Elimination of mercury

"Jan Drew" wrote in message
...
In the Matter of Mark Probert (Admitted as Mark S. Probert), a
Suspended Attorney, Respondent.
Grievance Committee for the Tenth Judicial District, Petitioner.



Let's see.
You have no knowledge of mercury or it's effects and thus post comments on
words or court cases??????
Got extra time on your hands?

In message .com, cathyb
wrote:

Jan, I know you are too stupid to see it, but your constant posts
accusing others of lying, your unending lies, your incessant
misunderstandings of the English language, your vicious bigotry, your
inane posts containing nothing, your religious mania coupled with
ignorance of your actual religion, your regular plagiarism and your
constant violence to the English language do not reflect well on you.

That's a value judgment.

I'm sure that there are people for whom those are all admirable
characteristics.

--
begin signature.exe
A:*Because*it*messes*up*the*order*in*which*people* normally*read*text.
Q:*Why*is*top-posting*such*a*bad*thing?
A:*Top-posting.
Q:*What*is*the*most*annoying*thing*on*usenet?

Mark Probert wrote:
I mention simpletons and you respond. Hmmmm....

Hurling insults must be a form of masturbation for you. I can think of
no other reasons why you would do it so much... or why you would seem
to enjoy it so much.

Many more man made sources...IIRC, as the older messages in this thread
have been lost on my server, I was discussing an assertion by you "The
issue is that historically, humans had *very little* natural contact
with mercury."

Let me help you out with that little server issue of yours. Here's my
previous *AND FULL* statement regarding mercury.

"I suppose I should have worded my question so even the simplest of
minds could understand. The issue is that historically, humans had
*very little* natural contact with mercury. It has only been over the
past 150 years or so that direct exposure to mercury has risen due to
industry and medical and dental use thereof. So the real question is,
how would humans *naturally* have come in contact with the levels of
mercury seen today? "

It's great that you're trying to take one sentence out of context of an
entire paragraph to feebly try to make a point, but you have yet to
address those questions. In fact, you're floundering around even in
your attempt to prove me wrong by taking that statement out of context.
Why don't you quit your BS and get to the point of what I was asking?
I'll repost again:

"So the real question is, how would humans *naturally* have come in
contact with the levels of mercury seen today?"

I demonstrated that humans have had significant environment contact with
mercury from non-man made sources.

No. You've proven that there are natural sources of environmental
mercury. You have presented squat to show the level of mercury
exposure humans of centuries past would have had. In fact, you've
actually shown that much of the mercury vented from volcanic activity
is absorbed by forest plant life... which would reduce human exposure
because humans don't eat much of the forest plant life.

Now, you move the goal posts.

No, you're hiding the ball under your shirt hoping no one will notice
what you're doing. The goal posts are cemented in place. You're just
unable to score.

Read the link. Perhaps your answer is there. At least it addresses the
point and shows that there is still significant mercury in the
environment from non-human sources.

The only one that hasn't read the link is you. You went Googling
around the net desperate to find anything that would support your
flawed position and came back with half read pages that have ended up
biting you on the butt. You should know by now that I read the
evidence you post. You shouldn't make it so easy to use your own data
against you.

Please show me where I said that? You seem to be having a
hyper-imagination moment.

Then what's your point? Spit it out. I've presented information
supporting my position that humans historically had little natural
contact with mercury. You provided data that only marginally disagreed
with me, but mostly agreed with me. What is it you're trying to say
about the current level of mercury exposure humans have? Stop
floundering and put your position here in black and white for everyone
to see.

Even *if* the above
statement is true (my above sources say that number is low) that would
mean that humans are now causing twice as much mercury pollution as the
entire planet was all by itself. TWICE AS MUCH AS AN ENTIRE PLANET!

Which is not good. However, it is NOT ethyl mercury.

Blah, blah, blah. We've already seen, in information posted by both of
us, that environmental factors can change the form mercury is in. Are
you saying that ethyl mercury is safe? If so, is there a level of EM
that would be considered unsafe? Your vagueness is getting old. You
need to state your positions.

http://pasture.ecn.purdue.edu/~epado.../src/cycle.htm

No mention of sources at all there.

http://www.mindfully.org/Air/Mercury-Smoke-Biomass.htm

More stuff on forest fires. You seem to not even read your own
supporting data. Had you read it, you would understand that the
mercury being released by forest fires originates from mercury released
into the atmosphere from other sources. Therefore, a forest fire
should not be considered the "source" of atmospheric mercury. If
humans reduced or eliminated mercury pollution, far less would
accumulate in forest plant life, thus lessening the amount of mercury
released in a forest fire.

Play your semantics games. All mercury comes from somewhere. If it is
re-introduced by a forest fire or humans what is the difference?

HA! You accuse me of semantics? What a joke. Human release of
mercury is an *INTRODUCTION* of mercury to the environment... not a
*REINTRODUCTION.* The mercury humans release into the environment
wouldn't have been released at that time if not for human interaction.
There is a high probability that such mercury would have stayed right
where it was if humans hadn't dug it up... and we're digging it up at a
rate TWICE that of the Earth's natural release.

No semantics. I pointed out that the of the entire environmental mercury
load, 1/3rd of it is present due to non-human activity, which refutes
your claim. You just do not like that fact.

You presented 1 link with no data and an estimate... and did nothing to
refute the links I posted. The rest of your links were news articles
more than anything... also with no data. You have no credibility.

I've posted
links that put the number even higher than that. Feel free to see that
as no problem if you wish. I feel free to completely disagree with you
and think of you as irresponsible.

I do not expect you to agree. However, I have proven my point.

You've certainly proven *something.*

yes, you do not like being made to look wrong.

From what you've posted, I haven o need to worry about that. Have a
nice day.

Max.

"Max C." wrote:

"So the real question is, how would humans *naturally* have come in
contact with the levels of mercury seen today?"

I see the moron is back.

I suppose that Max could have done what the rest of us do and look it
up in an encyclopedia, but that probably isn't enough for someone who
can index and search the web better than Google can.

It's a naturally occurring element, Max. All the mercury in or on
Earth now has been here since before there were any people to have
teeth to be filled. When a forest fire pumps thousands of tons of
mercury into the air it is because the mercury was available to the
trees through the soil.

It's really quite simple for those who can think. Oh, that's right ...
--
Peter Bowditch aa #2243
The Millenium Project http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles
Australian Council Against Health Fraud http://www.acahf.org.au
Australian Skeptics http://www.skeptics.com.au
To email me use my first name only at ratbags.com

Vernon wrote:


Let's see.
You have no knowledge of mercury or it's effects and thus post comments on
words or court cases??????
Got extra time on your hands?



Vern, do learn to restore the subject line. With the subject line like
it is, someone would think you have some form of nefarious deed planned.
(See your message).

Jan Drew wrote:
"Mark Probert" wrote in message
...
Jason Johnson wrote:
In article . com, "Max
C." wrote:

Mark Probert said:
Max C. said:
The issue is that historically, humans had
*very little* natural contact with mercury.

Care to prove it?
I wasn't going to reply to this latest garbage of yours at all, since
most of it was your typical name-calling and lame opinion-based BS, but
I think this little "Care to prove it" line of yours should tell
everyone just exactly where you're coming from on this and all other
issues you support.
If you believe that humans have no more exposure to mercury now than
they had historically, you are delusional. Let's name a few ways we're
more exposed to mercury now, shall we?
Precious metals mining -
http://www.facome.uqam.ca/pdf_temp/c...ilhos_1998.pdf
Dental amalgams - http://www.amalgam.org/
Coal burning -
http://bronze.nescaum.org/airtopics/...104mercury.pdf
Crude oil production and refining -
http://www.hgtech.com/Basic/EPA%20API%20Project.htm
Pesticides - http://www.epa.gov/glnpo/bnsdocs/hgsbook/agr.pdf (this
article also discusses other avenues for mercury to come in contact
with humans... and DIRECTLY supports my statement that humans have more
contact with mercury now than they did historically, at least it spells
that out for humans in Wisconsin.)
Seafood contaminated from some of the above sources - really, if I have
to provide you links for this one, you're just refusing to see the
issue for the problem it is.
electronic and industrial use - this is another "Well duh!" issue.
Mercury has been a key ingredient in computers for decades.
I'm actually glad that you've decided to publicly bury your head in the
sand on this issue. It's one of the top issues those in the
alternative arena take up. The obviousness of the problem is only
surpassed by the glaring ignorance displayed by those who refuse to
acknowledge it. By hinting that you don't believe what I said, you
have diminished your credibility... of course, thinking you have
credibility in this group would also be a prime example of your glaring
ignorance.
Have a nice day.
Max.

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

Max,
STOP confusing people with the facts.

