Mercury Amalgam Fillings and Mercury Vapor - How Toxic?

[Spongebob]

How many members does this impressive sounding organisation have?

https://www.iaomt.org/international/chapters.asp#UK

The UK chapter appears to be one dentist and his wife?

IAOMT United Kingdom Chapter Dr. John Ahearne, BDS

http://www.moonfleet.co.uk/

We marry the conventional with the alternative to achieve an holistic/biological approach to dental healthcare. We believe that dentistry has the ability to deal with many health issues that may appear to be unrelated to the mouth and conversely that many dental issues have an impact on body systems remote from, but connected to, the mouth.

[edit] There are 11 members in the UK - impressive figures...

Is it another "mercury fillings are bad for you" group?

[Spongebob]

This is a good read:

http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4036

Content from external source:

But then it occured to me: Isn't mercury a lot heavier than air? Wouldn't mercury vapor drop to the floor like a rock, or like CO2 mist from dry ice? Why would it berising from the tooth? I even double checked my periodic table to be sure. I did a little bit of research on the web to see what I could find out. And, sure enough, everything I found confirmed my suspicion. Mercury vapor is much, much heavier than air. Whatever's rising from that tooth in the video can't possibly be mercury vapor. Discussing this with a friend, I learned that a simple yet thorough debunking of this video has already been done, by Dr. James Laidler, MD, and you can find his short but very clear article on his blog, at quackfiles.blogspot.com. If you doubt anything in Dr. Laidler's article, you can quickly glance at any periodic table of the elements and confirm it. The simple fact is that at body temperature, air weighs 1.2 grams per liter. Mercury vapor weighs 7.86 grams per liter, more than six times heavier than air. The vapor in the video is rising, fast enough to indicate that it weighs — oh, around .71 grams per liter. And guess what weighs that much? Water vapor. Remember they said on the video the tooth had just been dipped in water? That's right: This shocking video, the centerpiece of evidence in the case against amalgam fillings, points directly to a column of rising water vapor and tells you that it's mercury vapor, in direct contradiction to chemical fact. The credits on the video are from two IAOMT dentists, Roger Eichman, DDS and David Kennedy, DDS. According to an IAOMT representative, the video was made by Boyd Haley, PhD, a professor at the University of Kentucky. And guess what he's a professor of? Wait for it: Chemistry.

[Mick]

This is a good read:

http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4036

Content from external source:

But then it occured to me: Isn't mercury a lot heavier than air? Wouldn't mercury vapor drop to the floor like a rock, or like CO2 mist from dry ice? Why would it berising from the tooth? I even double checked my periodic table to be sure. I did a little bit of research on the web to see what I could find out. And, sure enough, everything I found confirmed my suspicion. Mercury vapor is much, much heavier than air. Whatever's rising from that tooth in the video can't possibly be mercury vapor. Discussing this with a friend, I learned that a simple yet thorough debunking of this video has already been done, by Dr. James Laidler, MD, and you can find his short but very clear article on his blog, at quackfiles.blogspot.com. If you doubt anything in Dr. Laidler's article, you can quickly glance at any periodic table of the elements and confirm it. The simple fact is that at body temperature, air weighs 1.2 grams per liter. Mercury vapor weighs 7.86 grams per liter, more than six times heavier than air. The vapor in the video is rising, fast enough to indicate that it weighs — oh, around .71 grams per liter. And guess what weighs that much? Water vapor. Remember they said on the video the tooth had just been dipped in water? That's right: This shocking video, the centerpiece of evidence in the case against amalgam fillings, points directly to a column of rising water vapor and tells you that it's mercury vapor, in direct contradiction to chemical fact. The credits on the video are from two IAOMT dentists, Roger Eichman, DDS and David Kennedy, DDS. According to an IAOMT representative, the video was made by Boyd Haley, PhD, a professor at the University of Kentucky. And guess what he's a professor of? Wait for it: Chemistry.

(added the important quote).

I'm not sure it's correct though, this video seems to show slightly warmed pure mercury having the same effect.



The suggestion that mercury would sink because it's heavier seems a bit bogus. The vapor (or possibly aerosol) of mercury would be essentially transported by the air it is mixed in. There's not enough of it for the different density to do anything other than very slowly settle out if the air is perfectly calm. Very minor convection currents in the air could cause this effect.

Still, I'd like to see some scientists weigh in on what the "smoke" actually is.

[Spongebob]

I read that in the comments at the bottom - I just found it interesting...

[Jay Reynolds]

This is a good read:

http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4036

Content from external source:

But then it occured to me: Isn't mercury a lot heavier than air? Wouldn't mercury vapor drop to the floor like a rock, or like CO2 mist from dry ice? Why would it berising from the tooth? I even double checked my periodic table to be sure. I did a little bit of research on the web to see what I could find out. And, sure enough, everything I found confirmed my suspicion. Mercury vapor is much, much heavier than air. Whatever's rising from that tooth in the video can't possibly be mercury vapor. Discussing this with a friend, I learned that a simple yet thorough debunking of this video has already been done, by Dr. James Laidler, MD, and you can find his short but very clear article on his blog, at quackfiles.blogspot.com. If you doubt anything in Dr. Laidler's article, you can quickly glance at any periodic table of the elements and confirm it. The simple fact is that at body temperature, air weighs 1.2 grams per liter. Mercury vapor weighs 7.86 grams per liter, more than six times heavier than air. The vapor in the video is rising, fast enough to indicate that it weighs — oh, around .71 grams per liter. And guess what weighs that much? Water vapor. Remember they said on the video the tooth had just been dipped in water? That's right: This shocking video, the centerpiece of evidence in the case against amalgam fillings, points directly to a column of rising water vapor and tells you that it's mercury vapor, in direct contradiction to chemical fact. The credits on the video are from two IAOMT dentists, Roger Eichman, DDS and David Kennedy, DDS. According to an IAOMT representative, the video was made by Boyd Haley, PhD, a professor at the University of Kentucky. And guess what he's a professor of? Wait for it: Chemistry.

Pay no attention to Spongebob, Dr. Kennedy. He is just a children's cartoon character, none of us pays him any mind.

[davidkennedydds]

Dear Jay,

You just made my PR point above precisely. What earthly difference could a video demonstration of mercury have to do with the question I posed "What dose of hydrofluosilicic acid do you recommend for an infant that is without harm?"

FYI Laidler's claim which is identical to yours was thoroughly debunked back in 2005 when it first was made. You will find about 100 replies similar to this one on my YouTube " Smoking Teeth".

Dr. Laidler’s criticism, Response to: "Smoking Teeth" - the truth gets "smoked out", reduces to the following propositions. First, he contends that what is actually being seen is water vapor; and second, since mercury is a heavier molecule than the other constituents of air (i.e. oxygen, nitrogen, carbon dioxide, etc) the mercury vapor could not rise, but would fall toward the floor. This analysis is not consistent with the Laws of Physics and Chemistry for the following reasons.

First, atomic absorption spectrophotometry (AAS) is a well substantiated scientific analytical technique used to measure a wide range of elements in various materials such as metals, pottery and glass. It is based on the simple fact that some elements in the Periodic Table absorb specific wavelengths of light. This constitutes that materials fingerprint. In the case of mercury vapor the absorbance wavelength is 253.7nm.

