The amalgam manufacturer, Caulk, states in their MSDS for amalgam and mercury:
Intrauterine exposure may result in tremors and involuntary movements in the infants. Mercury is excreted in breast milk. Paternal reproductive effects and effects on fertility have been reported in male rats following repeated inhalation exposures.
Mercury and Reproduction Studies – most abstracted (208 Human and 124 Animal) 1990 – 2012 PDF
How much mercury is injected into pregnant women and newborn children with vaccination?
In 1990 a landmark study was published, which to this day in 2021, is still ignored by the dental associations and the dental establishment at large. This was the first time a study like this had been done. Scientists radioactively labelled mercury before they mixed it into amalgam fillings. The radioactively labelled fillings were then placed into the chewing surfaces of the teeth, of 5 pregnant sheep. [1] A dental team, operated on the teeth, while an Obstetrics team cannulated the amniotic fluid and the mother’s blood. They all wore full hazmat protective clothing. The animals were sacrificed after 14 days which was the half-life of the radioisotope that was used.
Whole body gamma scans graphically revealed distribution of mercury throughout the sheep’s bodies. There was only one place this radioactively labeled mercury could have come from – the amalgam fillings in the sheep’s teeth. In such a system it is possible to look for both mercury and/or the radioactive label.
Mercury levels reached a peak in the amniotic fluid (the fluid around the developing foetus), maternal blood and foetal blood within 48 hours.
The mercury was found in all tissues of the mother and the foetus. In the foetus the highest levels were in the liver and pituitary gland in the developing brain.
Mercury levels in the foetal blood were four times higher than maternal blood levels.
High mercury levels were also found in the mother’s breast milk!
The mercury, escaping from the set amalgam fillings, went to every cell in the mother’s body, crossed the placenta and went to every cell in the developing foetus and crossed into the breast milk, which would then have gone to the newborn.
Despite the fact that this was published in the American Journal of Physiology and widely peer reviewed, the findings were disputed by the dental associations. Their most serious criticism was based on the notion that sheep chew more than people, and were therefore not a good model for humans. According to Prof. Vimy, the lead author of the study, there were two very good reasons that sheep were chosen as the ideal study model. Firstly, because they are chewing machines! They never stop chewing. If you don’t see mercury in the sheep, there is little chance of seeing it in any other model. Secondly, sheep are a common, well established model for obstetric experiments.
To counter the criticism, the study was repeated on a more acceptable human model – ONE monkey. The researchers felt using more than one was unethical under the circumstances. This time the research was published in the Journal of the Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology, FASEB.[2] The scientific community worldwide rates this journal as the most respected sources of scientific research. At the time it had an editorial board with six Nobel Lauriats.
The findings were the same – the mercury was distributed to every cell in the monkey’s body.
These studies are unique in their faultless design and also in the variety of results that emerged. Not only did they show that mercury from amalgam goes to every cell in the body, but also that it easily crosses both the placenta and into breast milk. Of great concern, it also showed that the foetus was the main storage area for the mercury. The newborn then increased its mercury intake while suckling on the mother’s milk.
Many human studies have since demonstrated the same fact, that mercury from the mother’s fillings will be stored preferentially in the foetus and newborn infant.
The next landmark study was published in 1994 by Prof Gustav Drasch,[3] Professor of Forensic Medicine at Munich University, who conducted autopsy studies on a number of prematurely deceased foetuses, infants and children.
The study examined tissue samples from 46 foetuses aborted for medical reasons, and 108 children of ages 1 day to 5 years, who had died suddenly and were mostly diagnosed as victims of Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (SIDS).
The startling finding in this study was the significant correlation of the foetal mercury levels in the liver, kidney cortex and cerebral cortex, with the number of dental amalgam fillings in the mouths of the mothers. This dramatic human autopsy study confirms findings in three previously published animal studies. [4]
“Conclusion: Future discussion on the pros and cons of dental amalgam should not be limited to adults or children with their own amalgam fillings, but also include fetal exposure. The unrestricted application of amalgam for dental restorations in women before and during the child bearing age should be reconsidered.”
The study was conclusive.
The amount of mercury
in the bodies of the dead children
was directly proportional to
the Number of Amalgam Fillings
in their Mother’s Mouths!
Again, dental associations in England, America, Canada and Australia criticized it as a seriously flawed study and totally dismissed it. (The critical flaws have never been demonstrated.)
This same (Critically flawed) study was the impetus for the German Government to immediately issue stringent recommendations about the use of mercury amalgam. (It took another 10 years for the Australian NHMRC to issue similar warnings based on the same study.)
“…the number of Amalgam fillings for the individual patient should be as few as possible, since each amalgam filling contributes to the human mercury Load.
Dental amalgam is contraindicated for retrograde root fillings, as a filling material under cast crowns, and when there will be occlusal or proximal contact with cast dental restorations.
On the basis of preventive health protection, no placement of additional amalgam fillings during pregnancy. Based on the contribution of amalgam fillings to the total human mercury load and the possible higher sensitivity of the prenatal organism towards mercury, a strict risk benefit evaluation should be made for amalgam use in girls and women of fertile age. Alternative materials should, if possible be the preferred choice.”
In 1994 this was a massive step. The dental world was confronted not only with the evidence, but also by the real & responsible action of the German Government. I doubt that any government would base such recommendations on seriously flawed research.
The same researchers published again in 1995, the results of a very similar study.[5] This time they looked for silver rather than mercury in the dead children’s bodies. They looked at 160 deceased foetuses and newborns. The silver also comes from the amalgam fillings – no other place. What they found was exactly the same. The amount of silver in the bodies of the children was in linear proportion to the number of amalgams in the mother’s mouths!
In September 2020, the FDA in America finally put out a warning on amalgam a full 16 years after Germany;
FDA now advises against its use in pregnant and nursing women, women who plan on getting pregnant, children, and people with pre-existing neurological conditions, impaired kidney function, or sensitivities to mercury or other components of amalgam.
It begs the question;
If it is not safe for this group of people, then who is it safe for?
Mercury originating from the mother’s amalgam tooth fillings, transfers across the placenta to the foetus, and also across the mammary gland into milk, ingested by the newborn, and ultimately into neonatal body tissues. [6],[7],[8],[9],[10],[11],[12],[13],[14], [15],[16],[17],[18], [19],[20]
The amount of mercury in the foetus and newborn is directly related to the number of amalgams in the mother’s mouth. If you want to do the best for your baby, have your amalgams replaced a year or so before becoming pregnant. (in an ideal world where things are able to be planned). DO NOT DO THIS DURING PREGNANCY!!! This goes for dad as well as mum! No matter what the safety precautions used in the dental surgery, it is still potentially hazardous for the baby.
“Placement and removal of “silver” tooth fillings in pregnant and lactating humans will subject the foetus and neonate to unnecessary risk of Hg exposure.” [21]
In fact, there is far greater accumulation in the foetus than in the mother.[22] This is particularly true in situations of increased mercury exposure, such as amalgam removal or placement. [23] ,[24] This was also demonstrated in the sheep model from 1990 discussed earlier. The same applies to your dentist polishing your amalgams while pregnant.