True, Max is confused:

http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm...KEN=62469 501

"Most of the mercury existing in the environment is released through
natural processes. These natural processes include surface volcanic
eruptions; deep sea vents and volcanic activity; hot springs such as the
geyser basins in Yellowstone National Park or those at the bottom of Clear
Lake in California; evaporation from the ocean basins, other water bodies,
and soils; and erosion. The oceans alone contain millions of tons of
naturally occurring mercury. Forest fires and the burning of other types
of vegetation also contribute to the world mercury budget. These natural
"emissions" contribute approximately 61 percent of the annual emissions
that make up the world mercury budget."

Try reading the entire article for facts.

These facts have been posted many times. Mark KNOWS that.

DAMS, Inc.; P.O. Box 7249;

Minneapolis, MN 55407-0249


local contact: see page 3
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE January 19, 2001


New Studies Find Dental Amalgam Fillings to be the Number One
Source of Mercury in Most People and Daily Exposure Exceeds Government
Health
Standards for Inorganic Mercury(vapor). Studies also found
adverse health effects in adults and that mercury from amalgam is passed on
to
infants through mother?s blood and milk , and that developmental effects on
infants occur at low levels of mercury exposure.


A large National Institute of Dental Research Study has confirmed
other previous study results that found that the current type of amalgam
dental
fillings being used in the U.S. leak significant amounts of the extremely
toxic
substance mercury into the body and are the number one source of mercury in
people. The study measured mercury levels in the blood and urine of over
1000
military personnel and found a high significant correlation to the number of
amalgam filling surfaces in the mouth. Like several other recent studies,
the
study found that amalgam fillings are not stable because of mercury?s low
vapor pressure and galvanic electric currents between the different metals
in
the mouth.
For this large military population that had a range of from 0
to
66 amalgam filling surfaces and an average of 20 surfaces, each 10 surfaces
added approximately 1 microgram of mercury per liter of urine excreted,
meaning
total mercury excreted in urine averaged about 4.5 micrograms per day, with
soldiers levels with over 49 amalgam surfaces averaging over 8.7 micrograms.
The average level for those with fillings was 4.5 times that of the controls
without amalgam, and those with over 49 surfaces averaged over 8 times
controls. Together with the considerably larger amount of mercury excreted
daily through the digestive tract and sweat, the daily mercury excretion
would
amount to well over 10 micrograms per day on average and much more for some
individuals. Over 90 % of the mercury in the urine was inorganic mercury,
the
kind that comes from fillings, as opposed to organic mercury which comes
from
fish.
For this population, it was determined that the exposure from amalgam
fillings was the primary source of mercury exposure, and on average exceeded
the levels that would be consistent with U.S. Government Standards(MRL) for
daily mercury exposure. The study?s findings were consistent with the
findings of many other recent such studies, including a similar study
testing
20,000 people at a University Health Clinic in Germany, as well as the
findings
of the World Health Organization Scientific Panel on mercury. (see
references)
The U.S.EPA mercury health guideline for elemental mercury
exposure(vapor)
is 0.3 micrograms per cubic meter of air(0.3 ug/M3). For the average adult
breathing 20 M3 of air per day, this amounts to an exposure of 6
micrograms(ug)
per day.
The U.S. Department of Health, Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease
Registry (ASTDR) standard (MRL) -for acute inhalation exposure to mercury
vapor is 0.2 micrograms Hg/M3, which translates to approx. 4 ug/day for
the average adult(5).
The corresponding tolerable daily exposure developed in a report for
the
Canadian Health Agency, Health Canada, is .014 ug/kg body weight or 1 ug/day
for average adult(6). The permissible level for a child would be less. But
the levels of the average daily exposures found in the study were above all
of
these health guidelines for mercury exposure.


Other studies that the Government Health Standards were based on have
found adverse health effects at very low levels and developmental effects on
infants and children at very low levels of exposure, along with finding that
mercury vapor from a mother?s fillings is readily transferred through the
mother?s blood across the placenta to a fetus and also through mother?s
milk.
These findings increase the urgency to advise the public of the clear
danger in the use of mercury in fillings and to reconsider the policy of
using
mercury in dental fillings. Based on such studies, several other
countries,
such as Sweden, Australia, UK, Germany, Norway, Japan, and Canada along with
the state of California have already adopted restrictions or warnings on the
use of mercury in fillings, such as for children, pregnant women, women of
child bearing age, people with damaged kidneys or immune systems, and in the
mouth adjacent to other metals. Amalgam manufacturers have also warned
against
some of the uses currently made of amalgam in dentistry in the U.S.


Studies are also available that confirm adverse health effects from
amalgam fillings and clinically document that many thousands of people have
recovered or had significant improvement in many health conditions including
very serious conditions after replacement of amalgam fillings. Fact sheets
are
available from DAMS with medical study references covering the statements
and
issues in this press release. (see contact information)


DAMS is currently working with very many people in the U.S. dealing with
serious health effects caused by exposure to mercury from amalgam and urges
everyone to find out more about this major problem and to get involved in
resolving these health safety issues. DAMS can provide information and help
to
anyone who is interested or who thinks they might have health problems
related
to their amalgam fillings.
Available fact sheets with medical study references include:
1. Common Exposure Levels from Amalgam Fillings and Government Health
Standards
(attached)
2. Transfer of Mercury from Mother?s Amalgams and Breast Milk to the Fetus
and developmental effects of mercury on infants.
3. Documentation of recovery from 60,000 clinical cases of serious adverse
health effects after replacement of amalgam fillings.


4. Adverse oral health problems related to amalgam fillings.
5. Effect of mercury and other toxic metal exposure on cognitive and
behavioral
problems of children- including ADD, dyslexia, juvenile delinquency,
and crime(over 100 medical study references)
6, Autoimmune conditions: the connection to mercury immune reactivity and
amalgam fillings.
7. The battery in your mouth: oral galvanic currents and metals in the
mouth,
and interactions with EMF
8. Health Effects of amalgam fillings and results of replacement of amalgam
filings. Over 600 medical study references(most
in Medline) and approx. 60,000 clinical cases of amalgam replacement
followed
by doctors.


Technical contact person: Bernie Windham
ph: 850-878-9024
DAMS website: www.amalgam.org
All backup technical papers with references available free by email;
$5 for copying/mailing cost of hard copy of #3 or #5. $3
for
copying/mailing cost of any other hard copy
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
Abstract:
Kingman A, Albertini T, Brown LJ
J Dent Res 1998 Mar;77(3):461-71
Mercury concentrations in urine and whole blood associated with amalgam
exposure in a US military population.
Oral Health Promotion, Risk Factors and Molecular Epidemiology Branch,
National
Institute of Dental Research, Bethesda, Maryland 20892, USA.
Minute amounts of mercury vapor are released from dental amalgams. Since
mercury vapor is known to be associated with adverse health effects from
occupationally exposed persons, questions regarding the margin of safety for
exposure to mercury vapor in the general population continue to be raised.
To
address this issue, one needs information regarding exposure to mercury
vapor
from dental amalgam fillings and its possible consequences for health in the
general population. The NIDR Amalgam Study is designed to obtain precise
information on amalgam exposure and health outcomes for a
non-occupationally-exposed population of US adults. One hypothesis was that
in
a generally healthy population a significant association between amalgam
exposure and Hg levels in urine and/or whole blood could be detected. The
cohort investigated was an adult military population of 1127 healthy males.
Their average age was 52.8 years, and their ages varied from 40 to 78 years.
Ninety-five percent of the study participants were white males, and slightly
over 50% had some college education. Five percent were edentulous. The
dentate
participants, on average, had 25 natural teeth, 36.9 decayed or filled
surfaces
(DFS), and 19.9 surfaces exposed to amalgam, with amalgam exposure varying
from
0 to 66 surfaces. Their average total and inorganic urinary mercury
concentrations were 3.09 microg/L and 2.88 microg/L. The average whole-blood
total and inorganic mercury concentrations were 2.55 microg/L and 0.54
microg/L. Significant correlations were detected between amalgam exposure
and
the total (r = 0.34, p 0.001) and inorganic 0.34 (r = 0.34, p 0.001)
urinary mercury concentrations on the original scale. Stronger correlations
were found for total (r = 0.44, p 0.001) and inorganic (r = 0.41, p
0.001)
urinary Hg on the log scale, as well as for creatinine-corrected total (r =
0.43, p 0.001) and inorganic (r = 0.43, p 0.001) urine concentrations.
In
whole blood, statistically significant, but biologically weak, correlations
were detected for total (r = 0.09, p = 0.005) and inorganic (r = 0.15, p
0.001) Hg concentrations, respectively. Based on these cross-sectional data,
it
is estimated that, on average, each ten-surface increase in amalgam exposure
is
associated with an increase of 1 microg/L mercury in urine concentration.
PMID: 9496919, UI: 98156633
&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&
Ref. Paper #1
"Dental Amalgam Fillings" is the Number One Source of Mercury in People and
Exposure Commonly Exceeds Government Health Standards for Inorganic
mercury(vapor) Bernard Windham- Chemical Engineer


Government agencies and medical studies have found that the number one
source of mercury in people is from dental amalgam fillings(ref 2-20).
Exposure
from fillings amounts to from 50 to 90 percent of exposure, with the average
being about 80 % of total exposure(5-9,12-15,19,20). The studies found that
mercury amalgams are unstable due to mercury's low vapor pressure and
galvanic
action, leaking mercury vapor continuously into the lungs and saliva at
levels
exceeding health standards.


