So you still think Mercury Amalgam fillings are safe?

This page is for those people in your life who think you are nuts / stupid / gone mental because you want a neurotoxic metal out of your mouth!!!!

Mercury fillings don't release vapor they are inert?

The FDA and other medical bodies used to say this because back in 1850s when mercury was first put into peoples teeth they lacked the bio-chemical understanding and the technology to measure this vapor, so they thought it was inert.

However there were early experiments for example putting a cockroach in a matchbox with an amalgam filling killed it, but this is not really what we would call a proper scientific method test today.

In 1984 the NIDR/ADA admitted they did  release mercury vapor after the 1984 joint NIDR/ADA conference on the biocompatibility of metals. At that meeting when overwhelmed with scientific evidence that mercury was in deed leaking from so called "set" dental amalgam they admitted that it was.

You can read on the FDAs page (along with some inaccurate statements about safety.. but more on that later) that they also admit that amalgams do vaporize.
"Dental amalgam contains elemental mercury. It releases low levels of mercury vapor that can be inhaled. High levels of mercury vapor exposure are associated with adverse effects in the brain and the kidneys"
http://www.fda.gov/medicaldevices/productsandmedicalprocedures/dentalproducts/dentalamalgam/ucm171094.htm

As a result they will no longer work on amalgams in pregnant women.  It has also been found to cross the placenta and have unknown effects on unborn babies. Mercury has also been found in breast milk.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0300483X02005887

Mercury from Amalgams is found in people's brains at autopsies
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16501347

This video shows how much vapor comes off when a drill bit is used on them - 9,500 ug/m3 per each amalgam removal!!!
http://i.giphy.com/M7oqFT46Jfejm.gif

The vapor in the smoking teeth video is water vapor?

This assumption is based around Dr. Laidler’s criticism of the smoking teeth video that this is just water vapor.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OdjmgcB1Rf8

David Kenneddy DDS from IAMOT response to this: "Smoking Teeth" - the truth gets "smoked out", reduces to the following propositions. First, Dr Laidler contends that what is actually being seen is water vapor; and second, since mercury is a heavier molecule than the other constituents of air (i.e. oxygen, nitrogen, carbon dioxide, etc) the mercury vapor could not rise, but would fall toward the floor. This analysis is not consistent with the Laws of Physics and Chemistry for the following reasons.

First, atomic absorption spectrophotometry (AAS) is a well substantiated scientific analytical technique used to measure a wide range of elements in various materials such as metals, pottery and glass. It is based on the simple fact that some elements in the Periodic Table absorb specific wavelengths of light. This constitutes that materials fingerprint. In the case of mercury vapor the absorbance wavelength is 253.7nm.

Thus, when a pure material is vaporized by the application of heat, while specific wavelengths are sequentially shone at it, the wavelength absorbed tells one the element making up the sample. In it simplest form, gold miners employ this principle when mining for gold. In the natural state, gold has a very high attraction for mercury; the miner heats his ore sample in a dark container, while shining an ultraviolet light. If a vaporizing shadow is cast, then mercury is present and the sample is likely gold. The amount of light absorbed is proportional to the concentration of the mercury.

The video “Smoking Teeth = Poison Gas” is simply an application of this Miner’s Test, using an amalgam filling, containing approximately 50% mercury, as the sample. Water vapor will not absorb the wavelength from the Miner’s light; and, it will not cast a shadow. Therefore, for Dr. Laidler to suggest it will is unfounded. In the video, the vaporizing shadow is caused by mercury atoms absorbing the spectrum from the Miner’s light. A light, scientifically designed to identify the presence of mercury, not water. Water vapor cannot be visualized with a 254 mm light.

