Elimination of mercury

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

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

What are you gibbering on about now, Jan?

Remedial reading. Remedial English.

snip

Jan Drew wrote:
"cathyb" wrote in message
oups.com...

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

What are you gibbering on about now, Jan?

Remedial reading. Remedial English.

Now you're getting it! Now go away and write a post that makes sense,
Jan. Explain what on earth you were gibbering on about.


snip

In article .com,
"cathyb" wrote:

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...gi?artid=3D12=
80342

Abstract
Thimerosal is a preservative that has been used in manufacturi=
ng
vaccines since the 1930s. Reports have indicated that infants =
can
receive ethylmercury (in the form of thimerosal) at or above t=
he
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 tota=
l Hg
were
significantly lower by approximately 3-fold for the
thimerosal-exposed
monkeys when compared with the MeHg infants, whereas the avera=
ge
brain-to-blood concentration ratio was slightly higher for the
thimerosal-exposed monkeys (3.5 =B1 0.5 vs. 2.5 =B1 0.3). A hi=
gher
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-containi=
ng
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 la=
ws".

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 see=
m 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.


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

And I also feel sorry for you.

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

Jason Johnson wrote:
In article .com,
"cathyb" wrote:

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...gi?artid=3D12=
80342

Abstract
Thimerosal is a preservative that has been used in manufacturi=
ng
vaccines since the 1930s. Reports have indicated that infants =
can
receive ethylmercury (in the form of thimerosal) at or above t=
he
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 tota=
l Hg
were
significantly lower by approximately 3-fold for the
thimerosal-exposed
monkeys when compared with the MeHg infants, whereas the avera=
ge
brain-to-blood concentration ratio was slightly higher for the
thimerosal-exposed monkeys (3.5 =B1 0.5 vs. 2.5 =B1 0.3). A hi=
gher
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-containi=
ng
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 la=
ws".

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 see=
m 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.


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

And I also feel sorry for you.

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

Well, that's nice, but I note you couldn't explain Vincent's "points",
or come up with any examples of alleged lack of academic freedom.

cathyb wrote:
Jason Johnson wrote:
In article .com,
"cathyb" wrote:

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...gi?artid=3D12=
80342

Abstract
Thimerosal is a preservative that has been used in manufacturi=
ng
vaccines since the 1930s. Reports have indicated that infants =
can
receive ethylmercury (in the form of thimerosal) at or above t=
he
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 tota=
l Hg
were
significantly lower by approximately 3-fold for the
thimerosal-exposed
monkeys when compared with the MeHg infants, whereas the avera=
ge
brain-to-blood concentration ratio was slightly higher for the
thimerosal-exposed monkeys (3.5 =B1 0.5 vs. 2.5 =B1 0.3). A hi=
gher
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-containi=
ng
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 la=
ws".

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 see=
m 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.


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

And I also feel sorry for you.

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

Well, that's nice, but I note you couldn't explain Vincent's "points",
or come up with any examples of alleged lack of academic freedom.

Oops. Vernon's "points".

"cathyb" wrote in message
ups.com...

Jan Drew wrote:
"cathyb" wrote in message
oups.com...

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

What are you gibbering on about now, Jan?

Remedial reading. Remedial English.

Now you're getting it!

Yep. Now YOU don't

Now go away and write a post that makes sense,
Jan. Explain what on earth you were gibbering on about.

Notice how it does not see Mark responding to Jason.

That doesn't make sense.

Poor Rosalind.



snip

"cathyb" wrote in message
ups.com...

cathyb wrote:
Jason Johnson wrote:
In article .com,
"cathyb" wrote:

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...gi?artid=3D12=
80342

Abstract
Thimerosal is a preservative that has been used in
manufacturi=
ng
vaccines since the 1930s. Reports have indicated that
infants =
can
receive ethylmercury (in the form of thimerosal) at or
above t=
he
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
tota=
l Hg
were
significantly lower by approximately 3-fold for the
thimerosal-exposed
monkeys when compared with the MeHg infants, whereas the
avera=
ge
brain-to-blood concentration ratio was slightly higher
for the
thimerosal-exposed monkeys (3.5 =B1 0.5 vs. 2.5 =B1 0.3).
A hi=
gher
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-containi=
ng
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 la=
ws".