Mercury exposure of most people with fillings was found to exceed
government health standards and levels found to cause adverse health
effects(see below).
The tolerable daily exposure level for mercury developed in a report
for
Health Canada is .014 micrograms/kilogram body weight(ug/kg) or
approximately 1
ug/day for average adult(2). The U.S. EPA Health Standard for elemental
mercury exposure(vapor) is 0.3 micrograms per cubic meter of air(1).
The
U.S. ATSDR health standard(MRL) for mercury vapor is 0.2 ug/ M3 of air, and
the
MRL for methyl mercury is 0.3 ug/kg body weight/day(4). For the
average
adult breathing 20 M3 of air per day, this amounts to an exposure of 4 or 6
ug/day for the 2 elemental mercury standards. The EPA health guideline for
methyl mercury is 0.1 ug/kg body weight per day or 7 ug for the average
adult(1).


The range of mercury exposure levels found in people with amalgam
fillings
by
the World Health Organization Scientific Panel on Mercury was 3 to 70
micrograms per day(3), with other medical studies finding up to 500 ug/day
in
gum chewers or people who grind their teeth(6,11,16,17,18) or some with
large
numbers of fillings. The average amount absorbed was above 10 ug/day (ref.
3-18). The average mercury exposure for a Canadian adult with amalgam
fillings
was found in the Health Canada study to be 9 ug/day(2). In a large German
study
with 20,000 tested subjects at a University Medical Clinic, the average
exposure from fillings was over 10 ug/day and over 50 % of all those with 6
or
more amalgam fillings had daily exposure exceeding the EPA health
guideline(6).


Studies have consistently found modern high copper non gamma-two
amalgams
have greater release of mercury vapor than conventional silver amalgams
(21,22,23). Recent studies have concluded that because of the high mercury
release levels of modern amalgams, mercury poisoning from amalgam fillings
is
widespread throughout the population"(17,22,18,6).
Common levels found in persons with amalgam fillings are over 10 times the
Health Canada TDE, and more than the EPA health standard for mercury vapor.
Thus persons with amalgam fillings have levels of intraoral mercury vapor
and
body exposure levels higher than the level considered to have significant
health risk.
The studies found that Total mercury intake is proportional to the
number
and extent of amalgam surfaces, but other factors such as chewing gum and
drinking hot liquids influence the intake significantly increasing exposure
as
much as 500%. ).
A World Health Organzation Scientific Panel concluded that a safe level
of
mercury exposure below which no adverse effects occur has never been
established(3)


References
(1) U.S. Environmental Protection Agency(EPA), 1996, "Integrated Risk
Information System, National Center for Environmental
Assessment,Cincinnati, Ohio(& web).
(2) Mark Richardson, Environmental Health Directorate,Health Canada,
Assessment of Mercury Exposure and Risks from Dental Amalgam,
1995, Final Report.
(3) World Health Organization(WHO),1991, Environmental Health criteria 118,
Inorganic Mercury, WHO, Geneva;
(4)Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, U.S. Public Health
Service, "Toxicological Profile for Mercury" March, 1999; & Apr 19,1999
Media Advisory, New MRLs for toxic substances, MRL:elemental mercury vapor/
inhalation/chronic & MRL: methyl mercury/ oral/acute; &
http://atsdr1.atsdr.cdc.gov:8080/97list.html.
(5) A.Kingman et al, National Institute of Dental Research, "Mercury
concentrations in urine and blood associated with amalgam exposure in
the
U.S. military population", Dent Res, 1998, 77(3):461-71.
(6) Dr. P.Kraub & M.Deyhle, Universitat Tubingen- Institut fur Organische
Chemie, "Field Study on the Mercury Content of Saliva", 1997 (20,000
people tested for mercury level in saliva and health status/symptoms
compiled)
http://www.uni-tuebingen.de/KRAUSS/amalgam.html;
(7) A. Engqvist et al, "Speciation of mercury excreted in feces from
individuals with amalgam fillings", Arch Environ Health, 1998,
53(3):205-13; & Dept. of Toxicology & Chemistry, Stockholm Univ., National
Institute for Working Life, 1998.(www.niwl.se/ah/1998-02.html)
(8) J.A.Weiner et al,"The relationship between mercury concentration in
human
organs and predictor variables", 138(1-3):101-115,1993; & "An
estimation of the uptake of mercury from amalgam fillings", Sci Total
Environmet, v168,n3,1995.
(9) M.J.Vimy and F.L. Lorscheider, Faculty of Medicine, Univ. Of Calgary,
July
1991. (Study findings) & J. Trace Elem. Exper. Med., 1990,3, 111-123.
(10) B.Arnold, Eigenschaften und Einsatzgebiete des ChelatbildnersMPS",
Z.Umweltmedizin, 1997,5(1):38-; & Diagnostik un Monitorung von
Schwermetallbelastungen,I,II,ZWR, 1996,105(10):586-569 & (11):665-
(11) L.Barregard et al, "People with high mercury uptake from their own
dental
amalgam fillings", Occup Envir Med, 1995, 52:124-128.
(12) L.Bjorkman et al, "Mercury in saliva and feces after removal of amalgam
fillings", Toxicol Appl Pharmacol 1997, 144(1): 156-162.
(13) Berglund A, Molin M, "Mercury levels in plasma and urine after removal
of
all amalgam restorations: the effect of using rubber dams", Dent
Mater
1997 Sep;13(5):297-304;
(14) M.Molin et al, "kinetics of mercury in blood and urine after mercury
removal" J Dent Research, 1995, 74:420-
(15) J.Begerow et al, "Long Term Mercury Excretion in Urine after Removal of
Amalgam Fillings", Int Arch Occup Health 66: 209-212.
(16) G.Sallsten et al, "long term use of chewing gum and mercury exposure
from
dental amalgam", J Dental Research, 1996, 75(1):594-598.
(17) I.Skare, "Mass Balance and Systemic Uptake of Mercury Released from
Dental
Fillings", Water, Air, and Soil Pollution, 80(1-4):59-67, 1995.
(18) B.Windham, Anotated Bibliography of Exposure and Health Effects from
Amalgam Fillings, Dec 2000
(over 600 references & 60,000 clinical replacement cases).
(19) Halbach, 1995,"Estimation of mercury dose ..", Int.Archieves of
Occupational & Environmental Health, 67:295-300; & G.
Sandborgh-Englund,
"Pharmacokinetics of mercury from dental amalgam", Gotab(Stockholm), 1998,
1-49.
(20) H.V.Aposhian, Envir.Health Perspectives, Vol 106,Supp 4, Aug, 1998;
& H.V. Aposhian et al, FASEB J, 6: 2472-2476, 1992.
(21) J Pleva, "Mercury- A Public Health Hazard", Reviews on Environmental
Health, 1994, 10:1-27.
(22) C. Toomvali, "Studies of mercury vapor emission from different dental
amalgam alloys", LIU-IFM-Kemi-EX 150,1988; & A.Berglund,"A study of the
release of mercury vapor from different types of amalgam alloys", J Dent
Res, 1993, 72: 939-946; & D.B.Boyer, "Mercury vaporization from corroded
dental amalgam" Dental Materials, 1988, 4:89-93; & V.Psarras et al,
"
Mercury vapour releases from dental amalgams", Swed Dent J,1994, 18:15-23; &
L.E.Moberg, "Long term corrosion studies of amalgams and Casting alloys in
contact", Acta Odontal Scand 1985, 43:163-177;
(23) H. Lichtenberg, "Mercury vapor in the oral cavity in relation to the
number of amalgam fillings and chronic mercury poisoning", Journal
of
Orthomolecular Medicine, 1996, 11:2, 87-94.


http://www.holisticmed.com/dental/amalgam/

6. Amalgam Fillings Largest Source of Mercury by Far

Based on a number of studies in Sweden, the World Health Organization review
of
inorganic mercury in 1991 determined that mercury absorption is estimated to
be
approximately four times higher from amalgam fillings than from fish
consumption. Recent studies have confirmed this estimate and shown that the
amount absorbed can vary considerably from person to person.