Thus, when a pure material is vaporized by the application of heat, while specific wavelengths are sequentially shone at it, the wavelength absorbed tells one the element making up the sample. In it simplest form, gold miners employ this principle when mining for gold. In the natural state, gold has a very high attraction for mercury; the miner heats his ore sample in a dark container, while shining an ultraviolet light. If a vaporizing shadow is cast, then mercury is present and the sample is likely gold. The amount of light absorbed is proportional to the concentration of the mercury.


The video “Smoking Teeth = Poison Gas” is simply an application of this Miner’s Test, using an amalgam filling, containing approximately 50% mercury, as the sample. Water vapor will not absorb the wavelength from the Miner’s light; and, it will not cast a shadow. Therefore, for Dr. Laidler to suggest it will is unfounded. In the video, the vaporizing shadow is caused by mercury atoms absorbing the spectrum from the Miner’s light. A light, scientifically designed to identify the presence of mercury, not water. Water vapor cannot be visualized with a 254 mm light.


Secondly, Dr. Laidler is correct when he states, “When molecules vaporize, the volume they fill depends on the number of molecules and their temperature”. This is called the partial pressure and the partial pressure for mercury in air is 0.00185 mm at 25⁰ C. However, Dr. Laidler fails to report that the vapor pressure of mercury doubles for every 10⁰ C increase in temperature. Employing dubious calculations, Dr. Laidler concludes that because mercury is heavier than the other components of air, if what we saw was actually mercury vapor coming off those teeth, and not just water vapor, it should have been SINKING rather than rising - even at 37⁰ degrees C.” This of course is false, since the mercury in the amalgam is being is heated, causing the mercury molecules to become more active and vaporize. Thus, the mercury vapor rises from the amalgam and spreads into the environment in accordance with Boyles Law of Gases, the Guy-Lussac Law, and Avogadro’s Law and the Law of Entropy. These laws indicate that gas molecules by natural law move away from each other. Therefore, concentrated mercury atoms near the tooth naturally move to a location where less mercury atoms reside. These laws of the behavior of gas have nothing to do with gravity as Dr. Laidler improperly assumes.


In conclusion, Dr. Laidler reports that “ever since (he) saw the video, (he) felt that there was something wrong with it.” Indeed, he is absolutely correct! It is wrong to place materials containing 50% poisonous elemental mercury into humans, while calling them “silver” fillings. It is wrong to promote such materials as safe, when there is no level of mercury exposure considered to be “safe”.


Dr. Laidler has tried to “Manufacture Uncertainty” where none actually exists.


Video Responses on YouTube:


In “It Really is Mercury” I use a Jerome Mercury Sniffer over a tooth to prove that merely scratching the filling makes mercury vapor come off the filling because the Jerome only measures mercury vapor.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4qvNf...eature=channel


Laidler’s criticisms are not valid.

If you would like a more detailed analysis of the laws fo physics involved I can send you that as well.

[davidkennedydds]

It is not actually smoke and as the video explains the principal involved is the same as atomic absorption. Check that out with Wikipedia for more details on this old well understood technology. I also demonstrated that mercury is released by using another technology of a gold film analyzer. In addition Carl Svare used gas chromatography and if you want to go way back Alfred Stock in 1926 used a leather bag, new glass distillation column and chemical proof to find 10µg/M3 mercury in his own breath from amalgam fillings.

So you debunk bloggers are still bunking stuff that was shown beyond doubt in the late 1800's i.e. mercury escapes amalgam fillings. I love the experiment the physician did in Chicago 1890's simply putting an amalgam (mercury/silver filling) in a match box with a cockroaches and finding that it killed the roach but not the unexposed controls.

[Jay Reynolds]

A light, scientifically designed to identify the presence of mercury, not water. Water vapor cannot be visualized with a 254 mm light.

I can think of some questions about your film. You say that the particular tooth filling is 25 years old.

There appears to be a very large amount of vaporization, even at relatively low temperatures. I assume the person ate or drank hot things as often as anyone else. How could such a vapor emission be sustained for 25 years? One would assume that such fllings would eventually evaporate into nothingness. Why was the tooth dipped in water?

Is there a scientifically designed peer reviewed study of these emissions which empirically quantifies the vaporization rate and rate of mass loss of an average filling? Surely this could be measured easily seeing the amount of vaporization I see in the film.

Such an experiment would only require amalgam to be weighed and kept at body temperature for a year, then reweighed.

BTW:
I think that should have been 254 nm. What assurance do we have that the particular light you used emits absolutely no visible light? Some ultraviolet lights might no be perfectly selective.

[Jay Reynolds]

I love the experiment the physician did in Chicago 1890's simply putting an amalgam (mercury/silver filling) in a match box with a cockroaches and finding that it killed the roach but not the unexposed controls.

I am frequently challenged to find science fair experiments for children. This one seems tailor made for such a purpose.

I'm sure have reproduced this experiment many times. How long can I expect to wait for the dose to kill the cockroach?

I will visit the dentist and obtain some filled teeth, and do this myself, actually.

[davidkennedydds]

I can think of some questions about your film. You say that the particular tooth filling is 25 years old.

Yes that is the estimated age but we've found it makes little difference unless you use new fresh amalgam in which case it really spews.

There appears to be a very large amount of vaporization, even at relatively low temperatures. I assume the person ate or drank hot things as often as anyone else. How could such a vapor emission be sustained for 25 years? One would assume that such fllings would eventually evaporate into nothingness. Why was the tooth dipped in water?

To raise the temperature to 110 degrees. He then dried the tooth so no water was present for if it was it would have inhibited releaseof the mercury.

Is there a scientifically designed peer reviewed study of these emissions which empirically quantifies the vaporization rate and rate of mass loss of an average filling? Surely this could be measured easily seeing the amount of vaporization I see in the film.

Yes several dozen and with today's technology I even know high school students who measure their fellow students mouths for mercury with OSHA approved Jerome Mercury sniffers. The study I like best is Vimy MJ, Lorscheider FL: Serial measurements of intra-oral air mercury; Estimation of daily dose from dental amalgam. J Dent Res 64(8):1072-5, 1985. because it used a standardized measurement technique.

Such an experiment would only require amalgam to be weighed and kept at body temperature for a year, then reweighed.

Dr. Haley used water analysis to measure daily emissions under water and found that all amalgams leaked and the amount emitted varied by brand and operator. Roughly 10 µg/day per single small filling. Boyd E. Haley, PhD, The relationship of the toxic effects of mercury to exacerbation of the medical condition classified as Alzheimer’s disease, Medical Veritas 4 (2007) 1510–1524

BTW:
I think that should have been 254 nm. What assurance do we have that the particular light you used emits absolutely no visible light? Some ultraviolet lights might no be perfectly selective.

Actually 253.7 nm is the precise wavelength. it is produced by exciting mercury with electricity thus the element itself emits the wavelength so if you've got a mercury vapor light with no phosphorous you've got 253.7 nm but DO NOT LOOK INTO THAT LIGHT. It will burn your retina. Use ad Dr. eichman did a reflective screen and thus no danger.

[davidkennedydds]

I am frequently challenged to find science fair experiments for children. This one seems tailor made for such a purpose.

Dental amalgam is a hazardous material that you cannot touch or handle. It must be disposed of in a hazardous waste system and never released into the environment.

I'm sure have reproduced this experiment many times. How long can I expect to wait for the dose to kill the cockroach?

