[plug] Do Linux users have their teeth filled?

[Rick]

This information may be of interest, if you, or your loved ones, have any
fillings. If you would like to investigate it further you can go to the
following URL. If not, then at least read this post. It is bound to make
you have a rethink about the safety of your fillings.

http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/pcsol/Homepage.htm


TOXIC TEETH: THE CHRONIC MERCURY POISONING OF MODERN MAN. 
By Murray J. Vimy. (Extracted from his web page)
[Dr. Vimy has published a number of peer reviewed medical research papers
and has presented lectures
on his research internationally at universities and professional symposia.
He has also acted as a
scientific consultant to the World Health Organization as a member of the
1989 Task Group on
Inorganic Mercury in the Environment and to Health and Welfare Canada. Dr.
Vimy continues to
maintain an active research program with a primary focus on the release,
metabolism and
pathophysiological effects of mercury released from dental amalgam tooth
fillings. He also teaches
Oral Biology and Dental Medicine at the University of Calgary Medical
School, where since 1984 he
has been the principal dental instructor appointed to the undergraduate
medical curriculum.]
Are mercury-based fillings slowly poisoning their owners? Evidence suggests
that, far from being
the best material to use in the mouth, these fillings should be banned.
The issue of mercury exposure from dental "silver" fillings has gained
considerable notoriety in general
media during the last decade. Specific attention has focused on the
potential for human health
consequences and the general well-being of the global environment. The
modern silver amalgam
(amalgam meaning mixed with mercury), traditionally known as a "silver"
filling, has been employed as
the principal tooth restorative material for over 180 years and presently
accounts for 75-80% of all tooth
restorations.[1] These "silver" fillings contain approximately 50% mercury
by weight, 35% silver, 13%
tin, 2% copper and a trace of zinc.[2] Each tooth restoration has a mercury
mass of about 750-1000 mg
and should more properly be called a mercury filling. They have a
functional life of approximately 7-9
years, after which they are usually replaced with another mercury
filling.[3,4] Hundreds of metric tonnes
of mercury are placed into teeth world wide each year and some of this
material, as particulate waste
from the dental office, finds its way into the sewerage and refuse systems.
Within the dental profession, the issue of mercury filling safety has
cyclically recurred. After the
introduction of the modern dental amalgam in 1812 by a British chemist, a
"silver paste", which a
combination of silver filings from coins and mercury, became fashionable
for tooth restoration. Since the
coins were not pure, expansion of the material often resulted in tooth
fracture and/or a "high bite". In
America during the 1800s, concern regarding the possibility for mercury
toxicity caused the American
Society of Dental Surgeons to make mercury usage an issue of malpractice,
mandating that its members
sign an oath not to use mercury-containing materials. However, mercury
fillings usage increased because
it afforded an economic advantage to those dentists employing it; it is
user friendly; and because of its
durability in the mouth. By 1856, the American Society of Dental Surgeons
was forced to disband due to
dwindling membership over the mercury filling issue. In its place arose the
American Dental Association,
founded by those who advocated silver amalgam - mercury use in
dentistry.[5-7] Again in the 1920s, a
controversy erupted after the publication of articles and letters by a
German chemistry professor, who
attacked mercury filling usage for possible toxic effects.[8-13] That
debate abated and the dental
profession's opinion still remains unchanged.
Today, 182 years later, the American Dental Association has amended its
Code of Ethics to make the
removal of serviceable mercury fillings an issue of unethical conduct, if
the reason for removal is to
eliminate a toxic material from the human body and if this recommendation
is made solely by the
dentist.[14] In the American Dental Association's view, a dentist is
"ethical" to place the mercury material
and recommend its safety. But, if the dentist suggests that the mercury
fillings are potentially harmful or
that exposure to unnecessary mercury can result, then the dentist is acting
"unethically". Clinically
serviceable mercury fillings can be "ethically" removed if: done for
aesthetic reasons; the request of a
physician; or at the patient's request (without prompting). ***
Release of mercury from dental fillings. Mercury vaporizes continuously
from dental fillings, being
intensified by chewing,[15,16] tooth brushing [17] and hot liquids.[18]
After mastication or tooth
brushing ceases, it takes almost 90 minutes for the rate of vaporization to
decline to the lower prechewing
level (Fig. 1).16 Also, the greater the number of fillings and the larger
the chewing surface area, the larger
the mercury exposure.[15,16] Thus, the average individual is on a roller
coaster of mercury vapor
exposure during the day. Breakfast will cause the release rate to increase
and just as the rate is slowing
again it is time for the midmorning coffee break. Lunch, mid-afternoon
coffee or tea, the evening meal,
and a snack before bedtime all contribute to the daily exposure to mercury
from dental fillings.