7. Gold Crowns, Gum, Bruxism, Computer Monitors Increase Release of Mercury
Significantly


Gum chewing, bruxism (grinding of teeth), computer terminal exposure,
presence
of gold fillings or gold crowns (even if covering mercury fillings), teeth
brushing, braces and even chewing food cause the release of significantly
increased amounts of mercury from the fillings in one's teeth.


8. Cumulative Poison Builds Up in Organs


Mercury released from fillings builds up in the brain, kidneys, liver,
pituitary, adrenals and other parts of the body.

========

According to the World Health Organization the general sources of mercury in
the body a Breathed Air (.040 micrograms), Fish (2.34 micrograms),
Non-fish
food (.25 micrograms), Drinking-water .0035 micrograms), mercury vapor from
dental amalgams (3 to 17 micrograms).

*****The mercury vapor from dental amalgam
alone is a bigger source than all the other sources together.*******

Jan Drew wrote:
"Mark Probert" wrote in message
...
Jason Johnson wrote:
In article . com, "Max
C." wrote:

Mark Probert said:
Max C. said:
The issue is that historically, humans had
*very little* natural contact with mercury.

Care to prove it?
I wasn't going to reply to this latest garbage of yours at all, since
most of it was your typical name-calling and lame opinion-based BS, but
I think this little "Care to prove it" line of yours should tell
everyone just exactly where you're coming from on this and all other
issues you support.
If you believe that humans have no more exposure to mercury now than
they had historically, you are delusional. Let's name a few ways we're
more exposed to mercury now, shall we?
Precious metals mining -
http://www.facome.uqam.ca/pdf_temp/c...ilhos_1998.pdf
Dental amalgams - http://www.amalgam.org/
Coal burning -
http://bronze.nescaum.org/airtopics/...104mercury.pdf
Crude oil production and refining -
http://www.hgtech.com/Basic/EPA%20API%20Project.htm
Pesticides - http://www.epa.gov/glnpo/bnsdocs/hgsbook/agr.pdf (this
article also discusses other avenues for mercury to come in contact
with humans... and DIRECTLY supports my statement that humans have more
contact with mercury now than they did historically, at least it spells
that out for humans in Wisconsin.)
Seafood contaminated from some of the above sources - really, if I have
to provide you links for this one, you're just refusing to see the
issue for the problem it is.
electronic and industrial use - this is another "Well duh!" issue.
Mercury has been a key ingredient in computers for decades.
I'm actually glad that you've decided to publicly bury your head in the
sand on this issue. It's one of the top issues those in the
alternative arena take up. The obviousness of the problem is only
surpassed by the glaring ignorance displayed by those who refuse to
acknowledge it. By hinting that you don't believe what I said, you
have diminished your credibility... of course, thinking you have
credibility in this group would also be a prime example of your glaring
ignorance.
Have a nice day.
Max.

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

Max,
STOP confusing people with the facts.

True, Max is confused:

http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm...KEN=62469 501

"Most of the mercury existing in the environment is released through
natural processes. These natural processes include surface volcanic
eruptions; deep sea vents and volcanic activity; hot springs such as the
geyser basins in Yellowstone National Park or those at the bottom of Clear
Lake in California; evaporation from the ocean basins, other water bodies,
and soils; and erosion. The oceans alone contain millions of tons of
naturally occurring mercury. Forest fires and the burning of other types
of vegetation also contribute to the world mercury budget. These natural
"emissions" contribute approximately 61 percent of the annual emissions
that make up the world mercury budget."

Try reading the entire article for facts.

These facts have been posted many times. Mark KNOWS that.

DAMS, Inc.; P.O. Box 7249;

Minneapolis, MN 55407-0249


local contact: see page 3
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE January 19, 2001


New Studies Find Dental Amalgam Fillings to be the Number One
Source of Mercury in Most People and Daily Exposure Exceeds Government
Health
Standards for Inorganic Mercury(vapor). Studies also found
adverse health effects in adults and that mercury from amalgam is passed on
to
infants through mother?s blood and milk , and that developmental effects on
infants occur at low levels of mercury exposure.


A large National Institute of Dental Research Study has confirmed
other previous study results that found that the current type of amalgam
dental
fillings being used in the U.S. leak significant amounts of the extremely
toxic
substance mercury into the body and are the number one source of mercury in
people. The study measured mercury levels in the blood and urine of over
1000
military personnel and found a high significant correlation to the number of
amalgam filling surfaces in the mouth. Like several other recent studies,
the
study found that amalgam fillings are not stable because of mercury?s low
vapor pressure and galvanic electric currents between the different metals
in
the mouth.
For this large military population that had a range of from 0
to
66 amalgam filling surfaces and an average of 20 surfaces, each 10 surfaces
added approximately 1 microgram of mercury per liter of urine excreted,
meaning
total mercury excreted in urine averaged about 4.5 micrograms per day, with
soldiers levels with over 49 amalgam surfaces averaging over 8.7 micrograms.
The average level for those with fillings was 4.5 times that of the controls
without amalgam, and those with over 49 surfaces averaged over 8 times
controls. Together with the considerably larger amount of mercury excreted
daily through the digestive tract and sweat, the daily mercury excretion
would
amount to well over 10 micrograms per day on average and much more for some
individuals. Over 90 % of the mercury in the urine was inorganic mercury,
the
kind that comes from fillings, as opposed to organic mercury which comes
from
fish.
For this population, it was determined that the exposure from amalgam
fillings was the primary source of mercury exposure, and on average exceeded
the levels that would be consistent with U.S. Government Standards(MRL) for
daily mercury exposure. The study?s findings were consistent with the
findings of many other recent such studies, including a similar study
testing
20,000 people at a University Health Clinic in Germany, as well as the
findings
of the World Health Organization Scientific Panel on mercury. (see
references)
The U.S.EPA mercury health guideline for elemental mercury
exposure(vapor)
is 0.3 micrograms per cubic meter of air(0.3 ug/M3). For the average adult
breathing 20 M3 of air per day, this amounts to an exposure of 6
micrograms(ug)
per day.
The U.S. Department of Health, Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease
Registry (ASTDR) standard (MRL) -for acute inhalation exposure to mercury
vapor is 0.2 micrograms Hg/M3, which translates to approx. 4 ug/day for
the average adult(5).
The corresponding tolerable daily exposure developed in a report for
the
Canadian Health Agency, Health Canada, is .014 ug/kg body weight or 1 ug/day
for average adult(6). The permissible level for a child would be less. But
the levels of the average daily exposures found in the study were above all
of
these health guidelines for mercury exposure.


Other studies that the Government Health Standards were based on have
found adverse health effects at very low levels and developmental effects on
infants and children at very low levels of exposure, along with finding that
mercury vapor from a mother?s fillings is readily transferred through the
mother?s blood across the placenta to a fetus and also through mother?s
milk.
These findings increase the urgency to advise the public of the clear
danger in the use of mercury in fillings and to reconsider the policy of
using
mercury in dental fillings. Based on such studies, several other
countries,
such as Sweden, Australia, UK, Germany, Norway, Japan, and Canada along with
the state of California have already adopted restrictions or warnings on the
use of mercury in fillings, such as for children, pregnant women, women of
child bearing age, people with damaged kidneys or immune systems, and in the
mouth adjacent to other metals. Amalgam manufacturers have also warned
against
some of the uses currently made of amalgam in dentistry in the U.S.


Studies are also available that confirm adverse health effects from
amalgam fillings and clinically document that many thousands of people have
recovered or had significant improvement in many health conditions including
very serious conditions after replacement of amalgam fillings. Fact sheets
are
available from DAMS with medical study references covering the statements
and
issues in this press release. (see contact information)


DAMS is currently working with very many people in the U.S. dealing with
serious health effects caused by exposure to mercury from amalgam and urges
everyone to find out more about this major problem and to get involved in
resolving these health safety issues. DAMS can provide information and help
to
anyone who is interested or who thinks they might have health problems
related
to their amalgam fillings.
Available fact sheets with medical study references include:
1. Common Exposure Levels from Amalgam Fillings and Government Health
Standards
(attached)
2. Transfer of Mercury from Mother?s Amalgams and Breast Milk to the Fetus
and developmental effects of mercury on infants.
3. Documentation of recovery from 60,000 clinical cases of serious adverse
health effects after replacement of amalgam fillings.