I read about this experiment/demonstration in a very old "Dental Cosmos". No I've never done ti but found it kind of fun.

I will visit the dentist and obtain some filled teeth, and do this myself, actually.

Be sure you are aware of your legal liability before you engage in experiments with mercury especially around children. In schools today we insist that they comply with the EPA standards for mercer exposure which is 1µg/M3 for an 8 hour exposure cycle. When a new amalgam is mixed we've measured over 1000 µg/M3 so this is 10 fold greater than OSHA Maximum Allowable Exposure level (PEL) immediately hazardous to health and never to be exceeded even instantaneously.

[Jay Reynolds]

Roughly 10 µg/day per single small filling.

If a single small filling emits only 10ug/day, what was the vapor seen coming out of that fillng in your video.

If I am correct, there are 24 hours in each day, and if a filling only emits 10/24 = .416 ug per hour, and the video runs about 1/60 hour(.416/60=.007 ug)

So you are telling me that the vapor seen emitting in one minute of your video represents 7 nanograms of vaporized mercury?

[Jay Reynolds]

I am frequently challenged to find science fair experiments for children. This one seems tailor made for such a purpose.

I'm sure have reproduced this experiment many times. How long can I expect to wait for the dose to kill the cockroach?

I will visit the dentist and obtain some filled teeth, and do this myself, actually.

Dr.? I would like to have a well designed experiment for this child, how long would I expect to wait for the cockroach to die?

Surely you have repeated this basic experiment. Do you need to provide food and water for the cockroach?

[Trigger Hippie]

Is it another "mercury fillings are bad for you" group?

They're listed in Quackwatch and here's what RationalWiki has to say about the IAOMT.

Content from external source:

The International Academy of Oral Medicine and Toxicology (IAOMT) is a quack organization based in Canada that promotes dental woo.[1] They were responsible for the "smoking tooth" video that frequently gets passed around in altie circles. Their main issue is mercury amalgam fillings, which they claim can cause all sorts of neurological illnesses such as Parkinson's and autism. They sell filling removal kits for "dentists" along with various other nature woo, mostly vitamin supplements. The organization also opposes water fluoridation, claims to put out peer-reviewed "research," and supports "health freedom."

What's the smoking tooth video? Well, you can buy the full video for $14.95 from the IAOMT website or watch a shorter free version on YouTube.

Using a tooth with an amalgam filling, they heated it and then claimed the mist coming off the tooth was mercury vapor. Apparently David Kennedy DDS is credited in the vid. Here's a couple of debunkings...

http://quackfiles.blogspot.ca/2005/0...moked-out.html
http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4036

Content from external source:

So, if what we saw was actually mercury vapor coming off those teeth, and not just water vapor, it should have been SINKING rather than rising - even at 37 degrees C. Therefore, the video DOES NOT show mercury vapor rising off the tooth, only water vapor.

[Mick]

I don't buy the "should have been sinking" theory, for reasons noted above.

Amalgam DOES release mercury vapor, just not very much, not harmful amounts:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8653498

Content from external source:

The aim of this study was to determine whether a group of patients with symptoms, self-related to their amalgam restorations, experienced an exposure to mercury vapor from their amalgam restorations that reached the range at which subtle symptoms have been reported in the literature. Furthermore, the aim was to determine whether the mercury exposure for these patients was significantly higher than for controls with no reported health complaints. The symptom group consisted of 10 consecutively selected patients from a larger group, referred by their physicians for investigation into any correlation between subjective symptoms and amalgam restorations. The control group consisted of 8 persons with no reported health complaints. The intra-oral release of mercury vapor was measured between 7:45 a.m. and 9:00 p.m. at intervals of 30-45 min, following a standardized schedule. The mercury levels in plasma, erythrocytes, and urine were also determined. The calculated daily uptake of inhaled mercury vapor, released from the amalgam restorations, was less than 5% of the daily uptake calculated at the lower concentration range given by the WHO (1991), at which subtle symptoms have been found in particularly sensitive individuals. The symptom group had neither a higher estimated daily uptake of inhaled mercury vapor, nor a higher mercury concentration in blood and urine than in the control group. The study provides no scientific support for the belief that the symptoms of the patients examined originated from an enhanced mercury release from their amalgam restorations.

http://www.epa.gov/hg/dentalamalgam.html

Content from external source:

Amalgam can also release small amounts of mercury vapor during chewing, and people can absorb these vapors by inhaling or ingesting them. High levels of mercury vapor exposure are associated with adverse effects in the brain and the kidneys.
Since the 1990s, several federal agencies have reviewed the scientific literature looking for links between dental amalgam and health problems. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), there is little scientific evidence that the health of the vast majority of people with dental amalgam is compromised, nor that removing amalgam fillings has any beneficial effect on health.

http://jdr.sagepub.com/content/69/10/1646.short

Content from external source:

The estimated average daily dose of mercury vapor inhaled from the amalgam restorations was 1.7 μg, i.e., about 1% of the dose obtained from a TLV exposure of 50 μg Hg/m3 air. The threshold limit value (TLV) of a substance is the airborne concentration to which nearly all workers can be exposed eight hours a day, five days a week for prolonged periods without suffering adverse health effects

[Jay Reynolds]

This paper confirms the 10 ug/day figure the Dr. gave, and a resulting 1 ug/day bodily absorption, but the abstract doen't show me how many fillings were present, while Kennedy said one small filling released that amount:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1...?dopt=Abstract

However, the fulmination seen in the video subjectively appears to be far more than 7 nanograms/minute.
The effect seen is a shadow, so the position of the light could be exaggerating the fumes in the same way that, at low angles, your shadow will be be longer.
The smoking tooth video needs to be independently confirmed, maybe using a dried tooth heated only by air.
The Dr. should have responded to that criticism by repeating the experiment in a dry condition.
I noticed the Dr. hadn't done the cockroach experiment. Seems so easy and really would be a great one for a child to do.
He didn't answer, "How could such a vapor emission be sustained for 25 years?"

This doctor says that 7 fillings would cause a person to absorb 1 ug/day, while environment and food exposure contributes 6 ug/day
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0402143746.htm
He also says this:

"Anti-amalgam activists say mercury is soaked into metal powder, like water into a sponge, and can come back out of the fillings, but that's not at all true," Dr. Mackert says. In fact, the evaporation rate of mercury from amalgam is a million times lower than from pure mercury.

If amalgam releases fumes at one millionth the rate of elemental mercury, I would have expected that Dr. Kennedy's video would show far less than the other video of pure mercury, but it doesn't, it shows what appears to be more, and it is rising distinctly faster.

[Jay Reynolds]

(added the important quote).

I'm not sure it's correct though, this video seems to show slightly warmed pure mercury having the same effect.

The suggestion that mercury would sink because it's heavier seems a bit bogus. The vapor (or possibly aerosol) of mercury would be essentially transported by the air it is mixed in. There's not enough of it for the different density to do anything other than very slowly settle out if the air is perfectly calm. Very minor convection currents in the air could cause this effect.

Still, I'd like to see some scientists weigh in on what the "smoke" actually is.

I've seen some comments that the pure mercury video was probably done inside a fume hood, the vapors do seem to head sideways.

[Trigger Hippie]

The ADA prepared a review of research on the amalgam issue. They're saying that low levels of Mercury is released and absorbed, but there is no evidence of detrimental effects.

http://www.ada.org/sections/professi...eview_0907.pdf

If there was a choice when I had my fillings done, I'd rather not get amalgam.