It is estimated that the average individual, with eight biting-surface
mercury fillings, is exposed to a daily
dose uptake of approximately 10 micrograms mercury per day from dental
fillings.[19] Select individuals
may have daily doses 10 times higher (100 micrograms per day) because of
which exacerbate the mercury
vaporization. Some of these factors are: frequency of eating, chronic gum
chewing, chronic tooth
grinding behaviour (usually during sleep), the chewing pattern of the
individual, consumption of hot
foods and drinks, mouth and food acidity.[16] Corroborating human autopsy
evidence [20-22] showed
that brain and kidney tissues contained significantly higher mercury in
individuals who had mercury
fillings. Furthermore, the concentration of brain mercury in the subjects
with mercury fillings correlated
with the number of these fillings present.
The historically espoused opinion of dentistry insists that, once mixed,
the mercury is locked into the
fillings.[23] The aforementioned body of experimental evidence suggests
that their opinion is totally
without merit. Despite these replicated research findings, many national
dental associations still claim that
mercury fillings are safe.[24] They base their conviction on the anecdotal
facts that mercury fillings have
been used for over 150 years, billions of fillings have been placed, and
they do not see sickness or death
from the mercury exposure.[25] But, the diagnosis of mercury toxicity lies
outside the purview of
dentistry, falling more appropriately within the jurisdiction of medicine.
Dental institutions do not have
the scientific expertise or the resources to undertake the necessary
studies to scientifically resolve this
issue. Thus, the issue of mercury filling safety has not been suitably
addressed until recently, when
academic medicine became aware of this insidious exposure to mercury. From
the medical perspective,
dental amalgam fillings are a significant mercury source, having potential
medical consequences.
Tissue uptake of mercury from dental fillings. Recent investigations in
sheep and monkey animal models
demonstrate that dental mercury accumulates in all tissues of the adult,
being highest in the kidney and
liver. This accumulation is so extensive that it can be visualized on a
whole-body image scan. [26,27]
Research also shows that a high level of dental amalgam mercury in monkey
kidney is still present at one
year after mercury filling placement. [28] Also, mercury from dental
amalgam will cross the placenta and
begin accumulating in the developing fetus within two after the filling
placement in pregnant sheep and is
highest in the fetal liver then the kidney. The mother's milk also showed
evidence of mercury, suggesting
that the newborn would have an additional exposure to mercury.[29] Recent
human chelation studies
show a association between urinary mercury excretion and the presence of
mercury fillings.[30-33] For
example, one study showed that, after a chelation challenge with DMPS,
urinary mercury excretion is
significantly higher from subjects with mercury fillings than from those
with no such fillings. It was
concluded that at least two-thirds of the excreted mercury originates from
the dental restorations.[30]
On the basis of the research cited here, there is now international
scientific consensus that the mercury
from dental tooth restorations constitutes the largest non-occupational
source of mercury in the general
population, being greater than all other environmental sources combined!
[34-36] Yet, the dental
profession still insists, without evidence, that the exposure is
insignificant and has no potential to produce
harm.