Polishing an amalgam will dramatically increase the amount of mercury entering your body. This video graphically demonstrates the mercury vapour coming form a set, 25 year old amalgam filling.
Knowledge about mercury poisoning is not new. (Only our current professors are new).
100 years ago in Germany it was known that:
“In women, there will be inflammations of the outer genitals, vaginal catarrhs and disturbances of menstruation. That there is a tendency to miscarriage during chronic mercurialism is well known from the toxicology of mercury” [25]
In research published in 2018 Lars Bjorkman and his co-authors discovered a “statistically significant association between the number of teeth filled with dental amalgam and the risk of perinatal death.”
The study involved over 72,000 pregnant women which is statistically significant in anyone’s language! [26] The more amalgam the mother has, the more mercury will go to the foetus and the higher the risk of still births. This completely supports the work of Dr Gustav Drasch in 1994, who demonstrated the linear relationship between the number of amalgams in the mother’s mouth, and the amount of mercury in the deceased foetuses and newborns.279 As you are about to read, this study supports most of the earlier research and statements by groups like the EPA.
Mercury from amalgam causes birth defects and reproductive harm. Even the Superior Court of California agrees. (So too do the governments of Germany, Sweden, Austria and several other countries. In fact, so does the World Health Organization and the Environmental Protection Agency.) In 2003 the Superior Court of California, passed legislation that all dental surgeries had from then on to display the following warnings, According to their Proposition 65. ( which basically says that anyone who is about to be poisoned with anything, must be warned.)
“Warning on dental amalgam, used in many dental fillings, causes exposure to mercury, a chemical known to the state of California to cause birth defects or other reproductive harm.
Root canal treatments and restorations including fillings, crowns and bridges, use chemicals known to the state of California to cause cancer.” [27]
“…mercury will travel easily across the placenta and be stored in huge quantities in the foetus. We know that there will be an increased concentration of mercury in the foetal kidney, with increasing number of amalgam fillings in the mother’s mouth.” [28]
“Dental fillings containing metallic Hg are the primary source of inorganic Hg contamination of humans. … In 56.5% of low-fish-eating mothers, the amount of Hg likely to be ingested by breast-fed infants is above the World Health Organization reference.” [29] (my Italics)
If the WHO reference is exceeded by eating small quantities of fish, and amalgam supplies ten times more mercury than the average fish diet, then logically the amount of mercury entering the foetus from the mother’s amalgam, far exceeds the WHO reference level!
Mercury will affect reproductive systems of both men and women.[30]
Infertility is common and well documented. In males, mercury can have adverse effects on the production of sperm and testicular weight. [31] It has been shown to cause reductions in sperm counts across all species including humans. [32],[33] Low doses of only 5ppm, are known to cause abnormal development off cells and a reduction in sperm motility. [34] There may be enough mercury in sperm at the time of conception to create birth defects. [35],[36] Selenium, which is strongly bound by mercury, is one of those essential elements needed for sperm production and sperm motility.
Evidence also exists linking mercury with erectile dysfunction. [37],[38],[39],[40],[41] That alone, should be a good reason for men to get their amalgams replaced. I have had many patients whose libido and function have been restored after amalgam replacement. It was in fact, one of the most reported of symptoms and improvements from my male patients. The partners rarely commented on these improvements, but they did look a lot happier. There are so many ways that mercury may have a detrimental effect on relationships.
Mercury has been shown to inhibit the release of Follicle Stimulating Hormone and Luteinizing hormone from the anterior pituitary. [42] This can then affect oestrogen and progesterone levels and cause ovarian dysfunction, painful and irregular periods, and premature menopause. There is also good evidence linking mercury with abnormal bleeding, short, long, and irregular periods and painful periods.[43]
Always remember that if you have amalgam in your mouth, you are exposed to high levels of mercury. Female dental personnel have featured in many studies on the effects that mercury has on reproduction. Can you imagine an industry which is permitted to expose its female workers, to levels of mercury that could be 80 times above OSHA maximums, and over 1000 times above EPA maximum levels? DENTISTRY DOES THIS EVERY DAY! Dental nurses are exposed to horrific levels of mercury. This is the reason that dental nurses have twice the level of infertility, miscarriage, and birth defects to the rest of the population. They also show increased rates of menstrual problems. [44] It may be time for the dental nurses to start a class legal action – perhaps then the universities and associations may start to listen. Why is it that OSHA has no guts to regulate for this industry?
Female dental personnel must take great care to minimize or eliminate their exposure to mercury. Female dental personnel should NEVER mix or assist in the placement of mercury amalgam!
“Exposure to mercury vapour or inorganic mercury compounds can impair fertility in laboratory animals. To study the effects of mercury vapour on fertility in women, eligibility questionnaires were sent to 7000 registered dental assistants in California. The final eligible sample of 418 women, who had become pregnant during the previous four years, were interviewed by telephone. Detailed information was collected on mercury handling practices and the number of menstrual cycles without contraception it had taken them to become pregnant. Dental assistants not working with amalgam served as unexposed controls. Women with high occupational exposure to mercury were less fertile than unexposed controls. The fecundability (probability of conception each menstrual cycle) of women who prepared 30 or more amalgams per week and who had five or more poor mercury hygiene factors was only 63% of that for unexposed women after controlling for covariates.”
Rowland AS Baird DD Weinberg CR Shore DL Shy CM Wilcox AJ The effect of occupational exposure to mercury vapour on the fertility of female dental assistants [see comments] Occup Environ Med (1994 Jan) 51(1):28-34
See the Effects of Mercury on Dental Personnel
In another study female squirrel monkeys were exposed to varying levels of mercury vapour during pregnancy:
“There was a dose related increase in abortion rate and perinatal mortality in the exposed monkeys compared to unexposed controls.”[45]
In 1984 the US Environmental Protection Agency stated:
“Women chronically exposed to mercury vapour experienced increased frequencies of menstrual disturbances and spontaneous abortions.” “A high mortality rate was observed among infants born to women who displayed symptoms of mercury poisoning.”[46]
This is born out again with research from 2018, which looked at 64 pregnant dental nurses and 60 unexposed pregnant controls. They found, as earlier studies have found, that
“Pregnant dental staff suffered higher odds of developing spontaneous abortion and pre-eclampsia and giving birth to babies smaller for gestational age. This may be linked to oxidative stress induced by exposure to mercury.” [47]
An increased prevalence of abnormal menstruation was found in mercury-exposed workers in China. The researchers went so far as to suggest that dysmenorrhea may be a useful biomarker for assessing female exposure to mercury occupationally. [48],[49] (Dysmenorrhea – severe uterine pain during menstruation.)
Mercury has a profound effect on the structure of our very chromosomes and the DNA which builds our cells and passes our information on to the next generation.[50],[51],[52],[53] Because it can damage DNA, there is a significant increase in mutations and birth defects, as well as cancer. [54],[55],[56],[57],[58],[59],[60],[61],[62]
Are you starting to get the idea that some of this information should have been made public a long time ago? As a dentist I can only wonder why I was not taught this at university. Birth defects, autism, cancer and the list goes on. Of course, amalgam is not the only source of mercury. It is just the largest source for most of us. It is not the only cause of disease. It is just one of the most overlooked of causes. It is not the only environmental toxin, but it is the one continually placed and injected into our bodies by the ‘Healing Professionals’ of dentistry and medicine. To me this constitutes a bit of a problem.
