that has a degree in natural
science knows that global warming happened several times in the history of
the earth even before mankind was on the earth. Global warming could very
well be the result of
those same factors that caused global warming before mankind was on this
earth.
Any science professor employed by a state university would be fired (by
his politically correct bosses) if he taught his or her students that
global warming was NOT caused by pollution.

Really?

If a science professor in a
state university developed a theory that conflicted with evolution theory,
that professor would be fired by his politically correct bosses.

Only if he couldn't back it up with some evidence, Jason. Which, to
date, hasn't been done.

Academic
freedom is no longer a reality.

I'm sorry that you feel that people actually having to back up their
hypotheses with evidence indicates a lack of academic freedom, Jason.
Or more precisely, I'm sorry for you.


Jason
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Jan Drew wrote:
Notice how it does not see Mark responding to Jason

What are you gibbering on about now, Jan?

snip