4. Adverse oral health problems related to amalgam fillings.
5. Effect of mercury and other toxic metal exposure on cognitive and
behavioral
problems of children- including ADD, dyslexia, juvenile delinquency,
and crime(over 100 medical study references)
6, Autoimmune conditions: the connection to mercury immune reactivity and
amalgam fillings.
7. The battery in your mouth: oral galvanic currents and metals in the
mouth,
and interactions with EMF
8. Health Effects of amalgam fillings and results of replacement of amalgam
filings. Over 600 medical study references(most
in Medline) and approx. 60,000 clinical cases of amalgam replacement
followed
by doctors.


Technical contact person: Bernie Windham
ph: 850-878-9024
DAMS website: www.amalgam.org
All backup technical papers with references available free by email;
$5 for copying/mailing cost of hard copy of #3 or #5. $3
for
copying/mailing cost of any other hard copy
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
Abstract:
Kingman A, Albertini T, Brown LJ
J Dent Res 1998 Mar;77(3):461-71
Mercury concentrations in urine and whole blood associated with amalgam
exposure in a US military population.
Oral Health Promotion, Risk Factors and Molecular Epidemiology Branch,
National
Institute of Dental Research, Bethesda, Maryland 20892, USA.
Minute amounts of mercury vapor are released from dental amalgams. Since
mercury vapor is known to be associated with adverse health effects from
occupationally exposed persons, questions regarding the margin of safety for
exposure to mercury vapor in the general population continue to be raised.
To
address this issue, one needs information regarding exposure to mercury
vapor
from dental amalgam fillings and its possible consequences for health in the
general population. The NIDR Amalgam Study is designed to obtain precise
information on amalgam exposure and health outcomes for a
non-occupationally-exposed population of US adults. One hypothesis was that
in
a generally healthy population a significant association between amalgam
exposure and Hg levels in urine and/or whole blood could be detected. The
cohort investigated was an adult military population of 1127 healthy males.
Their average age was 52.8 years, and their ages varied from 40 to 78 years.
Ninety-five percent of the study participants were white males, and slightly
over 50% had some college education. Five percent were edentulous. The
dentate
participants, on average, had 25 natural teeth, 36.9 decayed or filled
surfaces
(DFS), and 19.9 surfaces exposed to amalgam, with amalgam exposure varying
from
0 to 66 surfaces. Their average total and inorganic urinary mercury
concentrations were 3.09 microg/L and 2.88 microg/L. The average whole-blood
total and inorganic mercury concentrations were 2.55 microg/L and 0.54
microg/L. Significant correlations were detected between amalgam exposure
and
the total (r = 0.34, p 0.001) and inorganic 0.34 (r = 0.34, p 0.001)
urinary mercury concentrations on the original scale. Stronger correlations
were found for total (r = 0.44, p 0.001) and inorganic (r = 0.41, p
0.001)
urinary Hg on the log scale, as well as for creatinine-corrected total (r =
0.43, p 0.001) and inorganic (r = 0.43, p 0.001) urine concentrations.
In
whole blood, statistically significant, but biologically weak, correlations
were detected for total (r = 0.09, p = 0.005) and inorganic (r = 0.15, p
0.001) Hg concentrations, respectively. Based on these cross-sectional data,
it
is estimated that, on average, each ten-surface increase in amalgam exposure
is
associated with an increase of 1 microg/L mercury in urine concentration.
PMID: 9496919, UI: 98156633
&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&
Ref. Paper #1
"Dental Amalgam Fillings" is the Number One Source of Mercury in People and
Exposure Commonly Exceeds Government Health Standards for Inorganic
mercury(vapor) Bernard Windham- Chemical Engineer


Government agencies and medical studies have found that the number one
source of mercury in people is from dental amalgam fillings(ref 2-20).
Exposure
from fillings amounts to from 50 to 90 percent of exposure, with the average
being about 80 % of total exposure(5-9,12-15,19,20). The studies found that
mercury amalgams are unstable due to mercury's low vapor pressure and
galvanic
action, leaking mercury vapor continuously into the lungs and saliva at
levels
exceeding health standards.


Mercury exposure of most people with fillings was found to exceed
government health standards and levels found to cause adverse health
effects(see below).
The tolerable daily exposure level for mercury developed in a report
for
Health Canada is .014 micrograms/kilogram body weight(ug/kg) or
approximately 1
ug/day for average adult(2). The U.S. EPA Health Standard for elemental
mercury exposure(vapor) is 0.3 micrograms per cubic meter of air(1).
The
U.S. ATSDR health standard(MRL) for mercury vapor is 0.2 ug/ M3 of air, and
the
MRL for methyl mercury is 0.3 ug/kg body weight/day(4). For the
average
adult breathing 20 M3 of air per day, this amounts to an exposure of 4 or 6
ug/day for the 2 elemental mercury standards. The EPA health guideline for
methyl mercury is 0.1 ug/kg body weight per day or 7 ug for the average
adult(1).


The range of mercury exposure levels found in people with amalgam
fillings
by
the World Health Organization Scientific Panel on Mercury was 3 to 70
micrograms per day(3), with other medical studies finding up to 500 ug/day
in
gum chewers or people who grind their teeth(6,11,16,17,18) or some with
large
numbers of fillings. The average amount absorbed was above 10 ug/day (ref.
3-18). The average mercury exposure for a Canadian adult with amalgam
fillings
was found in the Health Canada study to be 9 ug/day(2). In a large German
study
with 20,000 tested subjects at a University Medical Clinic, the average
exposure from fillings was over 10 ug/day and over 50 % of all those with 6
or
more amalgam fillings had daily exposure exceeding the EPA health
guideline(6).


Studies have consistently found modern high copper non gamma-two
amalgams
have greater release of mercury vapor than conventional silver amalgams
(21,22,23). Recent studies have concluded that because of the high mercury
release levels of modern amalgams, mercury poisoning from amalgam fillings
is
widespread throughout the population"(17,22,18,6).
Common levels found in persons with amalgam fillings are over 10 times the
Health Canada TDE, and more than the EPA health standard for mercury vapor.
Thus persons with amalgam fillings have levels of intraoral mercury vapor
and
body exposure levels higher than the level considered to have significant
health risk.
The studies found that Total mercury intake is proportional to the
number
and extent of amalgam surfaces, but other factors such as chewing gum and
drinking hot liquids influence the intake significantly increasing exposure
as
much as 500%. ).
A World Health Organzation Scientific Panel concluded that a safe level
of
mercury exposure below which no adverse effects occur has never been
established(3)