Remember that there is no lower limit beyond which physiological effects do not happen. [63] If you have amalgam in your mouth, you will be affected by the mercury that comes from it. So too will the foetus, who will preferentially store that mercury in the pituitary gland and thus affect all endocrine functions in the body, for the rest of its life! [64],[65],[66],[67],[68],[69],[70],[71]
High copper amalgams, introduced in the mid-1970s, the state-of-the-art amalgam material, releases up to 50% more mercury than the older formulations, and have a dramatic effect on the integrity of chromosomes. [72] Mercury at low concentrations induces DNA single-strand breaks in human cells. [73] This results in cell death! There is a linear relationship between the induction of these Single Strand Breaks by mercury and the production of reactive oxygen species. DNA damage is enhanced in cells depleted of glutathione or in cells in which superoxide dismutase is inhibited.[74]
Low concentrations of lead and mercury are Mutagenic – capable of causing mutations. It may also (but does not necessarily) act as a carcinogen which causes cancer. [75],[76] It is known that fluoride in drinking water, will leach lead from the solder that was used in older solder joints on water pipes. There is a synergistic relationship of the toxicity of both metals. When combined the toxicity will increase about 100 times compared to that of the individual metals alone!
A woman’s ova are formed when she is still a foetus, i.e. a woman’s eggs are formed when she is still in her mother’s womb. What if the chromosomal information in these eggs were to be affected by mercury? The effect may not be seen till the grandchild’s generation!
Surely this information alone is enough to warrant the banning of mercury amalgam fillings. After all, it didn’t take long to get rid of thalidomide. This dental information is more than a hundred and fifty years old! It is being ignored!
There are many references demonstrating that mercury from amalgam will cause infertility in both men and women. [77],[78],[79],[80],[81],[82],[83],[84],[85],[86],[87],[88],[89],[90],[91],[92],[93], [94],[95],[96],[97],[98],[99],[100],
There are many references demonstrating that mercury causes birth defects.
[101],[102],[103],[104],[105],[106],[107],[108],[109],[110],[111]
Fetotoxicity
“The level of Mercury in liver, kidney and brain tissue
of deceased Foetus, new-born and young children
is DIRECTLY Proportional to
the Number of Amalgam Fillings
in the Mother’s Mouth.” [113]
Toxicity to the foetus can present as miscarriage, spontaneous abortions, stillbirth, and low birth weights.[114],[115] It can cause a vast range of birth defects. [116]
In 1990 The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry in the USA stated,
“Long-term exposure to either organic or inorganic mercury can permanently damage the brain, kidneys, and developing fetuses.” They go on to say “Short-term exposure to high levels of inorganic and organic mercury will have similar health effects”.
When the mother is exposed to, and inhales mercury vapour, the level of mercury in the foetus will be higher than the level in the mother. Dental amalgams are the main source of mercury in breast milk. Milk increases the bioavailability of mercury and mercury is often stored in breast milk and the fetus at much higher levels than that in the mother’s tissues. Just as the level of mercury in the fetus is directly related to the number of amalgams in the mother’s mouth, so too is the amount of mercury found in breast milk. In fact one study showed that if more than 7 fillings are present in the mouth, the amount of mercury in the breast milk is 10 times that of amalgam free mothers.[117]
This study is further evidence that prenatal exposure to mercury vapour is more harmful than prenatal exposure to methyl mercury, which is well acknowledged to be fetotoxic. … This study provides even more evidence that unborn babies should be protected from exposure to mercury from the amalgam fillings of their mothers. [118]
Mercury can inhibit foetal brain development, resulting in cerebral palsy and psychomotor retardation in the latter stages of development. [119],[120] Developmental, learning, and behavioural effects have been found from mercury vapor, at much lower levels than for exposure to methyl mercury. [121],[122] Mercury exposure during pregnancy has also been linked to neural tube defects, craniofacial malformations & delayed growth.
Methyl Mercury (MeHg) damages the brain of the foetus. Foetal autopsies indicated a generalized hypoplasia (under development with a lower number of cells in that part of the brain) of the cerebellum, decreased number of nerve cells in the cerebral cortex, marked decrease in total brain weight, abnormal neuron migration, and deranged organization of brain centres. [123],[124]. Many go on to develop infantile cerebral palsy. Elemental mercury is methylated in the mouth and the gut to produce Methyl mercury.
Babies may be born with a variety of birth defects including mental retardation, deformed limbs, hyper salivation, epileptic seizures, and growth disorders aside from many others.[125]
There are many studies demonstrating that mercury causes severe and sometimes irreversible learning deficits. [126],[127],[128],[129],[130],[131],[132],[133],[134],[135]
Remember that there is a much higher accumulation of mercury in the foetal brain tissue than in the maternal brain tissue. [136],[137]
Added to the disastrous effects mentioned above, there is also the possibility that a child so exposed, will be born with an increased sensitivity to mercury well after birth. When ever more mercury, is injected into the infant in various vaccines, some of these pre-sensitized babies can develop more serious complications than those less sensitized individuals. Thus, the pre-sensitized child will have just that little extra mercury coming with every swallow of milk. The resulting learning deficits are well documented in the literature. [138],[139],[140],[141],[142],[143],[144],[145],[146] [147],[148]
“Exposure during pregnancy will affect children’s development later on in life …. The exposure to mercury in the womb may not cause clinically defined sickness as does exposure from major mercury disasters, but it does lead to a shift in children’s intellectual capacities….”[149],[150]
In 2005 the Journal of Environmental Health Perspectives presented the problem in a very different light;
“Using national blood mercury prevalence data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, we found that between 316,588 and 637,233 children each year have cord blood mercury levels > 5.8 mcg/L, a level associated with loss of IQ.” [151]
(Compare 5.8 mcg/l to the new German standard from 2006, which states that the maximum permissible level for mercury in blood is only 1.0 mcg/l and for mercury in urine 0.7 mcg/l.” [152] ie it is nearly six times higher than the German Reference Level)
“The resulting loss of intelligence causes diminished economic productivity that persists over the entire lifetime of these children. This lost productivity is the major cost of methyl mercury toxicity, and it amounts to $8.7 billion annually.”
In the body of the paper the authors state:
“There is no evidence to date validating the existence of a threshold blood mercury concentration, below which adverse effects on cognition are not seen.”
In other words, any level of exposure to methyl mercury will produce measurable cognitive deficits. These scientists did not include mercury from amalgam as a source of methyl mercury exposure. They go on to say:
“Recent data suggest that the cord blood mercury concentration may on average be 70% higher than the maternal blood mercury concentration (Stern and Smith 2003)… 15.7% of American women of childbearing age have total blood mercury concentrations ≥ 3.5 mcg/L …”
Over 15% of women in America will have levels of mercury in their bodies which will definitely affect the health and IQ of their children.
A doubling of mercury concentration in the cord blood
will result in a loss of 1.5 IQ points in intelligence.