[davidkennedydds]

A. The absorption rate for mercury vapor across lung is 80% when high doses and 100% for low doses.

B. the fillings is "stimulated" as the video explains by heating to 100 degrees Fahrenheit or rubbed with a pencil or scrapped with a knife. Any kind of stimulation makes it spew. The 10 µg was static release of one very small filling in water. Some people have 50 or more surfaces.

C. The EPA's MRL for exposure to mercury is 10 from all sources other than air so amalgams must share that 10 with fish, air and water pollution and all other sources. This exposure not absorbed dose so your calculation of absorption is irrelevant.

D. This doctor you mentioned is Rodway Mackert spokesperson for the ADA. he was invited to the WHO to testify in 1990 as the developed their Criteria Document #118 for mercury about his CALCULATIONS. he did not do any experiments but merely recalculated the results of others to arrive at his minuscule levels of exposure. The expert panel soundly rejected his "estimate" and favored DR. Murray Vimy's. Below is their estimate of daily exposure from the vapor alone. They did not include other species of mercury.

The stated that Rodway's estimate did not fit the empirical data. In other words as you have so correctly pointed out the minuscule amount he estimates would not explain the resulting video or empirical data.

Vimy did a series of MEASUREMENTS on humans and then for ethical reasons continued on animals. The WHO adopted much of Vimy's model and none of Rodway's. I am not surprised you didn't know this as it was adjudicated 22 years ago but as you pointed out the liars haven't stopped. Perhaps the Debunkers can get on them for their falsified message.

You can read the entire WHO criteria document at http://www.inchem.org/documents/ehc/ehc/ehc118.htm

Vimy, M.J., et.al., Estimation of Mercury Body Burden from Dental Amalgam: Computer Simulation of a Metabolic Compartmental Model, Journal Dental Research, v.65, no.12:1415-1419 (December 1986).


Estimated release rates of Hg vapor from dental amalgams permitted calculation of the potential Hg body burden by employing a four-compartment model for inorganic and elemental Hg distribution. A computer program, compatible with most personal computers, simulated the cumulative and incremental distribution in each compartment and total body accumulation between 1 and 10,000 days for different daily Hg dosages. For a given Hg dose of 30 micrograms/day, metabolic compartments R1-R3 were close to equilibrium at 5, 100, and 300 days, respectively; whereas by 10,000 days, R4 closely approximated total body burden and had not yet attained equilibrium. Projected values obtained with the computer model were consistent with results obtained by another method using a standard tissue burden equation, which employed experimentally determined tissue half-lives for blood and CNS. The model predicted that continuous exposure to elemental Hg vapor, at 30 micrograms/day for 10 years, would result in a total Hg body burden of 5.9 mg, of which 4.8 mg could be contained in R4. Assuming that the Hg in R4 displayed uniform distribution throughout the body, then the brain concentration was estimated to be 68 ng/g wet weight. In contrast, if Hg in R4 reflected long-term preferential accumulation in brain and other neural tissue, then concentrations as high as 4.0 micrograms/g could be attained. However, predictions of Hg concentrations in blood and urine were well within established ranges, and were unlikely to be of utility in assessing effects of chronic low-dose Hg exposure.

[davidkennedydds]

So Mick,

Amalgam DOES release mercury vapor, just not very much, not harmful amounts:

What is your source for the unusual claim that the amount of mercury released from set dental amalgam is without harm? Again we are faced with the question of dose and how that compares to the MRL.

[davidkennedydds]

The smoking tooth video needs to be independently confirmed, maybe using a dried tooth heated only by air.

The Smoking Tooth video is a demonstration of what has been known for some time. First reported in 1926 by Alfred Stock and confirmed in Gay et al. 1979 and again in 1981 by Carl Svare. (I can send you some of the papers if you wish)

It has been replicated even by high school students using the OSHA approved technologically advanced equipment of today.

I did that some time ago. You can see a macine designed to eleminate any interference from humidity measure the amount of mercury here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4qvNf...9&feature=plcp

[Mick]

So Mick,


What is your source for the unusual claim that the amount of mercury released from set dental amalgam is without harm? Again we are faced with the question of dose and how that compares to the MRL.

I quoted three papers that said this:
http://metabunk.org/threads/751-Merc...ll=1#post14000

[davidkennedydds]

Sorry Jay I missed your question.

The Dr. should have responded to that criticism by repeating the experiment in a dry condition.

It Really Is Mercury http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4qvNf...9&feature=plcp

I noticed the Dr. hadn't done the cockroach experiment. Seems so easy and really would be a great one for a child to do.

I do not like to handle mercury and the experiment was successfully defended back in 1890. Published in Dental Cosmos. Time to move on and what does it show any? Mercury is bad for roaches?

More importantly amalgams leak mercury and today everyone admits that. When I went to dental school in 1967 I was taught the opposite, that once mixed it formed a stable alloy and zero mercury was released. Now that wasn't true but I didn't have access to this Debunker blog so how was I to know?

He didn't answer, "How could such a vapor emission be sustained for 25 years?"

A. The vapor as Vimy showed in 1985 is intermittent with each chewing event or hot beverage and not continuous. The tail is about 90 minutes to decline back down to baseline.

As to amount here is the Math: Average filling has 750 mg/Hg. EPA Max daily dose from sources other than air is 10 µg. Average person when I was young had 12 fillings almost always made with amalgam. 1 mg = 1000 µg.

750 mg X 12 fillings X 1000 convert to micrograms / EPA 10µg daily allowable = 900,000 days of EPA MAC. 900000/365 days in a year = 2466 Years at the EPA's MAC.

So when dentists try to characterize the amount of mercury released as minuscule think about this: Studies of 10 YO amalgams has documented 25% loss of mercury. Some brands are much higher and as Haley showed in Medical Veritas 2007 the amount released varied by who did it, even between samples done by the same operator and by brand.

Clearly there is plenty of mercury in an average old amalgam to make some pretty startling images.

FYI as the video explained the demonstration is being done by Roger Eichman DDS and not by myself. I truncated the video to make it YouTube length but he took plenty of time explaining where you could buy a Miners Light and the wavelength necessary. He even discussed (lamented) that the reflective screen he so carefully preserved is no longer available but don't worry. My friend Grant Layton found that the ultra white copy paper works pretty well. Not as pretty but you can see mercury vapor with a $10 light from the lighting store.

Dr. Haley taught his chemistry students to do this same experiment and has done it on camera for several TV stations. it is not hard to do. What is hard is to get the liars to stop manufacturing uncertainty about what is obvious.

BTW I am not talking about you but the dental profession as a whole.

Dave

[davidkennedydds]

So we have already discussed the difficulty in proving causation using an ecological model. I can dig out just as many ecological studies that reported finding injury but that is no the point.