References
(1) U.S. Environmental Protection Agency(EPA), 1996, "Integrated Risk
Information System, National Center for Environmental
Assessment,Cincinnati, Ohio(& web).
(2) Mark Richardson, Environmental Health Directorate,Health Canada,
Assessment of Mercury Exposure and Risks from Dental Amalgam,
1995, Final Report.
(3) World Health Organization(WHO),1991, Environmental Health criteria 118,
Inorganic Mercury, WHO, Geneva;
(4)Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, U.S. Public Health
Service, "Toxicological Profile for Mercury" March, 1999; & Apr 19,1999
Media Advisory, New MRLs for toxic substances, MRL:elemental mercury vapor/
inhalation/chronic & MRL: methyl mercury/ oral/acute; &
http://atsdr1.atsdr.cdc.gov:8080/97list.html.
(5) A.Kingman et al, National Institute of Dental Research, "Mercury
concentrations in urine and blood associated with amalgam exposure in
the
U.S. military population", Dent Res, 1998, 77(3):461-71.
(6) Dr. P.Kraub & M.Deyhle, Universitat Tubingen- Institut fur Organische
Chemie, "Field Study on the Mercury Content of Saliva", 1997 (20,000
people tested for mercury level in saliva and health status/symptoms
compiled)
http://www.uni-tuebingen.de/KRAUSS/amalgam.html;
(7) A. Engqvist et al, "Speciation of mercury excreted in feces from
individuals with amalgam fillings", Arch Environ Health, 1998,
53(3):205-13; & Dept. of Toxicology & Chemistry, Stockholm Univ., National
Institute for Working Life, 1998.(www.niwl.se/ah/1998-02.html)
(8) J.A.Weiner et al,"The relationship between mercury concentration in
human
organs and predictor variables", 138(1-3):101-115,1993; & "An
estimation of the uptake of mercury from amalgam fillings", Sci Total
Environmet, v168,n3,1995.
(9) M.J.Vimy and F.L. Lorscheider, Faculty of Medicine, Univ. Of Calgary,
July
1991. (Study findings) & J. Trace Elem. Exper. Med., 1990,3, 111-123.
(10) B.Arnold, Eigenschaften und Einsatzgebiete des ChelatbildnersMPS",
Z.Umweltmedizin, 1997,5(1):38-; & Diagnostik un Monitorung von
Schwermetallbelastungen,I,II,ZWR, 1996,105(10):586-569 & (11):665-
(11) L.Barregard et al, "People with high mercury uptake from their own
dental
amalgam fillings", Occup Envir Med, 1995, 52:124-128.
(12) L.Bjorkman et al, "Mercury in saliva and feces after removal of amalgam
fillings", Toxicol Appl Pharmacol 1997, 144(1): 156-162.
(13) Berglund A, Molin M, "Mercury levels in plasma and urine after removal
of
all amalgam restorations: the effect of using rubber dams", Dent
Mater
1997 Sep;13(5):297-304;
(14) M.Molin et al, "kinetics of mercury in blood and urine after mercury
removal" J Dent Research, 1995, 74:420-
(15) J.Begerow et al, "Long Term Mercury Excretion in Urine after Removal of
Amalgam Fillings", Int Arch Occup Health 66: 209-212.
(16) G.Sallsten et al, "long term use of chewing gum and mercury exposure
from
dental amalgam", J Dental Research, 1996, 75(1):594-598.
(17) I.Skare, "Mass Balance and Systemic Uptake of Mercury Released from
Dental
Fillings", Water, Air, and Soil Pollution, 80(1-4):59-67, 1995.
(18) B.Windham, Anotated Bibliography of Exposure and Health Effects from
Amalgam Fillings, Dec 2000
(over 600 references & 60,000 clinical replacement cases).
(19) Halbach, 1995,"Estimation of mercury dose ..", Int.Archieves of
Occupational & Environmental Health, 67:295-300; & G.
Sandborgh-Englund,
"Pharmacokinetics of mercury from dental amalgam", Gotab(Stockholm), 1998,
1-49.
(20) H.V.Aposhian, Envir.Health Perspectives, Vol 106,Supp 4, Aug, 1998;
& H.V. Aposhian et al, FASEB J, 6: 2472-2476, 1992.
(21) J Pleva, "Mercury- A Public Health Hazard", Reviews on Environmental
Health, 1994, 10:1-27.
(22) C. Toomvali, "Studies of mercury vapor emission from different dental
amalgam alloys", LIU-IFM-Kemi-EX 150,1988; & A.Berglund,"A study of the
release of mercury vapor from different types of amalgam alloys", J Dent
Res, 1993, 72: 939-946; & D.B.Boyer, "Mercury vaporization from corroded
dental amalgam" Dental Materials, 1988, 4:89-93; & V.Psarras et al,
"
Mercury vapour releases from dental amalgams", Swed Dent J,1994, 18:15-23; &
L.E.Moberg, "Long term corrosion studies of amalgams and Casting alloys in
contact", Acta Odontal Scand 1985, 43:163-177;
(23) H. Lichtenberg, "Mercury vapor in the oral cavity in relation to the
number of amalgam fillings and chronic mercury poisoning", Journal
of
Orthomolecular Medicine, 1996, 11:2, 87-94.


http://www.holisticmed.com/dental/amalgam/

6. Amalgam Fillings Largest Source of Mercury by Far

Based on a number of studies in Sweden, the World Health Organization review
of
inorganic mercury in 1991 determined that mercury absorption is estimated to
be
approximately four times higher from amalgam fillings than from fish
consumption. Recent studies have confirmed this estimate and shown that the
amount absorbed can vary considerably from person to person.


7. Gold Crowns, Gum, Bruxism, Computer Monitors Increase Release of Mercury
Significantly


Gum chewing, bruxism (grinding of teeth), computer terminal exposure,
presence
of gold fillings or gold crowns (even if covering mercury fillings), teeth
brushing, braces and even chewing food cause the release of significantly
increased amounts of mercury from the fillings in one's teeth.


8. Cumulative Poison Builds Up in Organs


Mercury released from fillings builds up in the brain, kidneys, liver,
pituitary, adrenals and other parts of the body.

========

According to the World Health Organization the general sources of mercury in
the body a Breathed Air (.040 micrograms), Fish (2.34 micrograms),
Non-fish
food (.25 micrograms), Drinking-water .0035 micrograms), mercury vapor from
dental amalgams (3 to 17 micrograms).

*****The mercury vapor from dental amalgam
alone is a bigger source than all the other sources together.*******

Jan Drew wrote:
"Mark Probert" wrote in message
...
Jason Johnson wrote:
In article . com, "Max
C." wrote:

Mark Probert said:
Max C. said:
The issue is that historically, humans had
*very little* natural contact with mercury.

Care to prove it?
I wasn't going to reply to this latest garbage of yours at all, since
most of it was your typical name-calling and lame opinion-based BS, but
I think this little "Care to prove it" line of yours should tell
everyone just exactly where you're coming from on this and all other
issues you support.
If you believe that humans have no more exposure to mercury now than
they had historically, you are delusional. Let's name a few ways we're
more exposed to mercury now, shall we?
Precious metals mining -
http://www.facome.uqam.ca/pdf_temp/c...ilhos_1998.pdf
Dental amalgams - http://www.amalgam.org/
Coal burning -
http://bronze.nescaum.org/airtopics/...104mercury.pdf
Crude oil production and refining -
http://www.hgtech.com/Basic/EPA%20API%20Project.htm
Pesticides - http://www.epa.gov/glnpo/bnsdocs/hgsbook/agr.pdf (this
article also discusses other avenues for mercury to come in contact
with humans... and DIRECTLY supports my statement that humans have more
contact with mercury now than they did historically, at least it spells
that out for humans in Wisconsin.)
Seafood contaminated from some of the above sources - really, if I have
to provide you links for this one, you're just refusing to see the
issue for the problem it is.
electronic and industrial use - this is another "Well duh!" issue.
Mercury has been a key ingredient in computers for decades.
I'm actually glad that you've decided to publicly bury your head in the
sand on this issue. It's one of the top issues those in the
alternative arena take up. The obviousness of the problem is only
surpassed by the glaring ignorance displayed by those who refuse to
acknowledge it. By hinting that you don't believe what I said, you
have diminished your credibility... of course, thinking you have
credibility in this group would also be a prime example of your glaring
ignorance.
Have a nice day.
Max.

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

Max,
STOP confusing people with the facts.

True, Max is confused:

http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm...KEN=62469 501

"Most of the mercury existing in the environment is released through
natural processes. These natural processes include surface volcanic
eruptions; deep sea vents and volcanic activity; hot springs such as the
geyser basins in Yellowstone National Park or those at the bottom of Clear
Lake in California; evaporation from the ocean basins, other water bodies,
and soils; and erosion. The oceans alone contain millions of tons of
naturally occurring mercury. Forest fires and the burning of other types
of vegetation also contribute to the world mercury budget. These natural
"emissions" contribute approximately 61 percent of the annual emissions
that make up the world mercury budget."

Try reading the entire article for facts.

These facts have been posted many times. Mark KNOWS that.

DAMS, Inc.; P.O. Box 7249;

Minneapolis, MN 55407-0249


local contact: see page 3
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE January 19, 2001


New Studies Find Dental Amalgam Fillings to be the Number One
Source of Mercury in Most People and Daily Exposure Exceeds Government
Health
Standards for Inorganic Mercury(vapor). Studies also found
adverse health effects in adults and that mercury from amalgam is passed on
to
infants through mother?s blood and milk , and that developmental effects on
infants occur at low levels of mercury exposure.


A large National Institute of Dental Research Study has confirmed
other previous study results that found that the current type of amalgam
dental
fillings being used in the U.S. leak significant amounts of the extremely
toxic
substance mercury into the body and are the number one source of mercury in
people. The study measured mercury levels in the blood and urine of over
1000
military personnel and found a high significant correlation to the number of
amalgam filling surfaces in the mouth. Like several other recent studies,
the
study found that amalgam fillings are not stable because of mercury?s low
vapor pressure and galvanic electric currents between the different metals
in
the mouth.
For this large military population that had a range of from 0
to
66 amalgam filling surfaces and an average of 20 surfaces, each 10 surfaces
added approximately 1 microgram of mercury per liter of urine excreted,
meaning
total mercury excreted in urine averaged about 4.5 micrograms per day, with
soldiers levels with over 49 amalgam surfaces averaging over 8.7 micrograms.
The average level for those with fillings was 4.5 times that of the controls
without amalgam, and those with over 49 surfaces averaged over 8 times
controls. Together with the considerably larger amount of mercury excreted
daily through the digestive tract and sweat, the daily mercury excretion
would
amount to well over 10 micrograms per day on average and much more for some
individuals. Over 90 % of the mercury in the urine was inorganic mercury,
the
kind that comes from fillings, as opposed to organic mercury which comes
from
fish.
For this population, it was determined that the exposure from amalgam
fillings was the primary source of mercury exposure, and on average exceeded
the levels that would be consistent with U.S. Government Standards(MRL) for
daily mercury exposure. The study?s findings were consistent with the
findings of many other recent such studies, including a similar study
testing
20,000 people at a University Health Clinic in Germany, as well as the
findings
of the World Health Organization Scientific Panel on mercury. (see
references)
The U.S.EPA mercury health guideline for elemental mercury
exposure(vapor)
is 0.3 micrograms per cubic meter of air(0.3 ug/M3). For the average adult
breathing 20 M3 of air per day, this amounts to an exposure of 6
micrograms(ug)
per day.
The U.S. Department of Health, Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease
Registry (ASTDR) standard (MRL) -for acute inhalation exposure to mercury
vapor is 0.2 micrograms Hg/M3, which translates to approx. 4 ug/day for
the average adult(5).
The corresponding tolerable daily exposure developed in a report for
the
Canadian Health Agency, Health Canada, is .014 ug/kg body weight or 1 ug/day
for average adult(6). The permissible level for a child would be less. But
the levels of the average daily exposures found in the study were above all
of
these health guidelines for mercury exposure.