[153],[154],[155],[156],[157],[158]
At a society level this is a huge and significant drop in IQ. It means that there are a whole lot of people who are no longer able to negotiate personal human issues. Be aware that Fluoride in the water supply, will also cause a drop in IQ levels across the whole population. In utero exposure to fluoride will cause a dramatic change in intellectual ability of the child.
Considering that the levels of mercury derived from seafood are one tenth the levels ingested from amalgam fillings, these findings present an outright condemnation of amalgam as an implant into living human beings.
Remember that “…at least two-thirds of the excreted mercury, after the DMPS challenge, originated from the dental restorations.” [159]
“Before they take their first breath, as many as 600,000 babies may suffer permanent brain damage from their mothers’ exposure to mercury pollution,”…
“The damage has personal consequences for these children, but now we see that it also has enormous implications for the national economy.” [160]
The U.S. loses $8.7 billion annually, due to the impact of mercury on children’s brain development. The majority of this mercury poisoning comes from the mother’s amalgam fillings crossing the placenta and breast milk. The teachers of dentistry are directly responsible for this. Yes, I think of them as criminals.
Knowing this information now, do you still think it is a good idea to inject your newborn with more mercury? This is what is done with a large number of vaccinations. The mercury that is found in vaccines is Ethyl Mercury otherwise known as THIMEROSAL. It is used in the vaccine as a preservative.
Professor Grandjean MD. PhD. is Adjunct Professor of Environmental Health at Harvard School of Public Health in Boston and a Professor and Chair of Environmental Medicine at the University of Southern Denmark and is one of the authors of the Faroese Island study. [161] They followed over 700 children at birth, 7 years and 14 years and tested them for neurological damage caused by methyl mercury from their diet of whale meat.
In a written testimony from 2004 he states:
“When we examined the children at age 7 with sophisticated neurobehavioral methods, we found that increased prenatal mercury exposure was associated with deficits in several brain function, including attention, language, verbal memory, spatial function and motor speed. These associations could not be explained away by a multitude of other factors that we also recorded. In fact, the Faroese population is relatively uniform, and whale meat is freely shared when available, so that one would not expect that socioeconomic or other factors would play any great role.”
“The EPA now estimates the annual number of births in the US that exceed the EPA exposure limit to be 630,000 . However the number would have been even larger, had the EPA used the adjusted exposure limit.” “… suggesting that this effect of mercury on the developing brain is irreversible.” “Postnatal mercury exposure up to adolescence, therefore also seems capable of damaging brain functions…”
“It is noteworthy that these children at age 14 had an average exposure that was similar to the exposure limit used by the U.S. EPA, and that 95% of them had exposures below the level which has previously been considered safe by the FDA. Yet, at these exposure levels, we saw a steady slope of increasing delays of the electrical signal, the higher the mercury exposure: The delay in the signals appeared already at mercury doses below the EPA limit.”
“We have now found that mercury associated neurological changes are also linked to decreased nervous system control of the heart function. At higher mercury exposures, the children were less capable of maintaining the normal variability of the heart rate necessary to secure proper oxygen supply to the body and to maintain an appropriate blood preasure.”
The importance of brain functions means even a small deficit, whether measured as a decrease in IQ points or otherwise, is likely to impact on an individual’s quality-of-life, academic success and economic prospects in life.” [162]
The above research involved methyl mercury found in fish but remember that elemental mercury is converted to methyl mercury in the human gastrointestinal tract and also in the mouth, at the surface of the amalgam filling, as the mercury comes off the surface of the filling.
If you want healthy children never let them be exposed to mercury from the time you are pregnant onwards. This includes the Flu vaccine that most pregnant women are being pushed to have, which contains 51,000ppb ethyl mercury, and this will end up in your foetus.
The American Dental Association, in their attempt at minimizing the risk of mercury, were quick to make comment on these studies, which also showed that those with a high hair mercury level were scoring higher and suggested therefore that a little bit of mercury was beneficial. These are the same people that talk about ethics!!! (NOTE: Hair acts as an excretory organ for most heavy metals including mercury. Main route of excretion is faecal.)
Professor Boyd Haley made comment on this;
“In the Seychelles study of more than 700 children, it was implied that boys with the highest hair levels of mercury did better on the Boston Naming test and two tests of visual motor coordination. Spokespersons from the American Dental Association have used this data to claim that a little exposure to mercury is good for your brain. However, in my opinion the boys with the higher hair mercury levels were the boys that effectively excreted mercury and would likely have a lower body burden of mercury.
In the Faroese Island study, it was the boys with the lower blood mercury levels (poorer excretors?) that had the blood pressure problems.
… Inability to excrete causes the illness, not the total exposure.”[163],
Mercury has an effect on the foetal nervous system at levels far below that considered toxic in adults, and background levels of mercury in mothers correlate significantly with incidence of birth defects and still births. [164]
Are you really going to allow someone to inject more mercury in to your baby? I believe the risks far outweigh the benefits.
References
[1] Vimy MJ Takahashi Y Lorscheider FL Am J Physiol (1990 Apr) 258(4 Pt 2):R939-45
[2] Hahn LJ, KLOIBER R, Leininger RW, Vimy MJ, Lorscheider FL. FASEB J. Nov 1990
[3] Drasch G Schupp I Hofl H Reinke R Roider G Eur J Pediatr (1994 Aug.) 153(8):607-10
[4] [Bio-Probe Newsletter, 10(5), 5, Sep 1994]
[5] J Trace Elem Med Biol 1995 Jul;9(2):82-87 Silver concentrations in human tissues. their dependence on dental amalgam and other factors. Drasch G, Gath HJ, Heissler E, Schupp I, Roider G
[6] Transport of methylmercury and inorganic mercury to the fetus and breast-fed infant. Bjornberg KA, Vahter M, Berglund B, Niklasson B, Blennow M, Sandborgh-Englund G. Environ Health Perspect. 2005 Oct;113(10):1381-5.
[7] Oskarsson A, Palminger Hallen I & Sundberg J. Exposure to toxic elements via breast milk. Analyst 120(3):765-770 (1995)
[8] Mercury from amalgam fillings was the main source of mercury 51% of mercury was inorganic mercury. Oskarsson A Schultz A Skerfving S Hallen IP Ohlin B Lagerkvist BJ Total and inorganic mercury in breast milk in relation to fish consumption and amalgam in lactating women. In: Arch Environ Health (1996 May-Jun) 51(3):234-41
[9] J.Yang et al, “Maternal-fetal transfer of metallic mercury via the placenta and milk”, Lab Sci, 1997,27(2):135-41;
[10] C.N.Ong et al, “Concentrations of heavy metal in maternal and umbilical cord blood”, Biometals, 6(1):61‑66, 1993
[11]J.Yang et al, “Maternal-fetal transfer of metallic mercury via placenta and milk”, Ann Clin Lab Sci, 27(2):135‑141, Mar 1997
[12] S.Sugiyama et al, “Comparison of heavy metal concentrations in human umbilical cord blood in 1980 and 1990:, Kinki Univ. School of Medicine, Osaka, Japan; & R.Sikorski et al,”The intrapartum content of toxic metals in maternal and umbilical cord blood”, Ginekol Pol, 1989,60(3):151-5.