In the horribly unethical Children's amalgam Trials the National Institute of Dental Research now known as NIDCR funded a prospective study of orphans to see if mercury damaged their little bodies. When the results of this study were first published in 2006 it was touted as PROVING amalgam harmless. Fortunately the data was available for other scholars to examine. So instead of lumping all the children with amalgam and as a control group a few with amalgam and seeing no striking difference others took the case controlled data and began to separate the children in to 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, etc. Then they compared test results and presto disproportionate harm to boys appeared very obvious

Geier DA, et al., A significant dose-dependent relationship between mercury exposure from dental amalgams and kidney integrity biomarkers: a further assessment of the Casa Pia children's dental amalgam trial. Human and Experimental toxicology 1-7 (2012)

Abstract
Dental amalgams are a commonly used dental restorative material. Amalgams are about 50% mercury (Hg), and
Hg is known to significantly accumulate in the kidney. It was hypothesized that because Hg accumulates in the
proximal tubules (PTs), glutathione-S-transferases (GST)-a (suggestive of kidney damage at the level of PT)
would be expected to be more related to Hg exposure than GST-p (suggestive of kidney damage at the level
of the distal tubules). Urinary biomarkers of kidney integrity were examined in children of 8–18 years old, with
and without dental amalgam fillings, from a completed clinical trial (parent study). Our study determined
whether there was a significant dose-dependent correlation between increasing Hg exposure from dental
amalgams and GST-a and GST-p as biomarkers of kidney integrity. Overall, the present study, using a different
and more sensitive statistical model than the parent study, revealed a statistically significant dose-dependent
correlation between cumulative exposure to Hg from dental amalgams and urinary levels of GST-a, after
covariate adjustment; where as, a nonsignificant relationship was observed with urinary levels of GST-p.
Furthermore, it was observed that urinary GST-a levels increased by about 10% over the 8-year course of the
study among individuals with an average exposure to amalgams among the study subjects from the amalgam
group, in comparison with study subjects with no exposure to dental amalgams. The results of our study
suggest that dental amalgams contribute to ongoing kidney damage at the level of the PTs in a
dose-dependent fashion.
Keywords
Biomarker, dental amalgam

An especially vulnerable subset is a child who is CPOX positive but there are at least 5 other genetic subsets that make mercury more toxic to some than others.

So the question I have is how could they have been so stupid as to have children with amalgams in their so called controls?

Cheating comes to mind.

How could they have been so stupid as to lump all data sets into one when the very reason for doing a case controlled study is so you have individual data?

No I am not saying it was a conspiracy but perhaps a conspiracy of silence or ignorance. You will see below world class researcher James Woods finally "found"" his data and was able to replicate the Geier's work and has now added to it.

So if you want proof beyond doubt that some young children especially boys begin to experience pathophysiological harm after just a few years here you have it.

Content from external source:


CPOX4 modifies mercury neurotoxicity in children

Content from external source:


James S. Woods et al., Modification of neurobehavioral effects of mercury by a genetic polymorphism of coproporphyrinogen oxidase in children. Neurotoxicology and Teratology 34 (2012) 513–521




James S. Woods, Nicholas J. Heyer, Diana Echeverria, Joan E. Russo, Michael D. Martin, Mario F. Bernardo, Henrique S. Luis, Lurdes Vaz, Federico M. Farin, CPOX4 modifies mercury neurotoxicity in children Modification of neurobehavioral effects of mercury by a genetic polymorphism of coproporphyrinogen oxidase in children, Neurotoxicology and Teratology (2012)




Abstract


Mercury (Hg) is neurotoxic, and children may be particularly susceptible to this effect. A current major challenge is the identification of children who may be uniquely susceptible to Hg toxicity because of genetic disposition. We examined the hypothesis that CPOX4, a genetic variant of the heme pathway enzyme coproporphyrinogen oxidase (CPOX) that affects susceptibility to mercury toxicity in adults, also modifies the neurotoxic effects of Hg in children. Five hundred seven children, 8-12 years of age at baseline, participated in a clinical trial to evaluate the neurobehavioral effects of Hg from dental amalgam tooth fillings in children.


Subjects were evaluated at baseline and at 7 subsequent annual intervals for neurobehavioral performance and urinary mercury levels. Following the completion of the clinical trial, genotyping assays for CPOX4 allelic status were performed on biological samples provided by 330 of the trial participants. Regression modeling strategies were employed to evaluate associations between CPOX4 status, Hg exposure, and neurobehavioral test outcomes.


Among girls, few significant CPOX4-Hg interactions or independent main effects for Hg or CPOX4 were observed. In contrast, among boys, numerous significant interaction effects between CPOX4 and Hg were observed spanning all 5 domains of neurobehavioral performance. All underlying dose-response associations between Hg exposure and test performance were restricted to boys with the CPOX4 variant, and all of these associations were in the expected direction where increased exposure to Hg decreased performance. These findings are the first to demonstrate genetic susceptibility to the adverse neurobehavioral effects of Hg exposure in children.


The paucity of responses among same-age girls with comparable Hg exposure provides evidence of sexual dimorphism in genetic susceptibility to the adverse neurobehavioral effects of Hg in children and adolescents.


Introduction


Children are recognized as having heightened susceptibility to the adverse effects of environmental chemicals, as compared with adults with similar exposures (Faustman et al. 2000; Landrigan and Goldman 2011). Of particular concern in this respect are possible neurological deficits associated with mercury exposure (Clarkson 2003; Echeverria et al. 1998; Goering et al. 1992), which may cause impairment of the developing central nervous system along with attendant personality, cognitive function and behavioral disorders (Counter and Buchanan 2004; Davidson et al. 2004; Levy et al. 2004). A current major challenge is the identification of those children who may be uniquely susceptible to Hg-mediated neurological deficits because of genetic predisposition.


Previous studies in adults have identified at least 4 commonly expressed genetic polymorphisms that modify the effects of Hg on a wide range of neurobehavioral functions (Echeverria et al. 2005, 2006, 2010; Heyer et al. 2004, 2008, 2009). Of particular interest in this respect is a single nucleotide polymorphism (A>C) (rs1131857) in exon 4 of the gene encoding an asparagine-to-histidine change at amino acid 272 (N272H) of the heme biosynthetic pathway enzyme, coproporphyrinogen oxidase (CPOX, EC 1.3.3.3). This variant, referred to herein as "CPOX4", both increases sensitivity to the neurobehavioral effects of Hg (Echeverria et al.


2006) and modifies urinary porphyrin excretion as a potential biomarker of this effect (Woods et al. 2005; Li and Woods 2009). The population frequencies of the homozygous wildtype (A/A), heterozygous (A/C) and homozygous mutant (C/C) genotypes within this cohort were 0.72, 0.25, and 0.03, respectively, and were equally prevalent among males and females, suggesting substantial exposure to the CPOX4 variant.


In the present study, we examined the hypothesis that CPOX4 would modify the adverse neurobehavioral effects of Hg exposure in children as previously observed in adults.


Subjects were children and adolescents who participated in a recently completed prospective randomized dental amalgam clinical trial between ages 8-18 and for whom longitudinal (annual) neurobehavioral assessments and quantitative measures of dental amalgam Hg exposure over 7 years of follow-up were available. Additionally, to preclude selection bias possibly associated with those genotyped for CPOX4 per se, we made comparable assessments with respect to second single nucleotide polymorphism located at exon 5 (rs1729995) (G>A) of the CPOX gene encoding a synonymous mutation in the CPOX enzyme (E330E), referred to herein as "CPOX5".


CPOX5 has been previously identified as distributed among men and women within our adult dental population with frequencies of the homozygous common (wildtype), heterozygous, and homozygous mutant alleles of 0.48, 0.43 and 0.09, respectively (Woods et al., 2005). CPOX5 is not known to be in linkage disequilibrium with CPOX4. We made these assessments independently in boys and girls.