Other studies that the Government Health Standards were based on have
found adverse health effects at very low levels and developmental effects on
infants and children at very low levels of exposure, along with finding that
mercury vapor from a mother?s fillings is readily transferred through the
mother?s blood across the placenta to a fetus and also through mother?s
milk.
These findings increase the urgency to advise the public of the clear
danger in the use of mercury in fillings and to reconsider the policy of
using
mercury in dental fillings. Based on such studies, several other
countries,
such as Sweden, Australia, UK, Germany, Norway, Japan, and Canada along with
the state of California have already adopted restrictions or warnings on the
use of mercury in fillings, such as for children, pregnant women, women of
child bearing age, people with damaged kidneys or immune systems, and in the
mouth adjacent to other metals. Amalgam manufacturers have also warned
against
some of the uses currently made of amalgam in dentistry in the U.S.


Studies are also available that confirm adverse health effects from
amalgam fillings and clinically document that many thousands of people have
recovered or had significant improvement in many health conditions including
very serious conditions after replacement of amalgam fillings. Fact sheets
are
available from DAMS with medical study references covering the statements
and
issues in this press release. (see contact information)


DAMS is currently working with very many people in the U.S. dealing with
serious health effects caused by exposure to mercury from amalgam and urges
everyone to find out more about this major problem and to get involved in
resolving these health safety issues. DAMS can provide information and help
to
anyone who is interested or who thinks they might have health problems
related
to their amalgam fillings.
Available fact sheets with medical study references include:
1. Common Exposure Levels from Amalgam Fillings and Government Health
Standards
(attached)
2. Transfer of Mercury from Mother?s Amalgams and Breast Milk to the Fetus
and developmental effects of mercury on infants.
3. Documentation of recovery from 60,000 clinical cases of serious adverse
health effects after replacement of amalgam fillings.


4. Adverse oral health problems related to amalgam fillings.
5. Effect of mercury and other toxic metal exposure on cognitive and
behavioral
problems of children- including ADD, dyslexia, juvenile delinquency,
and crime(over 100 medical study references)
6, Autoimmune conditions: the connection to mercury immune reactivity and
amalgam fillings.
7. The battery in your mouth: oral galvanic currents and metals in the
mouth,
and interactions with EMF
8. Health Effects of amalgam fillings and results of replacement of amalgam
filings. Over 600 medical study references(most
in Medline) and approx. 60,000 clinical cases of amalgam replacement
followed
by doctors.


Technical contact person: Bernie Windham
ph: 850-878-9024
DAMS website: www.amalgam.org
All backup technical papers with references available free by email;
$5 for copying/mailing cost of hard copy of #3 or #5. $3
for
copying/mailing cost of any other hard copy
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
Abstract:
Kingman A, Albertini T, Brown LJ
J Dent Res 1998 Mar;77(3):461-71
Mercury concentrations in urine and whole blood associated with amalgam
exposure in a US military population.
Oral Health Promotion, Risk Factors and Molecular Epidemiology Branch,
National
Institute of Dental Research, Bethesda, Maryland 20892, USA.
Minute amounts of mercury vapor are released from dental amalgams. Since
mercury vapor is known to be associated with adverse health effects from
occupationally exposed persons, questions regarding the margin of safety for
exposure to mercury vapor in the general population continue to be raised.
To
address this issue, one needs information regarding exposure to mercury
vapor
from dental amalgam fillings and its possible consequences for health in the
general population. The NIDR Amalgam Study is designed to obtain precise
information on amalgam exposure and health outcomes for a
non-occupationally-exposed population of US adults. One hypothesis was that
in
a generally healthy population a significant association between amalgam
exposure and Hg levels in urine and/or whole blood could be detected. The
cohort investigated was an adult military population of 1127 healthy males.
Their average age was 52.8 years, and their ages varied from 40 to 78 years.
Ninety-five percent of the study participants were white males, and slightly
over 50% had some college education. Five percent were edentulous. The
dentate
participants, on average, had 25 natural teeth, 36.9 decayed or filled
surfaces
(DFS), and 19.9 surfaces exposed to amalgam, with amalgam exposure varying
from
0 to 66 surfaces. Their average total and inorganic urinary mercury
concentrations were 3.09 microg/L and 2.88 microg/L. The average whole-blood
total and inorganic mercury concentrations were 2.55 microg/L and 0.54
microg/L. Significant correlations were detected between amalgam exposure
and
the total (r = 0.34, p 0.001) and inorganic 0.34 (r = 0.34, p 0.001)
urinary mercury concentrations on the original scale. Stronger correlations
were found for total (r = 0.44, p 0.001) and inorganic (r = 0.41, p
0.001)
urinary Hg on the log scale, as well as for creatinine-corrected total (r =
0.43, p 0.001) and inorganic (r = 0.43, p 0.001) urine concentrations.
In
whole blood, statistically significant, but biologically weak, correlations
were detected for total (r = 0.09, p = 0.005) and inorganic (r = 0.15, p
0.001) Hg concentrations, respectively. Based on these cross-sectional data,
it
is estimated that, on average, each ten-surface increase in amalgam exposure
is
associated with an increase of 1 microg/L mercury in urine concentration.
PMID: 9496919, UI: 98156633
&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&
Ref. Paper #1
"Dental Amalgam Fillings" is the Number One Source of Mercury in People and
Exposure Commonly Exceeds Government Health Standards for Inorganic
mercury(vapor) Bernard Windham- Chemical Engineer


Government agencies and medical studies have found that the number one
source of mercury in people is from dental amalgam fillings(ref 2-20).
Exposure
from fillings amounts to from 50 to 90 percent of exposure, with the average
being about 80 % of total exposure(5-9,12-15,19,20). The studies found that
mercury amalgams are unstable due to mercury's low vapor pressure and
galvanic
action, leaking mercury vapor continuously into the lungs and saliva at
levels
exceeding health standards.


Mercury exposure of most people with fillings was found to exceed
government health standards and levels found to cause adverse health
effects(see below).
The tolerable daily exposure level for mercury developed in a report
for
Health Canada is .014 micrograms/kilogram body weight(ug/kg) or
approximately 1
ug/day for average adult(2). The U.S. EPA Health Standard for elemental
mercury exposure(vapor) is 0.3 micrograms per cubic meter of air(1).
The
U.S. ATSDR health standard(MRL) for mercury vapor is 0.2 ug/ M3 of air, and
the
MRL for methyl mercury is 0.3 ug/kg body weight/day(4). For the
average
adult breathing 20 M3 of air per day, this amounts to an exposure of 4 or 6
ug/day for the 2 elemental mercury standards. The EPA health guideline for
methyl mercury is 0.1 ug/kg body weight per day or 7 ug for the average
adult(1).


The range of mercury exposure levels found in people with amalgam
fillings
by
the World Health Organization Scientific Panel on Mercury was 3 to 70
micrograms per day(3), with other medical studies finding up to 500 ug/day
in
gum chewers or people who grind their teeth(6,11,16,17,18) or some with
large
numbers of fillings. The average amount absorbed was above 10 ug/day (ref.
3-18). The average mercury exposure for a Canadian adult with amalgam
fillings
was found in the Health Canada study to be 9 ug/day(2). In a large German
study
with 20,000 tested subjects at a University Medical Clinic, the average
exposure from fillings was over 10 ug/day and over 50 % of all those with 6
or
more amalgam fillings had daily exposure exceeding the EPA health
guideline(6).