Pathophysiological consequences of mercury from dental fillings. During the
last several years, medical
research has demonstrated a relationship between mercury exposure and
pathophysiology in various
animal models. In sheep exposed to mercury from in situ tooth fillings,
kidney function has been shown
to be impaired. After 30 days of chewing the sheep lost 50% of their kidney
filtration ability; they began
to have difficulty regulating sodium and they demonstrated a reduced
albumin excretion. Control sheep
teated with non-mercury dental fillings did not show such effects.[37] In a
study of 10 humans with
mercury fillings, it was demonstrated that the plasma mercury level dropped
by 50% and the urinary
mercury level declined by 25% over a twelve month interval after filling
removal compared to the
pre-removal level. Most notable was the finding that 12 months after
removal, the urinary albumin level
was significantly higher than the level 4 months prior to removal.[38] In
the sheep, the placement of
mercury fillings caused a fall in the urinary albumin, signifying renal
pathophysiology. In humans, the
removal of mercury fillings results in an elevation in urinary albumin,
indicating a renal homeostatic
readjustment. The agreement between this sheep and human data is remarkable.
In a recent collaborative paper between three North American universities,
it was demonstrated in a
primate model that oral and intestinal bacteria (eg. streptococci,
enterococci, enterobacteriaceae) exhibit a
significant increase in mercury and antibiotic resistance within two weeks
following mercury filling
placement.[39] The mercury resistant bacterial species exhibited resistance
to various antibiotics such as,
ampicillin, tetracyclines, streptomycin, kanamycin, erythromycin, and
chloramphenicol, which they had
not demonstrated prior to placement.. This is the first direct experimental
confirmation of a non-antibiotic
factor, mercury, producing antibiotic resistance. This occurs because in
some bacteria mercury-resistance
and antibiotic-resistance are encoded adjacent small genetic sites within
plasmids. [40] When exposed to
environmental mercury, this genetic material is activated to protect the
bacteria from the lethal mercury.
The plasmid is also replicated and passed on to other bacteria, insuring
species survival. In so doing, the
antibiotic resistance also spreads to the other bacteria. Antibiotic
resistance is a important issue in
medicine today. [41] It has been estimated that 80% of mercury-resistant
bacterial strains also show an
increased resistance to one or more conventional antibiotics. Thirty
percent of all hospitalized patients in
North America receive antibiotic therapy [42] and antibiotics compromise
10% of the total $5.1 billion
drug sales in Canada during 1992. [43] Moreover, ten of the top 20 generic
drugs prescribed during 1990
in the U.S.A. were antibiotics. [44] Yet, antibiotics appear to be losing
their clinical potency and stronger
antibiotic medications at increasing dosages are necessary to combat many
common infections.[41]
Recently, investigations have suggested that mercury may be involved in
common brain pathologies and
that the source of the mercury is likely the dental fillings [45-47] In a
human autopsy study, tissue from
persons having Alzheimer's Disease at death were compared to an age-matched
group of control brains
from subjects without Alzheimer's Disease. The only significant difference
in metal content between the
two groups was mercury, being considerably higher in the Alzheimer group.
The mercury concentration
was prominent in the hippocampus, the amygdala and particularly in the
nucleus basalis, all brain
structures involved in memory function. Other metals examined were not
significantly different in the
two groups of subjects. The effect of mercury on cental nervous system
neuron membrane integrity has
been examined and shown that mercury specifically affects tubulin, a brain
neuronal dimer protein
responsible for proper microtubule formation of brain neurons.48 Both in
vivo and in vitro experiments
demonstrated that mercury chelated to amino acids maintains an abnormal
polymerization state of
tubulin. This effect may produce neurofibrillar tangles. Such tangles are a
recognized lesion of
Alzheimer's Disease. Inorganic mercury affects ADP-ribosylation of the rat
brain neuronal proteins
tubulin, actin and B-50, in both in vivo and in vitro experiments. [49]
ADP-ribosylation is the rate
limiting process involved in polymerization of tubulin and actin monomers
into the structure of the
neuron membrane. Most recently, our laboratory demonstrated that ionic
mercury and elemental mercury
vapour markedly diminishes the binding of tubulin to GTP and thus inhibits
the polymerization of
tubulin which is essential for the formation of microtubule in the central
nervous system [50] These
studies are direct quantitative evidence for a connection between mercury
exposure and
neurodegeneration.
Other investigations have examined the mercury hypersensitivity from dental
amalgam in patients with
and without oral lichen planus lesions. [51-53] These studies showed that
patient groups having oral
lichen planus had a much higher incidence of mercury patch-test reactivity
(16-62%) than did control
groups (3-8%). Removal of the mercury fillings resulted in amelioration of
the oral symptoms.