Secondly, Dr. Laidler is correct when he states, “When molecules vaporize, the volume they fill depends on the number of molecules and their temperature”. This is called the partial pressure and the partial pressure for mercury in air is 0.00185 mm at 250 C. However, Dr. Laidler fails to report that the vapor pressure of mercury doubles for every 100 C increase in temperature. Employing dubious calculations, Dr. Laidler concludes that because mercury is heavier than the other components of air, if what we saw was actually mercury vapor coming off those teeth, and not just water vapor, it should have been SINKING rather than rising - even at 370 degrees C.” This of course is false, since the mercury in the amalgam is being is heated, causing the mercury molecules to become more active and vaporize. Thus, the mercury vapor rises from the amalgam and spreads into the environment in accordance with Boyles Law of Gases, the Guy-Lussac Law, and Avogadro’s Law and the Law of Entropy. These laws indicate that gas molecules by natural law move away from each other. Therefore, concentrated mercury atoms near the tooth naturally move to a location where less mercury atoms reside. These laws of the behavior of gas have nothing to do with gravity as Dr. Laidler improperly assumes.

The following video was made in response to the "water vapor" assertion. A Jerome Mercury Sniffer is used over a tooth to prove that merely scratching the filling makes mercury vapor come off the filling because the Jerome only measures mercury vapor.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4qvNf4NVZvI&feature=channel

This demonstration video is also criticized but it shows mercury is released in easily measurable amounts from old mercury/silver amalgams when stimulated

Here is the paper Dr Kennedy has written in response to this false claim:
http://iaomt.org/quackbusters-wrong-amalgam-2/

I have had my fillings X amount of years so all the mercury has off gassed so no point taking them out now?

Experiments have shown that even in 25 yr old fillings vapor is still being released (see above smoking teeth demonstration). There are dentist that can do vapor readings if you want the proof you are still off gassing.

"Many Studies" show that they are safe, the vapor is not enough to harm you?

Amalgam was grandfathered in, i.e. we have  used it for 150 yrs so must be OK. There have been no safety studies.

The one that is often bought up is the unethical children's amalgam study. Since at least March 2002, the investigators have known that the child-subjects have accumulated levels of mercury proven to cause neurological damage:
http://www.toxicteeth.org/Critique-CACF.aspx

I am unclear as to what other many "studies" people refer to but here is a link which explains why the SCENIHR study is not relevant when it comes to amalgams.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3025977/

James S. Woods retracted his earlier findings of no harm from amalgam in children in:
James S. Woods et al., Modification of neurobehavioral effects of mercury by a genetic polymorphism of coproporphyrinogen oxidase in children. Neurotoxicology and Teratology 34 (2012) 513–521
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3462250/

Report submitted to the FDA:
http://www.fda.gov/downloads/Advisor.../UCM236379.pdf

I have a mouthful of fillings and I'm perfectly fine.

Mercury is bio-accumulative, just like DDT (that again was deemed safe at first). Lets compare health in a few yrs time. Some people are also very good at detoxification, just like when people get drunk, some can take more alcohol than others, some have 1 beer and have terrible hangovers next day, others drink pints and pints and are perfectly fine. Just because you can't see the damage YET does not mean its not occurring.

The real issue with mercury by the time you find out you are poisoned you have a lot of work to do to get better. Precaution is better than harm, no one should have amalgam in their mouths.

Here is a good summary of how mercury exposures affects various body functions:
http://www.drkaslow.com/html/mercury-s_influence.html

If amalgams were really dangerous they would ban them.

Some countries already have!

Sweden - BANNED 1st June 2009. The Swedish amalgam ban is for both environmental and health issues, according to the Swedish authorities.

Norway - BANNED 1st Jan 2008. Norway’s Minister of Environment Development Erik Solheim said: “Hg is among the most dangerous environmental toxins. Satisfactory alternatives to Hg in products are available, and it is therefore fitting to induce a ban.”

Denmark - BANNED 1st April 2008. Danish officials indicate that the reason for banning amalgam is also because composites have become better, and may now be used in many more situations than a few years ago.
State of Rio de Janeiro - BANNED 19th November 2014. to protect dental professionals, staff, patients and the environment.

Other countries have restricted amalgam use in pregnant women and children.
The EU is currently (as at Dec-14) reviewing measures to completely phase out the use of amalgam with the support of the World Health Organisation.
The latest on the EU situation can be found here, finally the whole EU is seeing sense! They will work towards banning them in children and pregnant women. So if pregnant woman are not allowed them, then surely no woman should have them in case she ever decides to have children?
http://us1.campaign-archive1.com/?u=27e2f2d4d51d0311acb2ec134&id=d5689121f2&e=9040669716

Drs used to recommend tobacco, Governments used to say DDT and Asbestos were safe. They were wrong, its not the first time and it will not be the last.