Discussion


Numerous studies have proposed a component of genetic susceptibility to neurobehavioral disorders associated with mercury and other xenobiotic exposures (Braun et al. 2006; Gundacker et al. 2010; Engström et al. 2008; Suk and Collman 1998), although the modifying effects of commonly expressed genetic variants on these associations are just beginning to be defined. This is the first study, to our knowledge, to describe a genetic polymorphism that modifies the effects of mercury exposure on a wide variety of neurobehavioral functions in children.


Previous studies provided evidence of significant associations between Hg exposure and the CPOX4 variant on neurobehavioral functions in adult dental professionals (Echeverria et al. 2006), although observed joint effects in that study were found to be strictly additive in nature. The present findings of synergistic, i.e., more than additive, interactions between Hg and CPOX4 on numerous neurobehavioral functions are consistent with potentially heightened susceptibility of children to the adverse neurobehavioral effects of Hg specifically associated with the CPOX4 genetic variant.


The paucity of findings of independent effects of Hg exposure on tests of neurobehavioral function in this study provide some consistency with findings from the dental amalgam clinical trial (DeRouen et al. 2006), in which exposure to Hg from dental amalgam was found not to be associated with deficits in any tests of neurobehavioral performance among either boys or girls.


However, when controlling for CPOX gene status as performed here, Hg exposure was strongly associated with diminished performance across a wide range of the same tests, among boys with the CPOX4 variant.


Diminished performance was most predominantly observed in tests of Attention, suggesting possible impairment of attentional vitality and flexibility, e.g., ability to sustain attention or to shift between 2 sequences held in working memory (Echeverria et al., 2002). Significant interactions between Hg exposure and CPOX4 on tests of Learning & Memory and of Visual-Spatial acuity were also observed, suggesting possible decrements of verbal learning and memory as well as of perceptual cognition. Effects on tests of Motor function, including measures of manual coordination and fine motor speed, also appear to be adversely affected when evaluated within the context of chronic Hg exposure among boys with the CPOX4 variant.


These findings have important public health implications, inasmuch as mean urinary mercury levels among boys in this study ranged from 1.4 (1.3-1.6) mg/g creatinine at baseline to a maximum of 2.2 (1.8-2.5) mg/g creatinine at Year 2 of follow-up in the dental amalgam clinical trial. By comparison, geometric mean urinary mercury levels measured among a nationally representative sample of children 12-19 years of age acquired as part of the 2003-2004 U.S. National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 2007) were 0.358 (0.313-0.408) mg/g creatinine. Although this value is substantially lower than those measured in the present study, the mean urinary Hg concentration in the 90th percentile of that sample was 1.59 (1.13-2.52) mg/g creatinine, comparable to the range of Hg concentrations at which adverse neurologic effects of Hg were observed herein among boys with CPOX4.


These observations suggest potential adverse neurobehavioral effects of Hg among boys with the CPOX4 variant who fall within the top 10% of subjects sampled within that survey for Hg exposure.


The mechanistic association of CPOX4 to neurobehavioral functions remains to be delineated, although potential alterations in physiological heme availability and/or hemedependent processes associated with diminished CPOX4 activity may underlie this effect (Li and Woods, 2009). In this regard, heme is known to play a critical role as a signaling molecule in glutaminergic neuronal receptor processing and synapse development (Chernova et al. 2006; Sengupta et al. 2005), as well as in the regulation of serotonin (5-hydroxytryptamine) synthesis and signaling in the central nervous system (Litman and Correia 1983, 1985). Disorders of both systems have been implicated as etiologic in a variety of neurodevelopmental and neurobehavioral disorders (Chernova et al. 2011; Chugani et al. 1999; Smith et al. 2012), and both could be amenable to disruption by heme deficiency during critical periods of neurological development in children, particularly in association with mercury exposure (Li and Woods 2009). While these observations provide a scientific rationale for the diminished neurobehavioral performance observed here among boys with the CPOX4 variant and Hg exposure, further studies are required to define the specific mechanistic events underlying this association. The absence of effects of CPOX5 on neurobehavioral functions when evaluated in relation to any measure of Hg0 exposure in this study suggests that the CPOX4 variant may act in a genotype-selective manner to mediate the adverse neurobehavioral effects of Hg exposure observed here.


While the potential effects of CPOX5 on CPOX enzymatic activity, heme bioavailability, or processes affecting neurological function are not known, CPOX5 need not be viewed as incapable of affecting biological processes, inasmuch as synonymous SNPs are widely recognized as mediating changes in translation kinetics, protein folding and other factors that underlie a wide variety of neurological and other disorders in humans (Chamary et al. 2006; Duan et al. 2003; Komar 2007). Moreover, the heterozygous and full mutant variants of CPOX5 were distributed quite differentially from those of CPOX4 within this cohort, only 7 subjects (2%) sharing both CPOX4 and CPOX5 variant status, militating against selection bias in terms of findings observed with respect to those with CPOX4. Further research analyzing multiple SNPs within the CPOX gene as well as others associated with heme- ependent neurotransmitter processing pathways is required to identify the mechanisms underlying the apparent selective effects of CPOX4 seen here.


Notable differences between boys and girls in the effects of Hg exposure and the CPOX4 variant on neurobehavioral test performance were observed in this study. Although Hg exposure from dental amalgam was comparable among boys and girls participating in the clinical trial (DeRouen et al, 2006), sex-related differences in Hg toxicokinetics that may afford greater Hg excretion and, consequently, lesser likelihood of Hg retention and accumulation in girls than boys may contribute to this effect (Woods et al. 2007). Numerous other factors that include genetic and hormonal differences affecting brain development, structure and function between boys and girls are also likely to contribute to the gender differences observed here (Gochfield 2007; Hines et al. 2010; Vahter et al. 2007a,b; Valentino et al. 2012). Differences in detection sensitivity for CPOX4 between boys and girls in this study have a less clear explanation, although genetic factors underlying gender differences in numerous psychiatric and neurobehavioral disorders have been reported (Baca-Garcia et al. 2002; Gaub and Carlson 1997; Harrison and Tunbridge 2008; Samochowiec et al. 2004).


The observation that neither Hg exposure nor CPOX4 alone substantially affected neurobehavioral performance in girls suggests that sex-related predisposition, in addition to differences in Hg toxicokinetics, affects susceptibility.


Of note, measures of cognitive function and other behaviors not specifically related to reproduction are often sex- inked, accounting for substantial differences in response to many chemical agents, with subsequent expression in behavior (Weiss 2002). In this respect, many classes of chemicals including dioxins and polychlorinated biphenyls (Weiss 2002), metals (nickel arsenic, lead, cadmium, mercury) (Vahter et al. 2007a,b), pesticides (paraquat, dithiocarbamate, triazole fungicides) (Vahter et al. 2007a), cigarette smoke (Kelada et al 2002); and various classes of drugs (Calabrese 1985) are reported to differentially affect neurologic functions in males and females, both in humans and animal models (Vahter et al. 2007a; Bjorklund et al., 2007; Gochfeld 2007). The sexually divergent responses to Hg exposure and genetic disposition observed in the present study highlight the importance of considering such differences in development of strategies aimed at risk assessment and prevention, especially in children.


