Amalgam is the single greatest

Source of Mercury

For anyone with Amalgam Fillings

^{[i],[ii],[iii],[iv],[v],[vi],[vii],[viii],[ix],[x],[xi],[xii],[xiii],[xiv],[xv],[xvi],[xvii],[xviii],[xix], [xx],[xxi],[xxii],[xxiii],[xxiv],[xxv],[xxvi]}

---

Criteria 118

In 1991 the World Health Organization published Criteria 118 Environmental Mercury Exposure.[i]

This was the first time that dental amalgam had been regarded as a dietary source of mercury and was included in the assessment.  WHO stated that the following amounts of mercury are ingested as an average daily intake:

Dental Amalgam therefore contributes 6 X more mercury than all other sources combined including seafood, in this 1991 assessment.

By 2003 the World Health Organization raised the stakes further:

“Dental amalgam constitutes a potentially significant source of exposure to elemental mercury, with estimates of daily intake from amalgam restorations ranging from 1 – 27 mcg/day …”

Note that the daily intake figure has now increased from a maximum of 17 mcg Hg/day to 27 mcg Hg/day.  This means that dental amalgam is now considered by the WHO, to constitute a dietary source of mercury which is 10 times greater than all other sources combined.   WHO also state;

---

No Observed Effect Level – NOEL

No Observed Effect Level (NOEL) – is the greatest concentration or amount of an agent, found by experiment or observation, that causes no detectable adverse alteration of morphology, functional capacity, growth, development or life span in an organism, system or (sub) population.  [i]  It is sometimes described as the No Observable Adverse Effects Level.

WHO stated in Criteria 118 that the

“NOEL for mercury is ZERO. ”

0

In other words, there is no level of mercury vapour which can be considered safe.

Any miniscule amount of mercury will have observable negative physiological effects. Mercury does not differentiate between colour, race or religion.  It is the great equalizer of humanity.  We all get the same disease.

To this day, the dental associations still make the claims that seafood is the greatest source of mercury to the general population.  The official WHO figures are ignored by these private trade organizations.

---

[i] http://www.fsra.net/glossary.html

[i] International Program on Chemical Safety (Environmental Health Criteria 118). IPCS (1994) Assessing human health risks of chemicals: Derivation of guidance values for health-based exposure limits. Geneva, World Health Organization, International Program on Chemical Safety.

Maximum Allowable Levels of Mercury Vapour

USA and Australia

OSHA   Occupational Safety & Health Authority   Time Weighted Average 40hr/week   USA & Australia – this includes dental surgeries.	50 mcg/m3
EPA   Environmental Protection Agency.   USA & Australia.     All other humans	0.3 mcg/m3
ATSDR   Agency for Toxic Substances & Disease Registry  -USA      transient exposure to this level produces observable physiological change.	0.02 mcg/m3   Transient Exposure

mcg/m³ = micrograms per cubic meter

OSHA surveys found 6-16% of U.S. dental offices exceed the OSHA dental office standard of 50 mcg/M³. Most office mercury levels were found to far exceed the U.S. guidelines for chronic mercury exposure.  And now you can redo the math because at present the OSHA TWA for mercury vapour in Alberta USA has been dropped from 50mcg/m³ to 25mcg/m³.  That’s right – they halved the maximum allowable for a work situation.

---

Exceeding the maximum allowable levels, by HOW MUCH?

Maximum Allowable Hg Vapour mcg/m3	6 amalgam fillings Oral Vapour concentration 30-120 mcg/m3	Opening a mixed amalgam capsule      1000 mcg/m3	Drilling amalgam fillings 4000 mcg/m3
OSHA    50	2x	20x	80x
EPA       0.3	400x	3,333x	13,333x
ATSDR  0.02	6,000x	50,000	200,000

New German Reference Levels

For blood  1mcg/l

For Urine  0.7mcg/l

Levels higher than this are regarded as Mercury Poisoning

Many of the older studies that looked at the mercury levels in blood and urine, used reference levels that were at least double the German Reference levels. Many countries still use the higher levels as reference levels of mercury poisoning. At one stage the reference level for Urine Mercury was 20mcg/L – not 0.7mcg/L as is now the German reference level.

1991 World Health Organization Criteria 118

the No Observable Effects Level for mercury vapour is ZERO

There is no level of mercury vapour that does not produce observable physiologic change.

there is NO safe level of mercury vapour.

References

[i] M.J.Trepka et al, “Factors afftecting internal mercury burdens among  German children”, Arch Environ Health, 1997, 52(2):134-8

[ii] “Mercury concentrations in the human brain and kidneys and exposure from amalgam fillings”, Swed Dent J 1987; 11:179-187

[iii] & Schupp, Riedel et al, “Amalgamfullungen auf die Quecksilberkonzentration in menschlichen”, Organen.Dt.Zahnarztl.Z. 1992; 47:490-496.