Governmental regulatory action concerning mercury fillings. In 1987, the
government of Sweden
commissioned an "expert panel" to evaluate the available evidence regarding
mercury filling safety. The
panel concluded that mercury fillings were "unsuitable from a toxicological
point of viewBased on this
panels advice, the Swedish Socialstyrelsen announced that steps would be
taken to eliminate dental
amalgam usage and recommended that comprehensive mercury filling treatment
on pregnant women
should be stopped to prevent mercury damage to the fetus. [54] Shortly
thereafter, the German Ministry
of Health (Bundesgesundheitsamt, BDA) issued an similar advisory. [55] In
October of 1989, the Swedish
Director of Chemical Inspection (KEMI), responsible for environmental
protection, declared that
amalgam would be banned. [56] In January of 1992, the German Ministry of
Health (BDA) informed
manufacturers of its intention to ban the production of amalgam. [57] The
BDA removed low copper
non-gamma-2-amalgam from the market and published a pamphlet recommending
avoiding mercury
filling use in individuals with kidney disease, children to age 6, and
pregnant women. [58] In August of
1992, the Swedish government suggested a timetable to phase out mercury
fillings. Environmental
concerns were used as the official reason for amalgam discontinuation, but
the government did
acknowledge the toxicological risk to patients and stated that mercury
fillings should no longer be used in
children by July 1993, in adolescent to age 19 by July 1995, and in all
Swedish citizens by 1997. [59] The
Austrian Minister of announced that the use of mercury fillings in children
would be banned in 1996 and
discontinued in all Austrians by the year 2000. [60] In 1994, the Swedish
Dental Association
acknowledged that its leadership had previously been incorrect in their
position regarding mercury filling
safety. They now support a discontinuation of mercury use in dentistry.
[61] Other industrialized
countries, for what ever reason, appear to be side stepping the issue.
Conclusions. As one might expect, the dental profession has not responded
well to these data. Some
national dental associations have attempted to influence public and
governmental opinion by endorsing
quasi academic symposia pervaded with amalgam advocates. These gatherings
are non-consensus
meetings often under government auspices, where the moderators responsible
for drawing the
conclusions are typically inclined toward the prevailing dental orthodoxy
and the conclusions reached
often blatantly disregard the experimental data presented. [62] Most
damning to the dental profession is
that they have not advanced any reputable experimental evidence of their
own to support their belief in
mercury filling safety The medical research evidence has been clear for
some time. Dental amalgam -
mercury fillings - constitute a significant source of chronic exposure to
mercury in the general
population. This exposure is unnecessary and can not be justified by
risk/benefit analysis. While
incriminating medical research continues to be published, the dental
profession persists in placing itself in
the untenable predicament of advocating an anecdotal position of mercury
filling safety. The mercury
filling advocates can be criticized for their shortage of supporting
research evidence; however, so can
many mercury filling opponents, who irresponsibly go far beyond the limits
of the experimental data, by
suggesting that miraculous cures will occur after removal of the fillings.
Still, the mercury exposure from
dental silver amalgam is toxicologically significant and research into its
possible effects is at an early
stage. Perhaps a 1000 years from now, historians will look back and draw
comparisons between the
chronic lead poisoning of the Roman Empire and the insidious mercury
poisoning from our toxic teeth.
Bibliography:
1. Baurer, J.G. and First, H.A., Calif. Dent. Assoc. J., 1982, 10, 47-61.
2. Skinner, E.W. and Phillips, R.W., The Science of Dental Materials, 6th
ed., Philadelphia: W.B.
Saunders Co., 1969., Chapt. 20, p. 303 and Chapt. 22, p. 332.
3. Paterson, N., Br. Dent. J. 157, 23-25.
4. Phillips, R.W., Hamilton, A.I. Jendresen, M.D. McHorris, W.H., and
Schallhorn, R.G., J. Prosth. Dent.,
1986, 55, 736-772.
