davidkennedydds (November 13, 2008 at 6:58 pm)

You can read below how difficult it is for Dentist 7ub3s to get his mercury addled head around some simple math.

If 4 fillings make children pee out 4 micrograms and if kidneys are only able to capture 1/5 of the daily dose then the children must be exposed to 20 micrograms per day.

The EPA's Adult minimum risk level for mercury is 10 micrograms per day therefore, dental amalgam poses an unacceptable risk especially to vulnerable subsets such as women of child bearing age and her fetus.

davidkennedydds (November 13, 2008 at 6:53 pm)

You, the ADA and Mackert all claim a mouth full of amalgam (12) gives a daily dose of slightly more than one microgram (NOT Mg).

When orphan children were implanted with just 4 mercury fillings they began to urinate out 3 to 4 micrograms per day. Kidney's at most eliminates 20% of the daily intake.

Therefore, if you or Mackert are correct these children should urinate at most 0.1 microgram.

They don't.

WHO in 1990 stated, "Mackert's (your) calculations do not fit the empirical evidence.

davidkennedydds (November 13, 2008 at 6:40 pm)

Go get the old book or look on the package of amalgam you obviously have been sniffing. The MANUFACTURER lists those ingredients. What is your point. Are you now trying to claim there is no mercury in a mercury filling?

7ub3s (November 13, 2008 at 12:43 am)

So it's a conspiracy?

7ub3s (November 13, 2008 at 12:42 am)

My point was the book is saying something different than what you referenced to.

elementaljoe (November 12, 2008 at 9:13 pm)

Your battle is one of, I suppose, myriads. In every conceivable way, humankind is poisoned and harmed. A core question is, why do we ask "how much poison is OK," rather than "why are we accepting any poison at all?" We lean in the wrong direction, and why is that? Not just at the level of a dentist who has sacrificed so much for what he has, but at the highest and lowest places in society. I hope to see this critical analysis and re-evaluation take place in my lifetime.Keep the faith.

davidkennedydds (November 12, 2008 at 7:52 pm)

Thanks for the compliment;-)

As you can read I have to work at helping others understand what is happening in dentistry and how to protect themselves.

I shouldn't have to but the fact remains that many dentists are still deceiving their patients by merely reciting the mantra that mercury and fluoride are safe and effective and refusing to address the toxicological profile for any of the materials they use.

elementaljoe (November 12, 2008 at 7:09 pm)

Thank you David. I'm new to blogging, Youtube, myspace, etc., and this video and its blog represent the most outstanding example of committed service i've seen.Thanks again.

davidkennedydds (November 12, 2008 at 6:45 pm)

The Children's Mercury Poisoning Studies JAMA, Vol. 295 2006 confirmed harm from amalgam despite their conclusions. Subsequent studies have repeatedly confirmed the harm to kidneys and selective harm to boys. Barregard Enviro Health Per. 2008

Office of Human Research Protection letter May 2, 2007 ruled that the Portuguese study was in deed unethical. I told the investigators the same thing before they damaged their first orphan. Shame on ignorant dentists who use children as experimental rats.

davidkennedydds (November 12, 2008 at 6:30 pm)

Epidemiology is a blunt research tool that will only show trends and cannot determine causation. To arrive at causation I generally believe that you should have at least three levels of evidence with epidemiology to indicate trends.

Second laboratory studies of the reaction in solutions, bacteria and cell cultures to confirm plausibility. The next level is case controlled double blind human experiments which in the case of a poison is highly unethical. (Next post on unethical dental research)

davidkennedydds (November 12, 2008 at 6:16 pm)

Nevertheless pick up a box of mercury/silver filling material and read it. It says in plane language exactly how much mercury is in each capsule.

what's your point?

davidkennedydds (November 12, 2008 at 6:12 pm)

1.7 mg = 1700 micrograms or 170 times the EPA's maximum daily intake from sources other than air.

It is unconscionable to still attempt to use occupational workplace standards as an excuse for human exposure. Who among us would believe that a job handling hazardous waste materials is safe for women and children?

Would you allow your child to attend a school where fumes from a hazardous waste dump leaked int the classroom? I think not.

Are the workplace standards are not based on safety.