Amalgams last much longer than alternatives / composites only last half as long as amalgams.

From WHO report;
http://www.who.int/oral_health/publications/dental_material_2011.pdf

Table 2. Annual failure rates of dental restorations

Material, Age at replacement, Annual failure rate

Resin-based composites 8 years 2.3%

Poly-acid modified composites 7 years 3.5%

Resin-modified glass ionomers 2 years 3.1%

Glass ionomers 4 years 7.6%

Amalgam 10 years 2.2.%

So if we look at composites, its only on average another 2 yrs, well thats not much of a difference!!

Other evidence suggests composites can last a liftetime. My original composite I still have, whilst my amalgams failed by cracking my teeth and I had decay under every amalgam filling.

Composite restorations have been shown to perform favorably:
http://www.fo.usp.br/wp-content/uploads/Restauracao_posteriores.pdf

All fillings expand and contract, therefore they can all crack teeth.

Yes they do, but the rate at which amalgams expand is much greater than composites. New composites expand more in tune with the natural tooth and because they bond they can save cracked teeth.

In more technical terms:

The coefficient of thermal expansion (CTE) of amalgam is similar to that of hybrid composites, which is approximately twice the CTE of human enamel and dentin. Another major difference is seen in the coefficient of thermal diffusion (CTD). Amalgam transmits temperature approximately 15 to 20 times faster than do composite resins.

Considering the temperature and duration of thermal effects determined with "in vivo thermocycling" studies, it can be assumed that amalgam restorations clinically expand and contract considerably more than composite restorations. This cyclic dimensional change may contribute to the fatigue of the tooth structure and to cusp fractures. 

Sources:

1. Restorative Dental Materials. 7th Edition. C.V.Mosby Company 1985. Editor RG Craig. 45-52
2. Kappert HF, Schueren M, Fritsch F. Dauerfestigkeitsprüfung des Metall-Kunststoff-Verbundes unter dem Einfluss von Temperaturwechseln. Quintessenz Zahntech 1996;22(3):293-307.
3. 5. Ernst C-F, Euler T, Willershausen B. Approximal temperature increase and decrease during thermocycling in vivo. J Dent Res 1997; Special Issue, Abstr 231:42.
4. 6. Youngson CC, Glyn Jones JC, Smith IS, Fox K. In vivo temperature changes during a standarized thermal challenge. J Dent Res 1998; Special Issue, Abstr 2585;955.
5. 7. Rossomando KJ, Wendt, SL. Thermocycling and dwell times in microleakage evaluation for bonded restorations. Dent Mater 1995:11:47-51.

Our children will be stronger due to the exposures we get!

I think this is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard. For example lead takes 3 generations to leave the family line. I don't think any Dr would say suck on some lead or arsenic it will make you and your baby stronger, mercury is no different. In fact its quite the opposite. Mercury disrupts RNA production altering genes.

In this study, there were decreases in the mean values of the growth parameters of the rat fetuses (fetal body weight, crown-rump length, head length, and biparietal diameter) in the MeHg-treated groups when compared with controls, which indicates intrauterine growth retardation. Growth retardation was more marked in the high dose group compared with the low dose group. Accordingly, Fuyuta et al. (1978) reported that MeHg given orally to pregnant mice during gestation caused significant embryotoxic effects. Moreover, there was some evidence from previous studies that MeHg exposures during pregnancy resulted in fetal growth retardation (Eccles and Annau, 1982, Vorhees, 1985; Fredriksson et al., 1993). MeHg was found to easily cross the placental barrier and accumulate in the fetus, where it can deleteriously affect the offspring (Sikorski et al., 1986, 1987; Lee and Han, 1995).
These observations could also be applicable to humans because many women are likely to have some exposures to MeHg during pregnancy via consumption of contaminated fish, shellfish, and sea mammals (Goldman and Shannon, 2001; United Nations Environmental Programme, 2002). Moreover, observations on human populations demonstrated that MeHg readily crosses the placental barrier, as indicated by umbilical cord blood levels higher than those seen in maternal blood (Vahter et al., 2000; Stern et al., 2001; Newland et al., 2006).

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ar.22485/full