Conclusion


the present studies demonstrate significant adverse effects on neurobehavioral functions associated with chronic Hg exposure and the CPOX4 genetic variant among children, with effects manifested predominantly among boys. These findings are the first to describe a genetic polymorphism that modifies the effects of Hg exposure on neurobehavioral functions in children, and suggest directions for future research to define mechanisms underlying differential sensitivity to mercury between boys and girls.

[MikeC]

So boys and girls react differently to chronic Hg exposure.

How do the levels of Hg exposure from mercury amalagam fillings (of which I still have a mouthful!) relate to h levels required to be defined as "chronic", eg these limits in the USA?

[davidkennedydds]

So boys and girls react differently to chronic Hg exposure.

How do the levels of Hg exposure from mercury amalagam fillings (of which I still have a mouthful!) relate to hg levels required to be defined as "chronic", eg these limits in the USA?

The EPA Max daily dose from sources other than air is RfD 10 µg/day. Boyd Haley PhD took 10 samples of a 350 mg mixed amalgam fillings placed by 9 different dentists who packed them into a standardized mold and after it had set for several weeks he placed each filling in small vial of room temperature undisturbed water. Each day he replaced the water and measured the amount of mercury water. He measured 10 µg on average for each filling but also noted a wide variation in the amount released between brands with the modern high copper releasing a lot more than traditional mercury_silver_zinc. He also found variations between dentists and even between samples prepared by the same dentist.

Skare I & Engqvist A.( Amalgam restorations - an important source of human exposure of mercury and silver. LÄKARTIDNINGEN 15:1299-1301, 1992) found with an average load of amalgam restorations considered to be 32 surfaces: Excretion of total Hg via urine = 2.5 µg/24hour.Excretion of total Hg via feces = 263 µg/24 hour.

So when some dentist tells you deceptively that the amount of mercury you get from fillings is insignificant be sure to ask him/her for a reference from the scientific literature where minimal mercury was MEASURED. Sure ADA spokesperson Mackert estimates a small amount but since people with multiple amalgams are excreting several times more mercury than he "estimates" from their urine, his estimate is obviously contrived. (conflicts of interest comes to mind)

In addition since the majority of mercury is excreted through bowel (80%) Skare certainly lays to rest the dentists pet theory that exposure is insignificant.

EPA's RfD is for exposure thus having even one amalgam in your mouth that you never chewed on would exceed that. New RfDs by Richardson have recently been published in the risk assessment literature and it is likely that even the 10 µg is significantly higher than in currently thought to cause harm.

Now one caveat, DO NOT RUSH OUT AND GET THE SOME CARLESS DENTIST TO REMOVE THOSE MERCURY FILLINGS.

First watch Safer Amalgam Removal

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MgIUr...6&feature=plcp

Then find a dentist who will do this much or more to protect you and the staff as required by OSHA.

[MikeC]

No need to shout.

As I read your figures above I see that excretion rates for mercury of over 250 micrograms/day, but no figure for the amount of mercury presumed to be given off.

You do mention 10 micro-grams for 1 filling at one point - is that per day? Per hour? Per what?

If it is per day then presumably I could happily have 25 such fillings and my body would be able to excrete that mercury with no great problem from the data you give. I have many more than 7 teeth with no fillings or replaced by dentures, so have less than 25 teeth filled, so what is the problem?

[davidkennedydds]

Dear MikeC,

I shouted because that shout was (is) a very real warning and I am serious. Having Mercury/silver fillings represent a chronic mercury exposure. On the other hand placement or removal is an acute exposure that is well above the level that is immediately hazardous to health ( 100 µg/M3) according to the US Occupational Safety and Health (OSHA). I just don't want anyone else to step out of the frying pan into the fire. I hope you understand.

I am not sure where you assume you could have 25 fillings as in double the number Skare cited and not expect to eventually experience one or more symptoms of mercury intoxication.

According to the WHO and the US EPA there is no absolutely safe level of exposure to mercury. There may be a level that does not show immediate detectable harm but due to the nature of mercury there is harm. We just do not yet have sufficient tools to measure it in everyone. However, for those who fall into vulnerable subsets Echeverria and Woods documented harm to cognitive and motor function at very low urine levels well below the levels found in amalgam bearers.

(Echeverria D, Woods JS, Heyer NJ, Rohlman DS, Farin FM, Bittner AC, Jr., Li T, Garabedian C: Chronic low-level mercury exposure, BDNF polymorphism, and associations with cognitive and motor function. Neurotoxicol Teratol 2005; 27(6):781-796.)

In addition the horribly unethical Children's Amalgam Trials have now documented a similar injury to vulnerable CPOX children in just 5 to 7 years. One can only speculate what damage will accumulate in the 50 or more. Perhaps that explains why 1 in 9 Americans has some sort of kidney dysfunction.

James S. Woods et al., Modification of neurobehavioral effects of mercury by a genetic polymorphism of coproporphyrinogen oxidase in children. Neurotoxicology and Teratology 34 (2012) 513–521

Your individual dose can however be estimated if you so desired through some simple tests if your physician has the right equipment and understanding. If you check the Physicians Desk Reference it describes a DMSA challenge to measure your output after a drug that removes mercury from tissue sulfur. The problem with measuring blood or urine in a static system is that mercury quickly leaves the blood and accumulates in organs where it can exert its toxic effects. Example until you shake the tree you don't know how many apples may fall. WHO estimated that a person with 12 fillings was exposed to 17 micrograms on average. Problem is some are more than average especially if you eat hot foods or chew gum. (WHO Criteria Document #118 table 2)

You cannot extrapolate from Dr. Haley's simple test-tube experiment to the conditions of the mouth. he did as little as possible to not stimulate the fillings. if you've watched Smoking Teeth then you know that any kind of stimulation make the fillings spew. Therefore your personal exposure is highly dependent on how much you stimulate those fillings.

[MikeC]

And yet here I am, 53 years old, with a mouthful of amalgam fillings from the 60's and 70's, no measurable mercury in my system - yes I've been tested.

[Jay Reynolds]

The Smoking Tooth video is a demonstration of what has been known for some time. First reported in 1926 by Alfred Stock and confirmed in Gay et al. 1979 and again in 1981 by Carl Svare. (I can send you some of the papers if you wish)

It has been replicated even by high school students using the OSHA approved technologically advanced equipment of today.

I did that some time ago. You can see a macine designed to eleminate any interference from humidity measure the amount of mercury here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4qvNf...9&feature=plcp

Dr. Kennedy,
Here is what you are doing in the video:


What I see is that you have placed a meter designed to measure ambient air quality for mercury which reads in ug/m³.
Per cubic meter.

When you scratch the filling, the meter reads 116 ug/m³ which you compare with an environmental limit of 100 ug/m³.

What I see in the video, however, is not ambient air sampling. You are sampling a very small volume nearly touching the filling, and possibly pulling in other substances.

I occasionally use a similar meter to measure ambient air quality for confined space entry of workers into tanks, looking for O2, CO, H2S, and flammable vapors.

The problem I see with the claim you make in the video, that the 116 ug/m³ gives a representative or even meaningful measurement of mercury being released is that the meter is sampling the same small volume over and over as it runs, and is being held so close to the filling that whatever is being released is concentrated into that very small volume.

It does appear that your action has caused some reading on the analyzer, but I must say that your methodology and the conclusions you make are unfounded and skewed by the way you ran the experiment.