[13] Y.K.Soong et al, J of Formosa Medical Assoc., 1991, 90(1): 59-65;
[14] T. Suzuki et al, Dept. Of Human Ecology, Univ. Of Tokyo, “Mercury in human amnotic fluid”,Scand J Work Environ & Health, 3:32-35,1977
[15] D.A. Spencer et al, “Mercury Concentration in Cord Blood”, Arch Dis Child, 1988, 63(2):202-3
[16] Ursinyova M Masanova V Cadmium, lead and mercury in human milk from Slovakia. Food Addit Contam (2005 Jun) 22(6):579-89
[17] Luglie PF Frulio A Campus G Chessa G Fadda G Dessole S
Mercury determination in human amniotic fluid] Dosaggio del mercurio nel liquido amniotico umano. Minerva Stomatol (2000 Apr) 49(4):155-61
[18] Takahashi Y Tsuruta S Arimoto M Tanaka H Yoshida M Placental transfer of mercury in pregnant rats which received dental amalgam restorations. Toxicology (2003 Mar 14) 185(1-2):23-33
[19] Takahashi Y Tsuruta S Hasegawa J Kameyama Y Yoshida M Release of mercury from dental amalgam fillings in pregnant rats and distribution of mercury in maternal and fetal tissues. Toxicology (2001 Jun 21) 163(2-3):115-26
[20] Soussa E Shalaby Y Maria AM Maria OM Evaluation of oral tissue response and blood levels of mercury released from dental amalgam in rats. Arch Oral Biol (2013 Aug) 58(8):981-8
[21] Mercury From Maternal ‘Silver” Tooth Fillings in Sheep and Human Breast Milk: A Source of Neonatal Exposure. Vimy, MJ; Hooper, DE; King, WW; Lorscheider, FL. Biological Trace Element Res., 56:143-52, 1997.
[22] M.J.Vimy,F.L.Lorscheider,”Intra oral Mercury released from dental amalgams and estimation of daily dose” J. Dent Res., 1985,64(8):1069‑1075; & Res, 1985,64(8):1072-5.
[23] Gestational mercury vapor exposure and diet contribute to mercury accumulation in neonatal rats.Morgan DL, Price HC, Fernando R, Chanda SM, O’Connor RW, Barone SS Jr, Herr DW, Beliles RP. Environ Health Perspect. 2006 May;114(5):735-9.
[24] Razagui IB Haswell SJ Mercury and selenium concentrations in maternal and neonatal scalp hair: relationship to amalgam-based dental treatment received during pregnancy. Biol Trace Elem Res (2001 Jul) 81(1):1-19
[25] “Effects and Use of Inorganic Drugs” H. Schulz, Dept of Pharmacology, Univ. of Greifswald G. Theime, Leipzig 1907.
[26] Perinatal death and exposure to dental amalgam fillings during pregnancy in the population-based MoBa cohort Lars Björkman , Gunvor B. Lygre, Kjell Haug, Rolv Skjærven Plos One December 7, 2018
[27] California Proposition 65 2003
[28] Lutz E Lind B Herin P Krakau I Bui TH Vahter M Concentrations of mercury, cadmium and lead in brain and kidney of second trimester fetuses and infants. J Trace Elem Med Biol (1996 Jun) 10(2):61
[29] da Costa SL Malm O Dorea JG Breast-milk mercury concentrations and amalgam surface in mothers from Brasilia, Brazil. Biol Trace Elem Res (2005 Aug) 106(2):145-51
[30] Dickman MD, Leung CK, Leong MK. Hong Kong male subfertility links to mercury in human hair and fish. Sci Total Environ. 1998;214:165–174.
[31] Boujbiha MA, Hamden K, Guermazi F, Bouslama A, Omezzine A, Kammoun A, et al. Testicular toxicity in mercuric chloride treated rats: association with oxidative stress. Reprod Toxicol. 2009;28(1):81–89.
[32] Dally A Hendry BMJ (1996 Jul 6) 313(7048):44
[33] Bio Med Newsletter November 1997 Issue No 15 Deteriorating Semen Quality in Men and its Effect on Male Fertility by Clinical Ecologist/Clinical Toxicologist Dr Alan R. Hibberd, PhD, DCC, PhC, FPS(Aust),MR Pharm S.
[34] Maretta M, Marettov:a E, Skrob:anek P & Lede:c M. Effect of mercury on the seminiferous epithelium of the fowl testis. Acta Vet Hung 43(1):153-61 (1995)
[35] Danscher G, Horsted-Bindslev P, Rungby J. Traces of mercury in organs from primates with amalgam fillings. Exp Mol Pathol. 1990;52:291–299.
[36] Koos B, Longo L. Mercury toxicity in the pregnant woman, fetus and new born infant. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1960;126:390–409.
[37] Schrag SD, Dixon RL. Occupational exposures associated with male reproductive dysfunction. Annu Rev Pharmacol Toxicol. 1985;25:567–592.
[38] N.F. Ivanitskaia,”Evaluation of effect of mercury on reproductive function of animals”, Gig Sanit,1991, 12: 48-51.
[39] C. Schulte-Uebbing, “Umweltbedingte Frauenkranheiten”, Sonntag-Verlag, Stuttgart, 1996;
[40] Umweltmedizin in der Frauenheilkunde, Arztezeitschr. Naturheilkunde, 35(2):9-17
[41] M.K. Mohamed et al, Toxicol(Copenhagen), 1986,58(3):219-24
[42] . Chen YW, Huang CF, Tsai KS, Yang RS, Yen CC, Yang CY, et al. Methylmercury induces pancreatic beta-cell apoptosis and dysfunction. Chem Res Toxicol. 2006;19(8):1080–1085
[43] Davis BJ, Price HC, O’Connor RW, Fernando R, Rowland AS, Morgan DL. Mercury vapor and female reproductive toxicity. Toxicol Sci. 2001;59(2):291–296.
[44] Goncharuk: Gig Tr Prof Zabol (1977) (5):17-20
[45] The Effect on Pregnancy Outcome and Fetal Brain Development of Prenatal Exposure to Mercury Vapour. Warfinge, K; Berlin, M; Logdberg, B. Neurotoxicology, 15(4),1994.
[46] EPA Mercury Health Effects update Health Issue Assessment. 1984 EOA-600/8-84f. USEPA
[47] Mercury-induced Oxidative Stress May Adversely Affect Pregnancy Outcome among Dental Staff: A Cohort Study Aziza El-Badry1, et al. Occupational and Environmental Medicine Vol 9, No 3 July (2018)
[48] Effects of metallic mercury on the perimenstrual symptoms and menstrual outcomes of exposed workers. Yang JM, Chen QY, Jiang XZ Am J Ind Med (2002 Nov) 42(5):403-9
[49] Goncharuk: Gig Tr Prof Zabol (1977) (5):17-20
[50] Webb M. Brown S editors. Clinical Chemistry and Chemical Toxicology of Metals. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Elsevier; 1977;p. 51–64.