Studies have consistently found modern high copper non gamma-two
amalgams
have greater release of mercury vapor than conventional silver amalgams
(21,22,23). Recent studies have concluded that because of the high mercury
release levels of modern amalgams, mercury poisoning from amalgam fillings
is
widespread throughout the population"(17,22,18,6).
Common levels found in persons with amalgam fillings are over 10 times the
Health Canada TDE, and more than the EPA health standard for mercury vapor.
Thus persons with amalgam fillings have levels of intraoral mercury vapor
and
body exposure levels higher than the level considered to have significant
health risk.
The studies found that Total mercury intake is proportional to the
number
and extent of amalgam surfaces, but other factors such as chewing gum and
drinking hot liquids influence the intake significantly increasing exposure
as
much as 500%. ).
A World Health Organzation Scientific Panel concluded that a safe level
of
mercury exposure below which no adverse effects occur has never been
established(3)


References
(1) U.S. Environmental Protection Agency(EPA), 1996, "Integrated Risk
Information System, National Center for Environmental
Assessment,Cincinnati, Ohio(& web).
(2) Mark Richardson, Environmental Health Directorate,Health Canada,
Assessment of Mercury Exposure and Risks from Dental Amalgam,
1995, Final Report.
(3) World Health Organization(WHO),1991, Environmental Health criteria 118,
Inorganic Mercury, WHO, Geneva;
(4)Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, U.S. Public Health
Service, "Toxicological Profile for Mercury" March, 1999; & Apr 19,1999
Media Advisory, New MRLs for toxic substances, MRL:elemental mercury vapor/
inhalation/chronic & MRL: methyl mercury/ oral/acute; &
http://atsdr1.atsdr.cdc.gov:8080/97list.html.
(5) A.Kingman et al, National Institute of Dental Research, "Mercury
concentrations in urine and blood associated with amalgam exposure in
the
U.S. military population", Dent Res, 1998, 77(3):461-71.
(6) Dr. P.Kraub & M.Deyhle, Universitat Tubingen- Institut fur Organische
Chemie, "Field Study on the Mercury Content of Saliva", 1997 (20,000
people tested for mercury level in saliva and health status/symptoms
compiled)
http://www.uni-tuebingen.de/KRAUSS/amalgam.html;
(7) A. Engqvist et al, "Speciation of mercury excreted in feces from
individuals with amalgam fillings", Arch Environ Health, 1998,
53(3):205-13; & Dept. of Toxicology & Chemistry, Stockholm Univ., National
Institute for Working Life, 1998.(www.niwl.se/ah/1998-02.html)
(8) J.A.Weiner et al,"The relationship between mercury concentration in
human
organs and predictor variables", 138(1-3):101-115,1993; & "An
estimation of the uptake of mercury from amalgam fillings", Sci Total
Environmet, v168,n3,1995.
(9) M.J.Vimy and F.L. Lorscheider, Faculty of Medicine, Univ. Of Calgary,
July
1991. (Study findings) & J. Trace Elem. Exper. Med., 1990,3, 111-123.
(10) B.Arnold, Eigenschaften und Einsatzgebiete des ChelatbildnersMPS",
Z.Umweltmedizin, 1997,5(1):38-; & Diagnostik un Monitorung von
Schwermetallbelastungen,I,II,ZWR, 1996,105(10):586-569 & (11):665-
(11) L.Barregard et al, "People with high mercury uptake from their own
dental
amalgam fillings", Occup Envir Med, 1995, 52:124-128.
(12) L.Bjorkman et al, "Mercury in saliva and feces after removal of amalgam
fillings", Toxicol Appl Pharmacol 1997, 144(1): 156-162.
(13) Berglund A, Molin M, "Mercury levels in plasma and urine after removal
of
all amalgam restorations: the effect of using rubber dams", Dent
Mater
1997 Sep;13(5):297-304;
(14) M.Molin et al, "kinetics of mercury in blood and urine after mercury
removal" J Dent Research, 1995, 74:420-
(15) J.Begerow et al, "Long Term Mercury Excretion in Urine after Removal of
Amalgam Fillings", Int Arch Occup Health 66: 209-212.
(16) G.Sallsten et al, "long term use of chewing gum and mercury exposure
from
dental amalgam", J Dental Research, 1996, 75(1):594-598.
(17) I.Skare, "Mass Balance and Systemic Uptake of Mercury Released from
Dental
Fillings", Water, Air, and Soil Pollution, 80(1-4):59-67, 1995.
(18) B.Windham, Anotated Bibliography of Exposure and Health Effects from
Amalgam Fillings, Dec 2000
(over 600 references & 60,000 clinical replacement cases).
(19) Halbach, 1995,"Estimation of mercury dose ..", Int.Archieves of
Occupational & Environmental Health, 67:295-300; & G.
Sandborgh-Englund,
"Pharmacokinetics of mercury from dental amalgam", Gotab(Stockholm), 1998,
1-49.
(20) H.V.Aposhian, Envir.Health Perspectives, Vol 106,Supp 4, Aug, 1998;
& H.V. Aposhian et al, FASEB J, 6: 2472-2476, 1992.
(21) J Pleva, "Mercury- A Public Health Hazard", Reviews on Environmental
Health, 1994, 10:1-27.
(22) C. Toomvali, "Studies of mercury vapor emission from different dental
amalgam alloys", LIU-IFM-Kemi-EX 150,1988; & A.Berglund,"A study of the
release of mercury vapor from different types of amalgam alloys", J Dent
Res, 1993, 72: 939-946; & D.B.Boyer, "Mercury vaporization from corroded
dental amalgam" Dental Materials, 1988, 4:89-93; & V.Psarras et al,
"
Mercury vapour releases from dental amalgams", Swed Dent J,1994, 18:15-23; &
L.E.Moberg, "Long term corrosion studies of amalgams and Casting alloys in
contact", Acta Odontal Scand 1985, 43:163-177;
(23) H. Lichtenberg, "Mercury vapor in the oral cavity in relation to the
number of amalgam fillings and chronic mercury poisoning", Journal
of
Orthomolecular Medicine, 1996, 11:2, 87-94.


http://www.holisticmed.com/dental/amalgam/

6. Amalgam Fillings Largest Source of Mercury by Far

Based on a number of studies in Sweden, the World Health Organization review
of
inorganic mercury in 1991 determined that mercury absorption is estimated to
be
approximately four times higher from amalgam fillings than from fish
consumption. Recent studies have confirmed this estimate and shown that the
amount absorbed can vary considerably from person to person.


7. Gold Crowns, Gum, Bruxism, Computer Monitors Increase Release of Mercury
Significantly


Gum chewing, bruxism (grinding of teeth), computer terminal exposure,
presence
of gold fillings or gold crowns (even if covering mercury fillings), teeth
brushing, braces and even chewing food cause the release of significantly
increased amounts of mercury from the fillings in one's teeth.


8. Cumulative Poison Builds Up in Organs


Mercury released from fillings builds up in the brain, kidneys, liver,
pituitary, adrenals and other parts of the body.

========

According to the World Health Organization the general sources of mercury in
the body a Breathed Air (.040 micrograms), Fish (2.34 micrograms),
Non-fish
food (.25 micrograms), Drinking-water .0035 micrograms), mercury vapor from
dental amalgams (3 to 17 micrograms).

*****The mercury vapor from dental amalgam
alone is a bigger source than all the other sources together.*******

"Mark Probert" wrote in message
...
Vernon wrote:


Let's see.
You have no knowledge of mercury or it's effects and thus post comments
on words or court cases??????
Got extra time on your hands?

Vern, do learn to restore the subject line. With the subject line like it
is, someone would think you have some form of nefarious deed planned. (See
your message).



"Jan Drew" wrote in message
...
In the Matter of Mark Probert (Admitted as Mark S. Probert), a
Suspended Attorney, Respondent.
Grievance Committee for the Tenth Judicial District, Petitioner.



Let's see.
You have no knowledge of mercury or it's effects and thus post comments on
words or court cases??????
Got extra time on your hands?

"Peter Bowditch" wrote:
"Max C." wrote:

"So the real question is, how would humans *naturally* have come in
contact with the levels of mercury seen today?"

I see the moron is back.

Yes, YOU are back and STILL here.

LYING and SPAMMING.


It's a naturally occurring element, Max. All the mercury in or on
Earth now has been here since before there were any people to have
teeth to be filled. When a forest fire pumps thousands of tons of
mercury into the air it is because the mercury was available to the
trees through the soil.

Filled WITHOUT MERCURY!

The mercury vapor from dental amalgam alone is a bigger source than all
the other sources together.

http://www.toxicteeth.org/pressRoom_..._polluters.cfm

Dentists Biggest Mercury Polluters, New Study Finds
Health: The metal is widely used in fillings and ends up in the nation's
waste
water.
==

Ruining the environment!


It's really quite simple for those who can think.

Oh, that's right ...
--
Peter Bowditch