On 1/1/2006 21:17, Robert Connolly wrote: > There's a ton of anti-amalgam info on: http://www.amalgam.org/
...and it's all quite questionable, scientifically speaking. It's not hard to pull together poorly designed pseudo-scientific "studies" and then quote out of context to achieve a desired meaning > Asbestos used to be used in dentistry too, to treat bleeding gums. AFAIK asbestos is only harmful when the fibers are inhaled into the lung. Sounds like more fear mongering... > I'm not sure about alternatives to mercury as a preservative in vaccines. But > composite (plastic) fillings are a practical alternative to mercury fillings. Sure, you can get alternatives like composites, but expect to replace them on a fairly regular basis as they wear out. The real advantage here is a cosmetic improvement (no silver mouth look) at much greater long term cost due to replacement. The dentist selling this stuff loves the profit. :) There are other issues as well; read: <http://www.dentalwatch.org/hg/proposedfactsheet.html> I guess if you're rich then gold is pretty good. <http://www.dentalwatch.org/basic/dentalmaterials.html> has really good info on how various materials are used. > Even if mercury is tolerable in tiny doses, I can't see the harm in falsely > claiming I am allergic to mercury, lead, asbestos, and arsenic. I don't think anyone is contesting that it's harmful to claim that, just a bit misguided. Just look around and see a great many people in advanced age, having had amalgam fillings for most of their life, and who show no symptoms at all of Hg poisoning. With such overwhelming evidence it's crazy not to be highly skeptical of a fringe movement with obvious monetary motives. ~Jason -- -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-chat FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