[51] Martell AE. Chemistry of carcinogenic metals. Environ Health Perspect. 1981;40:207–226.
[52] Cantoni O, Evans RM, Costa M. Similarity in the acute cytotoxic response of mammalian cells to mercury (II) and X-Rays (Damage and glutathione depletion). Biochem Res Commun. 1982;108:614.
[53] Chen C Qu L Li B Xing L Jia G Wang T Gao Y Zhang P Li M Chen W Chai Z Increased oxidative DNA damage, as assessed by urinary 8-hydroxy-2′-deoxyguanosine concentrations, and serum redox status in persons exposed to mercury. Clin Chem (2005 Apr) 51(4):759-67
[54] ) Lee IP,”Effects of Mercury on Spermatogenisis”, J Pharmacol Exp Thera 1975, 194(1);171- 181
[55] H. Ogura et al, “A comparison of chromosome aberrations and micronucleus techniques for the assessment of the genotoxicity of mercury compounds in human blood lymphocytes. Mutat Res 1996 Jun;340(2‑3):175‑82
[56] Khera et al., Teratogenic and genetic effects of Mercury toxicity. The biochemistry of Mercury in the environment Nriagu, J.O.Ed, Amsterdam, Elsevier, 503‑18,1979
[57] Babich et al ., The mediation of mutagenicity and clastogenicity of heavy metals by physiochemical factors. Environ Res., 1985:37;253‑286;
[58] & K.Hansen et al A survey of metal induced mutagenicity in vitro and in vivo, J Amer Coll Toxicol , 1984:3;381‑430.
[59] BJ Shenker, “Induction of apoptosis in human T-cells by methyl mercury”, Toxicol Appl Pharmacol, 1999,157(1):23-35; Immunopharmacol Immunotoxicol, 1992; 14(3):555-77
[60] & Immunotoxicol, 1992, 14(3):539-53; & “Low-level MeHg exposure causes human T-cells to undergo apoptosis: evidence of mitochondrial disfunction”, Environ Res, 1998, 77(2):149-159
[61] O.Insug et al, “Mercuric compounds inhibit hunan moncyte function by inducing apoptosis: evidence for formation of reactive oxygen species(ROS), development of mitochondrial membrane permeability, and loss of reductive reserve”, Toxicology, 1997, 124(3):211-24;
[62] L.Bucio et al, Uptake, cellular distribution and DNA damage produced by mercuric chloride in a human fetal hepatic cell line. Mutat Res 1999 Jan 25;423(1‑2):65‑72
[63] U.S.CDC, Toxicology Division, Atlanta, Ga. and WHO, Environmental Health Criteria 101,1990.
[64] U.S. Environmental Protection Agency(EPA), 1999, “Integrated Risk Information System, National Center for Environmental Assessment, Cincinnati, Ohio, http://www.epa.gov/ncea/iris.htm.
[65] Health damage due to exposure to mercury vapour (Mercury) Szkody zdrowotne wywolane narazeniem na pary rteci (Mercury). Moszczynski‑P Jr; Moszczynski‑P Czas‑Stomatol. 1989 Apr; 42(4): 233‑81989
[66] I Mandel, Assoc Dean for Research, School of Dental and Oral Surgury, Columbia Univ., N.Y., JADA, Vol 122, Aug 1991.
[67] A. Anttila et al, Finnish Inst. Of Occupational Health, “Effects of paternal occupation exposure to lead or mercury on spontaneous abortion”, J of Occup & Environ Med, 1995, 37(8):915-21
[68] Cordier S; Deplan F; Mandereau L; Hemon D. Paternal exposure to mercury and spontaneous abortions. Br J Ind Med 1991 Jun;48(6):375‑81
[69] Savitz DA; Sonnenfeld NL; Olshan AF. Review of epidemiologic studies of paternal occupational exposure and spontaneous abortion. Am J Ind Med 1994 Mar;25(3):361‑83
[70] Savitz DA; Sonnenfeld NL; Olshan AF. Review of epidemiologic studies of paternal occupational exposure and spontaneous abortion. Am J Ind Med 1994 Mar;25(3):361‑83
[71] L.Verchaeve et al., Comparitive in vitro cytogenetic studies in Mercury exposed human lymphocytes, Mutation Res., 1985:157; 221‑226
[72] Akiyama M Oshima H Nakamura M Genotoxicity of mercury used in chromosome aberration tests. Toxicol In Vitro (2001 Aug-Oct) 15(4-5):463-7
[73] Mutagenicity of Mercury Chloride and Mech anisms of Cellular Defense: The Role of MetalBinding Proteins.
Schurz, F; Sabater-Vilar, M; Fink-Gremmels,J. Mutagenesis, 15(6):525-30, Nov 2000.
[74] Ariza, ME; Holliday, J; Williams, MV. Mutagenic Effect of Mercury (Il) in Eukaryotic Cells. In Vivo. 8:559:564,1994.
[75] Ariza ME Williams MV Mutagenesis of AS52 cells by low concentrations of lead(II) and mercury(II) Environ Mol Mutagen (1996) 27(1):30-3
[76] Kazantzis G (1981) Role of cobalt, iron, lead, manganese, mercury, platinum, selenium, and titanium in carcinogenesis. Environmental Health Perspectives, 40: 143– 161.
[77] Lee IP,”Effects of Mercury on Spermatogenisis”, J Pharmacol Exp Thera 1975, 194(1);171- 181;
[78] H. Ogura et al, “A comparison of chromosome aberrations and micronucleus techniques for the assessment of the genotoxicity of mercury compounds in human blood lymphocytes. Mutat Res 1996 Jun;340(2-3):175-82.
[79] Dr.I.Gerhard, Dr. E.Roller,et al, Tubingen Univ. Gynecological Clinic, Heidelberg,1996; & “Heavy Metals and Fertility”, J of Toxicology and Environmental Health,Part A, 54(8):593-611, 1998;
[80] Impact of heavy metals on hormonal and immunological factors in women with repeated miscarraiges”,I. Gerhard, “Ganzheitiche Diagnostik un Therapie bie Infertilitat”, Erfahrungsheilkunde,1993, 42(3): 100-106;
[81] “ Unfruchtbarkeit bei Frauen durch Umweltgifte” in Pravention, Diagnose und Therapie von Umwelterkrankungen, JD Kruse-Jarres(Ed.), 1993, p51-68
[82] Editorial, J California Dental Assoc., 1984, 12:37.; & Proceedings of Intl Conference on Mercury Hazards in Dental Practice, Sept 2-4,1981 , Glasgow Scot, Dept. Of Clinical Physics and Bio-Engineering,(Gordon – Pregnancy in Female Dentists- a Mercury Hazard)
[83] J.B. Brodsky, “Occupational exposure to Mercury in dentistry and pregnancy outcome”, JADA111(11):779-780., 1985
[84] S.Ziff and M.Ziff, Infertility and Birth Defects: Is Mercury from Dental Fillings a Hidden Cause?, Bio-Probe, Inc. ISBN: 0-941011-03-8. 1987
[85] A.S.Rowland et al,“The Effect of Occupational Exposure to mercury vapor on the fertility of female dental assistants”, Occupational & Environmental Medicine, v55,n1,1994
[86] Gerhard et al, Zentralbl Gynakol, 1992, 114, 593-602: & I. Gerhard, Therapeutikon, 1993, 7, 478-91; & E.Roller et al, J Fert Reprod, 1995, 3, 31-33; & U.Vallon et al, J Fert Reprod 1995, 3,31
[87] S.B.Elhassani, “The many faces of methylmercury poisoning”, J Toxicol Clin Toxicol, 1982(8): 875-9;
[88] N.Neuburger et al, “Kompendium Umweltmedizin”, MediVerlagsgesellschaft, Hamburg, 1996;
[89] O.Oster et al, “Die Pathobiochemie, Diagnose und Therapie der Metall- und Metalloidintoxikation-2. Die Quecksilberintoxikation, Intensivmed, 1985, 22(3):130-9
[90] C. Schulte-Uebbing, “Umweltbedingte Frauenkranheiten”, Sonntag- Verlag, Stuttgart, 1996;
[91] Umweltmedizin in der Frauenheilkunde, Arztezeitschr. Naturheilkunde, 35(2):9-17.