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 see=
m 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.


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

And I also feel sorry for you.

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

Well, that's nice, but I note you couldn't explain Vincent's "points",
or come up with any examples of alleged lack of academic freedom.

Oops. Vernon's "points".

Like the Oops Jacob...........................

In article , john wrote:

wrote in message
oups.com...

john wrote:
LOL. Get the facts
http://www.crazyperson.to/IDon'tUnderstandScience.html

If by fact you mean the crazy rambling of people who don't understand
science, can't form a cogent argument, and address studies that prove
them wrong.... then yes there are lots of facts there.

Eric

It's really very simple Eric, see if you can follow this:

Deadly Mercury

Courtesy of www.healthmyths.net
By Shane Ellison, M.Sc., Ex-Drug Chemist

Mercury is a neuro/nephrotoxin. The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) insists that the upper limit for mercury exposure is
0.1ug/kg/day and the World Health Organization (WHO)
0.47ug/kg/day. At this exposure humans experience negative
central nervous system (CNS) effects such as tremors, mood
changes, shyness and slowed sensory and nerve function. Long term
damage is possible.

Actually, if I read the standards right, the new value is lower than
that, 1.6 ug/kg/week., so more like 0.23 ug/kg/day. As of 2003, that
was the WHO recommendation, anyway.

By the liberal WHO standards, this upper limit equates to 2.13ug
(0.45ug by EPA standards) for a 10lb baby. According to the Food
and Drug Administration a single vaccine can deliver a whopping
25.0ug of mercury!

See if YOU can understand THIS, john-boy: that's the standard for
dietary methylmercury. Says nothing about thimerosal. And they are
NOT equivalent.

-- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net
These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct.
"If you can't say something nice, then sit next to me."
-- Alice Roosevelt Longworth

Hmm. The WHO

Source Average Human Daily Dose of MercuryDental
Amalgam
3.0-17.0 ug/day (hgvapor)

"David Wright" wrote in message
m...
In article , john wrote:

wrote in message
roups.com...

john wrote:
LOL. Get the facts
http://www.crazyperson.to/IDon'tUnderstandScience.html

If by fact you mean the crazy rambling of people who don't understand
science, can't form a cogent argument, and address studies that prove
them wrong.... then yes there are lots of facts there.

Eric

It's really very simple Eric, see if you can follow this:

Deadly Mercury

Courtesy of www.healthmyths.net
By Shane Ellison, M.Sc., Ex-Drug Chemist

Mercury is a neuro/nephrotoxin. The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) insists that the upper limit for mercury exposure is
0.1ug/kg/day and the World Health Organization (WHO)
0.47ug/kg/day. At this exposure humans experience negative
central nervous system (CNS) effects such as tremors, mood
changes, shyness and slowed sensory and nerve function. Long term
damage is possible.

Actually, if I read the standards right, the new value is lower than
that, 1.6 ug/kg/week., so more like 0.23 ug/kg/day. As of 2003, that
was the WHO recommendation, anyway.

By the liberal WHO standards, this upper limit equates to 2.13ug
(0.45ug by EPA standards) for a 10lb baby. According to the Food
and Drug Administration a single vaccine can deliver a whopping
25.0ug of mercury!

See if YOU can understand THIS, john-boy: that's the standard for
dietary methylmercury. Says nothing about thimerosal. And they are
NOT equivalent.

-- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net
These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct.
"If you can't say something nice, then sit next to me."
-- Alice Roosevelt Longworth

Jan Drew wrote:
"cathyb" wrote in message
ups.com...

Jan Drew wrote:
"cathyb" wrote in message
oups.com...

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

What are you gibbering on about now, Jan?

Remedial reading. Remedial English.

Now you're getting it!

Yep. Now YOU don't

Now go away and write a post that makes sense,
Jan. Explain what on earth you were gibbering on about.

Notice how it does not see Mark responding to Jason.

That doesn't make sense.

Poor Rosalind.

Oh, dear. You're slipping again, Jan. Please do explain your gibberish.




snip