5. American Academy of Dental Science, A history of dental and oral science
in America. Philadelphia:
Samuel White, publ., 1876
6. Bremmer, D.K., The story of dentistry, revised 3rd ed. Brooklyn: Dental
Items of Interest Publishing
Co Inc., 1954
7. Ring, M., Dentistry, an illustrated history. Harryu N. Abrams Inc.,
Publisher, New York, 1985.
8. Stock, A., Z Angew Chemie, 1926, 39, 984-989.
9. Stock, A., Z Angew Chemie, 1928, 41, 663-72.
10. Stock, A., Z Anorg Allgem Chemie, 1934, 217, 241-53.
11. Stock, A., Naturwissch, 1935, 28, 453-6.
12. Stock, A., Arch Gewerbepath Gewerbehygie, 1936, 7, 388-413.
13. Stock, A., Ber Dtsch Chem Ges, 1939, 72, 1844-57.
14. American Dental Association, Principle of ethics and code of
professional conduct., section l-J;
Representation of care and fees, 211 E. Chicago Avenue, Chicago IL U.S.A.,
60611.
15. Vimy, M.J. and Lorscheider, F.L., J. Dent. Res., 1985, 64, 1069-71.
16. Vimy, M.J. and Lorscheider, F.L., J. Dent. Res., 1985, 64, 1072-5.
17. Patterson, J.E.; Weissberg, B.G.; and Dennison, P.J., Bull. Environ.
Contam. Toxicol., 1985, 34.
459-68.
18. Fredin, B., Swed. Dent. J., 1988, 3, 8-15.
19. Vimy, M.J., and Lorscheider, F.L., J. Trace Elem. Exper. Med., 1990, 3,
111-123.
20. Schiele, R., Schellman, B., Schrodle, R. and Schaller, K.H., Amalgam
aussagen von medizin und
zahnmedizin; symposium, Koln, West Germany, March 1984, Abst. D29.
21. Nylander, M., Friberg, L., and Lind, B., Swed. Dent. J., 1987, 11,
179-187.
22. Eggelston, D.W. and Nylander, M., J. Prosth. Dent., 1987, 58, 704-707.
23. ADA News, Editorial and accompanying patient handout on the safety of
dental amalgam., American
Dental Association, Jan. 2, 1984.
24. Truono, E.J., Letter of Importance, J. Amer. Dent. Assoc., 1991, 122,
8-14.
25. American Dental Association News Release, 1990
26. Hahn, L.J., Kloiber, R., Vimy, M.J., Takahashi, Y., and Lorscheider,
F.L., FASEB J., 1989, 3,
2641-2646.
27. Hahn, L.J., Kloiber, R., Leininger, R.W., Vimy, M.J., and Lorscheider,
F.L., FASEB J, 1990, 4,
3256-3260.
28. Danscher, G. Horsted- Bindslev, P. and Rungby, J., Exp. Mol. Path.,
1990, 52, 291-299.
29. Vimy, M.J., Takahashi, Y., and Lorscheider, F.L., Amer. J. Physiol.,
1990, 258, R939-R945.
30. Aposhian, H.V., Bruce, D.C., Alter, W., Dart, R.C., Hurlbut, K.M. and
Aposhian, M.M., FASEB J.,
1992, 6, 2472-2476.
31. Gerhard, I., Waldbrenner, P. Thuro, H. and Runnebaum, B., Clin. Lab.,
1992, 38, 404-411.
32. Zander, D., Ewers, U., Freier, I., and Brockhaus, A., Zbl. Hyg.
Umwelt., 1992, 192, 447-54.
33. Zander, D., Ewers, U., Freier, I., and Brockhaus, A., Zbl. Hyg.
Umwelt., 1992, 193, 318-328.
34. Clarkson, T.W., Hursh, J.B., Sager, P.R., and Syversen, T.L.M., In:
Biological Monitoring of Toxic
Metals (Clarkson, T.W., Friberg, L., Nordberg, G.F., and Sager P.R., eds.),
Plenum Press, New York.,
1988, 199-246,
35. Vimy, M.J., and Lorscheider, F.L., J. Trace Elem. Exper. Med., 1990, 3,
111-123.