[92] I. Gerhard, “Amalgam aus gynakologischer Sicht”, Der Frauenarzt, 1995,36(6): 627-28;
[93] “Schdstoffe und Fertillitatsstorungen”, Schwermetalle und Mineralstoffe, Geburtshilfe Frauenheikd, 1992, 52(7):383- 396;
[94] “Reproductive risks of heavy metal and pesticides in women”, in: Reproductive Toxicology, M.Richardson(ed.), VCH Weinhelm, 1993, 167-83
[95] N.K.Mottet et al, “Health Risks from Increases in Methylmercury Exposure”,Health Perspect; vol63 :133-140,1985;
[96] M.K.Mohamed et al, “ Effects of methyl mercury on testicular functions in monkeys”.Toxicol, 1987, 60(1):29-36;
[97] M.K. Mohamed et al, Toxicol(Copenhagen), 1986,58(3): 219-24;
[98] N.F. Ivanitskaia, ”Evaluation of effect of mercury on reproductive function of animals”, Gig Sanit,1991, 12: 48-51.
[99] Dickman MD; Leung KM, “Hong Kong subfertility links to mercury in human hair and fish”, Sci Total Environ, 1998,214:165-74;
[100] Mercury and organochlorine exposure from fish consumption in Hong Kong. Chemosphere 1998 Aug;37(5):991-1015
[101] W.D.Kuntz “Maternal and chord blood mercury background levels; Longitudinal surveilance”. Am J Obstet and Gynecol. 143(4): 440-443., 1982
[102] Hal Huggins, Its All in Your Head, 1993;
Huggins HA, Levy,TE, Uniformed Consent: the hidden dangers in dental care, 1999; Center for Progressive Medicine, 1999, http://www.hugnet.com
[103] A. Anttila et al, Finnish Inst. Of Occupational Health, “Effects of paternal occupation exposure to lead or mercury on spontaneous abortion”, J of Occup & Environ Med, 1995, 37(8):915-21;
[104] Cordier S; Deplan F; Mandereau L; Hemon D. Paternal exposure to mercury and spontaneous abortions. Br J Ind Med 1991 Jun;48(6):375-81;
[105] Savitz DA; Sonnenfeld NL; Olshan AF. Review of epidemiologic studies of paternal occupational exposure and spontaneous abortion. Am J Ind Med 1994 Mar;25(3):361-83;
[106] Mohamed et al. “Lazer Light Scatering Study of the Toxic Effects of MethylMercury on sperm motility”. J Androl.,7(1):11-15.,1986;
[107] S.Ziff and M.Ziff, Infertility and Birth Defects: Is Mercury from Dental Fillings a Hidden Cause?, Bio-Probe, Inc. ISBN: 0-941011-03-8. 1987
[108] N.Roeleveld et al, “Mental retardation and parental occupation “, Br J Ind Med 50(10): 945-954, 1993.
[109] Ariza ME; Bijur GN; Williams MV. Lead and mercury mutagenesis: role of H2O2, superoxide dismutase, and xanthine oxidase. Environ Mol Mutagen 1998;31( 4):352-61;
[110] M.E. Ariza et al, “Mercury mutagenisis”, Biochem Mol Toxicol, 1999, 13(2):107-12; M.E.Ariza et al, “Mutagenic effect of mercury”, InVivo 8(4):559-63,1994
[111] Karp W, Gale TF et al, Effect of mercuric acetate on selected enzymes of maternal and fetal hamsters” Environmental Research, 36:351-358;
[112] Environmental Mercury and Its Toxic Effects Kevin M. Rice,1 Ernest M. Walker, Jr,2 Miaozong Wu,1 Chris Gillette,3 and Eric R. Blough1,2,4 J Prev Med Public Health. 2014 Mar; 47(2): 74–83. Published online 2014 Mar 31
[113] Drasch G Schupp I Hofl H Reinke R Roider G Eur J Pediatr (1994 Aug.) 153(8):607-10
[114] Bakir F, Damluji SF, Amin-Zaki L, Murtadha M, Khalidi A, al-Rawi NY, et al. Methylmercury poisoning in Iraq. Science. 1973;181(4096):230–241.
[115] Burbacher TM, Monnett C, Grant KS, Mottet NK. Methylmercury exposure and reproductive dysfunction in the nonhuman primate. Toxicol Appl Pharmacol. 1984;75(1):18–24.
[116] Cantoni O, Costa M. Correlations of DNA strand breaks and their repair with cell survival, following acute exposure to mercury and X-rays. Mol Pharmacol. 1983;24:84–89.
[117] Facts about Mercury and Dental Amalgam (with Medical Study References) Bernard Windham, Editor
[118] Prenatal Coexposure to Metallic Mercury Vapour and Methylmercury Produce Interactive Behavioral Changes in Adult Rats. Fredriksson, A; Dencker, L; Archer, T; Danielsson, BR. NeurotoxicolTeratol, 18(2):129-34, 1996
[119] 70. Castoldi AF, Coccini T, Ceccatelli S, Manzo L. Neurotoxicity and molecular effects of methylmercury. Brain Res Bull. 2001;55(2):197–203.
[120] 71. Myers GJ, Davidson PW. Prenatal methylmercury exposure and children: neurologic, developmental, and behavioral research. Environ Health Perspect. 1998;106(Suppl 3):841–847.
[121] M.J.Vimy et al, “Mercury from Maternal Silver Tooth Fillings: a source of neonatal exposure”, Biological Trace Element Research, 56: 143-52,1997
[122] K.Warfvinge et al, “Mercury distribution in neonatal cortical areas …after exposure to mercury vapor”, Environmental Research, 1994, 67:196-208.
[123] Choi BH, Lapham LW, Amin-Zaki L, Saleem T. Abnormal neuronal migration, deranged cerebral cortical organization, and diffuse white matter astrocytosis of human fetal brain: a major effect of methylmercury poisoning in utero. J Neuropathol Exp Neurol. 1978;37(6):719–733. Choi BH, Lapham LW, Amin-Zaki L, Saleem T. Abnormal neuronal migration, deranged cerebral cortical organization, and diffuse white matter astrocytosis of human fetal brain: a major effect of methylmercury poisoning in utero. J Neuropathol Exp Neurol. 1978;37(6):719–733.