[iv] K. Ott et. al. “Mercury burden due to amalgam fillings”  Dtsch. Zahnarztl Z

39(9):199‑205, 1984;

[v] J.Abraham,C.Svare, et al. “The effects of dental amalgam restorations on Blood Mercury  levels”. J. Dent.Res. 1984; 63(1):71‑73.

[vi] Sam Queen; Chronic Mercury Toxicity- New Hope  Against an Endemic Disease.  http://www.bioprobe.com; & F.L.Lorscheider et al, “Mercury exposure from silver tooth fillings: emerging evidence questions a paradigm”, FASEB J 9:504-508,1995.

[vii] D.Zander et al,   “Mercury mobilization by DMPS in subjects with and without amalgams”,  Zentralbl Hyg Umweltmed, 1992, 192(5): 447-54(12 cases);

[viii] G.Drasch et al,” Silver Concentrations in Human Tissues: the Dependence on  Dental Amalgam”,J Trace Elements in Medicine and Biology,9(2):82-7,1995

[ix] L.I.Liang et al, “Mercury reactions in the human mouth with dental amalgams” Water, Air, and Soil pollution, 80:103-107.

[x] J.Begerow et al,”Long-term mercury excretion in urine after removal of amalgam fillings”,  Int  Arch Occup Health 66:209-212, 1994.

[xi] I.Skare et al, Swedish National Board of Occupational Safety and Health, “Human Exposure to Hg and Ag Released from Dental Amalgam Restorations”, Archives of  Environmental Health 1994; 49(5):384-394.

[xii] F.Berglund, Case reports spanning 150 years on the adverse effects of  dental amalgam, Bio-Probe, Inc.,Orlando,Fl,1995;ISBN 0-9410011-14-3(245 cured)

[xiii] P.Hultman et al,Dept. Of Pathology, Linkoping Univ., Sweden,”Adverse immunological effects and immunity induced by  dental amalgam” FASEB J 8:1183-1190, 1994; & Toxicol Appl Pharmacol, 1992, 113(2):199-208. .

[xiv] D. Zander et al,”Studies on Human Exposure to Mercuy Amalgam Fillings”, Ubl Hyg, 1990,  190: 325-

[xv] F.L.Lorscheider et al, “Inorganic mercury and the CNS: genetic linkage  of mercury and antibiotic resistance”,Toxicology,1995,97(1): 19-22

[xvi] M.C.Roberts, Dept. Of Pathobiology, Univ. Of Washington, “Antibiotic resistance in oral/respiratory bacteria”, Crit Rev Oral biol Med, 1998;9(4):522-

[xvii] M.L Olsted et al, “Correlation between amalgam restorations and mercury in urine”, J Dent Res, 66(6):    1179-1182,1987.

[xviii] D.Brune et al, Scand J Dent Res, 1983,19:66-71 & Sci Tot Envir,1985,44:…; &

“Metal release from dental materials”,  Biomaterials, 1986, 7, 163-175.

[xix] M.J.Vimy and F.L. Lorscheider, Faculty of Medicine, Univ. Of Calgary, July 1991. (Study findings) &   J. Trace Elem. Exper. Med., 1990,3, 111-123.

[xx] F.L. Lorscheider et al, Lancet, 1991, 337,p1103.

[xxi] Quecksilber-Mobiliztion durch  DMPS bei Personen mit und ohne Amalgamfullungen”,  Zahnarztl. Mitt, 1989, 79(17): 1866-1868

[xxii] M.Daunderer, H.Schiwara, et al, Quecksilber, Methylquecksilber, … in Korpermaterial von Amalgamtrager”, Klin Lab 38, 391-403,1992; & M.Gradl et al, in Akute und chronische Toxizitat von Spurenelemente, Wissenschaftliche Verlagsgesellschaft nbH, Stuttgart, 1993, p65-71

[xxiii] A.Gebhardt, Ermittlung der Quecksilberbelastung aus Amalgamfullurngen,  Labormedizin 16,384-386,1992

[xxiv] & R.Mayer et al, “Zur Ermittlung de Quecksilberfreisetzung aus Amalgamfullungen”, Die Quintessenz  45, 1143-1152,1994

[xxv] H.V.Aposhian et al, “Mobilization of Mercury in Humans by DMPS”, Envir.   Health Perspectives, Vol 106, Supp. 4, Aug.1998

[xxvi] “Urinary Mercury after Administration DMPS”, FASEB J., 6: 2472-2476, 1992.