36. World Health Organization, Environmental Health Criteria 118, Inorganic
Mercury., WHO, Geneva,
1991, 36.
37. Boyd, N.D., Benediktsson, H., Vimy, M.J., Hooper, D.E., and
Lorscheider, F.L., Am. J. Physiol.,
1991, 261, R1010-R1014.
38. Molin, M., Bergman, B., Marklund, S.L., Schutz, A. and Skerfving, S.,
Acta Odontol. Scand.,
1990, 48, 189-202.
39. Summers, A.O., Wireman, J., Vimy, M.J., Lorscheider, F.L., Marshall,
B., Levy, S.B., Bennett, S. and
Billard, L., Antimicrob. Agents & Chemother., 1993, 37, 825-834.
40. Gilbert, M.P. and Summers, A.O., Plasmid, 1988, 20: 127-136.
41. Cohen, M.L., Science, 1992, 257, 1050-1055.
42. Gilman, H.G., Rall, T.W., Nies, A.S. and Taylor, P. Goodman and
Gilman's: The Pharmacologic Basis
of Therapeutics, 8th ed., Pergamon Press, Elmsford, New York, 1990, p. 1018.
43. Intercontinental Medical Statistics, IMS, Canada, 1992.
44. Pharmacy Times, April 1991, 58.
45. Khatoon, S., Campbell, S.R., Haley, B.E. and Slevin, J.T., Ann.
Neurol., 1989, 26, 210-215.
46. Thompson, C.M., Markesbery, W.R., Ehmann, W.D., Mao, Y-X. and Vance
D.E., Neurotoxicology,
1988, 9, 1-7.
47. Wenstrup, D., Ehmann, W.D. and Markesbery W.R., Brain Res., 1990, 533,
125-131.
48. Duhr, E., Pendergrass, C., Kasarskis, E., Slevin, J. and Haley, B.,
FASEB J., 1991, 5, A456.
49. Palkiewicz, P., Zwiers, H. and Lorscheider, F.L., J. Neurochem., 1994,
62, 2049-2052.
50. Lorscheider, F.L., Vimy., M.J., Pendergrass, J.C. and Haley, B.E.,
Abst. presented at the 12th
International Neurotoxicology Conference, Univ. Arkansas Med. Center, Hot
Spring, AR, Oct.30 - Nov.2,
1994.
51. Finne, K.; Goransson, K.; and Winckler, L., Int. J. Oral Surg., 1982,
11, 236-9.
52. Lundstrom, I.M.C., Int. J. Oral Surg., 1983, 12, 1-9.
53. Mobacken, H.; Hersle, K.; Sloberg, K.; and Thilander, H., Contact
Dermatitis, 1984, 10, 11-5.
54. Socialstyrelsen (Sweden, Social Welfare and Health Administration).
Redovisar; kvicksilver/amalgam
halsorisker. Allanna Forlaget AB, Stockholm, 10 32-39, 1987.
55. Bundesgesundheitsamt (Germany, Ministry of Health), Machine Design, p.
274, August 25,1988.
56. KEMI (Sweden, Chenical Inspection Agency), Amalgam will be banned.
Dagens Nyheter, October 6,
1989.
57. Bundesgesundheitsamt (Germany, Ministry of Health), Letter to
pharmacetical companies, January 29;
Artezeitung (Physician's Daily), March 3, 1992
58. Bundesgesundheitsamt (Germany, Ministry of Health), Amalgame -
nevbenwirkungen und bewertung
der toxizitat, Zahnartzt Woche (DZW), 1992, 8, 1.
59. Socialstyrelsen (Sweden, Social Welfare and Health Administration),
Press Release. August 28, 1992.
60. Austrian Minister of Health, Austria to be amalgam free by year 2000.
FDI Dental World,
March/April, 1993, p. 6.
61. Swedish Dental Association, Swedish News Bureau, TT, January 17, 1994.
62. Lorscheider, F.L. and Vimy, M.J., FASEB J., 1993, 7, 1432-1433.




Cheers
Rick

E=Mail    - rickd at iinet.net.au
Home Page - http://opera.iinet.net.au/~rickd/index.html