[124] . Mottet NK, Shaw CM, Burbacher TM. Health risks from increases in methylmercury exposure. Environ Health Perspect. 1985;63:133–140.
[125] Harada M, Nakachi S, Cheu T, Hamada H, Ono Y, Tsuda T, et al. Monitoring of mercury pollution in Tanzania: relation between head hair mercury and health. Sci Total Environ. 1999;227(2-3):249–256.
[126] Denton S(MD); & Butler J; Proceedings of the First International Conference on Biocompatability, Life Sciences Press, Oct 1990, p133-145.
[127] Marlowe M et al, “Main and interative effects of metallic toxins on classroom behavior”, J Abnormal Child Psychol, 1985, 13(2):185-98;
[128] Moon C et al, “Main and Interactive Effect of Metallic Pollutants on Cognitive Functioning”, Journal of Learning Disabilities, April, 1985;
[129] Pihl RO et al, “Hair element content in Learning Disabled Children”, Science, Vol 198, 1977, 204-6;
[130] Gowdy JM et al, “Whole blood mercury in mental hospital patients”, Am J Psychiatry, 1978, 135(1):115-7.
[131] S.Ziff and M.Ziff, Infertility and Birth Defects: Is Mercury from Dental Fillings a Hidden Cause?, Bio-Probe, Inc. ISBN: 0-941011-03-8. 1987
[132] N.Roeleveld et al, “Mental retardation and parental occupation “, Br J Ind Med 50(10): 945-954, 1993.
[133] B.Windham, “Health Effects of Toxic Metals: An Anotated Bibliography”,1999.
[134] H.Iioka et al, “The effect of inorganic mercury on placental amino acid transport”, Nippon sanka Fujinka Gakkai Zasshi, 1987, 39(2): 202-6.
[135] R.C.Perlingeiro et al, “Polymorphonuclear phagentosis in workers exposed to mercuryvapor”, Int J Immounopharmacology”, 16(12):1011- 7,1994; & Hum Exp Toxicol 1995, 14(3):281-6;
[136] Meacham CA, Freudenrich TM, Anderson WL, Sui L, Lyons-Darden T, Barone S, Jr, et al. Accumulation of methylmercury or polychlorinated biphenyls in in vitro models of rat neuronal tissue. Toxicol Appl Pharmacol. 2005;205(2):177–187.
[137] Levy M Schwartz S Dijak M Weber JP Tardif R Rouah F Childhood urine mercury excretion: dental amalgam and fish consumption as exposure factors. Environ Res (2004 Mar) 94(3):283-90
[138] L.Hahn et al, Distribution of mercury released from amalgam fillings into monkey tissues”, FASEB J.,1990, 4:5536
[139] W.D.Kuntz “Maternal and chord blood mercury background levels; Longitudinal surveilance”. Am J Obstet and Gynecol. 143(4): 440‑443., 1982
[140] G.Drasch et al, “Mercury Burden of Human Fetal and Infant Tissues”, Eur J Pediatr 153:607-610,1994;
[141] .Oskarsson et al, “Mercury in breast milk in relation to fish consumption and amalgam”, Arch environ Health, 1996,51(3):234-41
[142] Risk assessment in relation to neonatal metal exposure”, Analyst,1998, 123(1): 19-23
[143] Grandjean P; Jurgensen PJ, Weihe P., Milk as a Source of Methylmercury Exposure in Infants. Milk as a Source of Methylmercury Exposure in Infants. Environ Health Perspect 1994 Jan;102(1):74‑7.
[144] Drasch et al, “Mercury in human colostrum and early breast milk”, J.Trace Elem. Med.Biol., 1998,12:23-27
[145] Mats Berlin, “Is amalgam in dental fillings hazardous to health?”, Lakartidningen, 1992; 89(37):2918-23
[146] Prenatal exposure to mercury vapor: Effects on brain development”, Fundamental and Applied Toxicology, 1,112, 1: 7
[147] Newland MC Warfvinge K Berlin M Behavioral consequences of in utero exposure to mercury vapor: alterations in lever-press durations and learning in squirrel monkeys. Toxicol Appl Pharmacol (1996 Aug) 139(2):374-86 This means that the child may not perform well at school and thus not be able to have a higher education.
[148] Soederstroem S, Fredriksson A, Dencker L & Ebendal T. The effect of mercury vapour on cholinergic neurons in the fetal brain: studies on the expression of nerve growth factor and its low- and high-affinity receptors. Developmental Brain Research 85(1):96-108 (1995)
[149] http://www.cbc.ca/health/story/2007/03/07/mercury-health.html#skip300x250
[150] Thursday’s issue of the journal Ambio, published by the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences.
[151] Environmental Health Perspectives Vol 113 NUMBER 5 May 2005
[152] Wilhelm M Schulz C Schwenk M Revised and new reference values for arsenic, cadmium, lead,and mercury in blood or urine of children: basis for validation of human biomonitoring data in environmental medicine. Int J Hyg Environ Health (2006 May) 209(3):301-5
[153] Moon C et al, “Main and Interactive Effect of Metallic Pollutants on Cognitive Functioning”, Journal of Learning Disabilities, April, 1985
[154] Marlowe M et al, “Main and interative effects of metallic toxins on classroom behavior”, J Abnormal Child Psychol, 1985, 13(2):185-98
[155] R.A.Goyer,”Toxic effects of metals”in: Cassarett and Doull’s Toxicology- TheBasic Science of Poisons, McGraw-Hill Inc., N.Y., 1993
[156] N.Roeleveld et al, “Mental retardation and parental occupation”, Br J Ind Med 50(10): 945-954, 1993.
[157] L.Soleo et al, “Effects of low exposure to inorganic mercury on pyschological performance”, Br J Ind Med, 1990, 47(2):105-9
[158] M.J.Gonzalez et el, “Mercury in human hair; residents of Madrid, Spain”, Arch Environ Health, 1985, 40(4):225-8;
[159] Aposhian,H.V.,etal,FASEBJ., 1992,6,2472-6
[160] (http://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/members/2005/7743/7743.pdf ).
[161] Faroe Island Study [Cognitive Deficit in 7-Year-Old Children With Prenatal Exposure to Methylmercury. Grandjean, P; Weihe, P; White, RF; Debes, F; Araki, S; Yokoyama, I; Murata, K; Sorensen, N; Dahl, R; Jorgensen, PJ. Neurotoxicol Teratol., 19(6):417-28, Nov-Dec 1997.
[162] Written testimony by Philippe Grandjean, MD, PhD, at the Mercury MACT Rule Hearing Sponsored by Rep. Tom Allen, Maine State House, Augusta 1 March 2004. http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/faculty/grandjean/grandjean.pdf
[163] B.E. Haley / Medical Veritas 2 (2005) 535-542
[164] Karp W, Gale TF et al, Effect of mercuric acetate on selected enzymes of maternal and fetal hamsters” Environmental Research, 36:351-358