Mercury is a highly toxic metal, but our fillings contain 50% Mercury. Is new research justified in showing they are a health risk?
To quote from this article which seems to be a well balanced investigation into the literature by a layman.
According to WHO 1991 the primary sources of Hg in the human body arewe know that:
- dental amalgam fillings consist of 50% mercury
- mercury leaks from the fillings
- mercury is highly toxic and
- low grade chronic mercury intoxication can give rise to symptoms as; anxiety, irritability, fatigue, outbursts of temper, stress intolerance, decreased simultaneous capacity, loss of self-confidence, indecision, headache, depression, metallic taste etc...
we do not know:
- if the amount of mercury released from dental amalgam is enough to cause illness, even in the most exposed or the most sensitive minority of the amalgam-bearing population.
Fish 3 ug/day and Dental Amalgams 3-17 ug/day although this can be as high as 100 ug/day if gum is chewed or if that person grinds his teeth.
This is about 1/5-1/200 of the dose (100-600 ug Hg / day) where, sub-clinical to clinical, health effects, on a group level, have been reported in persons occupationally exposed to inorganic mercury.
However the US recommendation of a safe limit of mercury is 10 ug Hg/day which is exceeded by those with dental amalgams.
The ADA and BDA both repute this:
(This bit seems a bit weird in that I was taught that there is no chemical reaction when metals are alloyed:
"chemically binds these components into a hard, stable and safe substance")
Transcript of BBC documentary from 1994 shows work of other researchers.
Mercury was first used in fillings about 150 yr ago as a cheap alternative to Gold. There were grave misgivings from dentists at the time that such a toxic substance was being introduced to the human body, but over time the view changed to that the amalgam bound the mercury so that there would be no significant release of mercury.
Again this is a subject that has been hijacked to some extent by the alternative health loonies, but it does seem that the dental establishment's view that it is 100% safe does not bear scrutiny.
I am particularly please we now have a general science forum and I would be interested to hear other BAUTs views.