I see that someone else has made a similar comment on your video.

This method delivers inaccurately high numbers because the equipment is designed to be used in a large space - not applied directly to a surface. The equipment applies suction, dislodging conductive materials on the tooth and further skewing the results. It is not evidence that the vapor shown in silhouette contains any amount of mercury.

Though you have been regularly making responses, curiously for that comment you made none. Why not?

Also, in the video you show that mercury is not released from a tooth at ambient room temperature.
You previously told me that mercury vapor would kill a cockroach exposed to amalgam at (presumably) room temperature.
You use that as an anecdotal frequently, yet you never repeated that experiment yourself.

If mercury is not released in a detectable amount at room temperature, how could it kill the cockroach?

You seem like an intelligent man, Dr. Kennedy. I'm not sure why you would put out these videos which have some obvious problems and grossly exagerrate what is seen by the average viewer.
I can only conclude that you are doing this for propaganda value.

For that reason alone, I now reject all of your claims. I don't abide even a 'small' amount of dishonesty because I find that when a person is dishonest about small things it becomes habitual and they are just as likely to do the same for big ones.

Yes, that is being judgemental but I have a right to make that call for myself. Results may vary for others.

[davidkennedydds]

And yet here I am, 53 years old, with a mouthful of amalgam fillings from the 60's and 70's, no measurable mercury in my system - yes I've been tested.

That is incredible! In fact virtually impossible! Did they do a challenge or merely a blood, urine, or fecal test. The reason I ask is that simple tests never measure mercury that is sequestered in tissues.

BTW I am not surprised you've reached the grand old age of 53 and are unaware of any disorder. The dentists that have been tested in numerous studies were perfectly confident that they were fine as well. However, careful neurological examination following a DMPS challenge found a dose dependent impairment. That is why we use scientific measurements of brain activity instead of using blunt measures such as simple survival.

Seriously, I'd be interested to know how the mercury was measured because fi you listen to the media we've got a lot of mercury in our foods especially fish and air so it seems unlikely with 25 fillings and breathing for 53 years you could have avoided all exposure. And no all mercury is not excreted. That is the problem. 27 years is the half-life for mercury in brain but sadly no challenge will measure that because once in it takes a fat soluble chelator to get it out and there are none on the market today.

[Mick]

I'm 45, and had mercury fillings from age 10 to age 35 when they were gradually replaced in the course of other work. My brain is fine, anecdotally. And my overall health did not improve between ages 35 and 45.

What I'm really interested in though, David, is hearing your response to Jay's post above. It seems like that's a pretty key part to the whole "smoking tooth" issue.

[Mick]

According to the WHO and the US EPA there is no absolutely safe level of exposure to mercury. There may be a level that does not show immediate detectable harm but due to the nature of mercury there is harm. We just do not yet have sufficient tools to measure it in everyone.

The CDC seems to disagree:

http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/ToxProfiles/tp46.pdf

Content from external source:

Estimates of human Minimal Risk Levels (or MRLs) have been made for mercury. An MRL is defined as an estimate of daily human exposure to a substance that is likely to be without an appreciable risk of adverse effects (noncarcinogenic) over a specified duration of exposure. Although the term, MRL, may seem to imply a slight level of risk, MRLs are, in fact, considered to represent safe levels of exposure for all populations, including sensitive subgroups. MRLs are derived when reliable and sufficient data exist to identify the target organ(s) of effect or the most sensitive health effect(s) for a specific duration within a given route of exposure. MRLs are based on noncancerous health effects only and do not consider carcinogenic effects. MRLs can be derived for acute, intermediate, and chronic duration exposures for inhalation and oral routes. Appropriate methodology does not exist to develop MRLs for dermal exposure.

[davidkennedydds]

If mercury is not released in a detectable amount at room temperature, how could it kill the cockroach?

As you pointed out the mercury was released in easily detectible levels when stimulated and even when placed under water unstimulated. Perhaps you missed it but the cockroach was in a matchbox so those extraordinarily high readings would not be diluted by cleaner air and thus the cockroach was exposed to lethal levels.

[davidkennedydds]

When you scratch the filling, the meter reads 116 ug/m³ which you compare with an environmental limit of 100 ug/m³.

This is an incorrect statement. The current "Environmental" standard for mercury in air is 0.3 µg/m3. The EPA under Ruckelshaus originally proiposed a 1 µg/m3 standard in 1973. After a baby became severely mercury poisoned in 1992 they realized that their current standard was not protective and then administratively changed the 1 to an 8 hour level and 0.03 to the 24/7 level.

The 100 µg/m3 level is one that is applied by Occupational Safety and health that is "immediately hazardous to health and never to be exceeded even instantaneously".

[Mick]

This is an incorrect statement. The current "Environmental" standard for mercury in air is 0.3 µg/m3. The EPA under Ruckelshaus originally proiposed a 1 µg/m3 standard in 1973. After a baby became severely mercury poisoned in 1992 they realized that their current standard was not protective and then administratively changed the 1 to an 8 hour level and 0.03 to the 24/7 level.

The 100 µg/m3 level is one that is applied by Occupational Safety and health that is "immediately hazardous to health and never to be exceeded even instantaneously".

And clearly your tests demonstrate that this limit is NOT exceeded.

The real question is what the actual intake of mercury is, not some badly and misleadingly measured level in the air at one point in space and time.

[davidkennedydds]

What I see in the video, however, is not ambient air sampling. You are sampling a very small volume nearly touching the filling, and possibly pulling in other substances.

What you say is absolutely correct but you've totally missed the purpose of the demonstration. This video response was made to refute the nay sayers who continually misrepresented the mercury vapor coming from a 25 YO amalgam filling easily seen in my video Smoking Teeth. This complaint was (is) untrue on its face since water is not visible at 253.7 nm light and only mercury vapor is. I had repeatedly pointed this out but the nay sayers kept reading up on the Laidler's incorrect comments on the internet and then repeating them. Although 4 scientists responded with referenced documentation and took Laidler to task for his incorrect comments he has refused to remove then thus I was forced to arrive at yet another way of showing that "It Really Is Mercury" hence the video you've watched.
Do you agree that a Jerome mercury Vapor Analyzer would not read anything if there were not mercury present in some amount?

If that answer is yes then lets go on to your next assertion.

If not then please first review Wikipedia's description of atomic absorption if you are not already familiar with this analytical method and the wavelength necessary to show elemental mercury vapor and we can discuss that first if you prefer.

[davidkennedydds]

It does appear that your action has caused some reading on the analyzer, but I must say that your methodology and the conclusions you make are unfounded and skewed by the way you ran the experiment.

Two points:

1. It is a demonstration and not an experiment as this phenomenon has bees shown since the 1800's so it is hardly called an experiment since we already know the outcome.

2. The conclusion I made is that mercury is released in easily measurable amounts from old mercury/silver amalgams when stimulated.

Can we not agree on that?

[Jay Reynolds]

Do you agree that a Jerome mercury Vapor Analyzer would not read anything if there were not mercury present in some amount?
.

No, because I have read the manual for the Jerome mercury vapor analyzer.

[Mick]

I don't think anyone is really contesting that mercury fillings give off some mercury vapor, some of which is inhaled.

The question is what is the average daily uptake from this, and is it dangerous? There are plenty of studies on this topic. The "smoking tooth" video is just showmanship.