Re: [Biofuel] mercury was Imaginal Cells by Deepak Chopra
to stand for those chemicals for which the records had been destroyed. With safety like that, who needs risks? :-( Best Keith Terry Dyck From: Joe Street [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: biofuel@sustainablelists.org To: biofuel@sustainablelists.org Subject: Re: [Biofuel] mercury was Imaginal Cells by Deepak Chopra Date: Tue, 07 Nov 2006 09:31:33 -0500 Ok this is the part I don't get. You keep saying there in a massive cohort of subjects walking around with amalgams and how come we aren't seeing a problem, and I'm telling you there's a massive cohort of subjects and we are seeing problems. I can't prove it is the amalgam and you can't prove it's not. And it has nothing to do with a coverup or conspiracy by the medical association cause they don't know for sure either.( but there is the precautionary principle right?) At the time amalgams were first used they seemed like a wonderful solution. Trans fat was going to be the solution to a problem as well remember? All I'm saying is that one day when you say to yourself 'crap, I just found out that I should wear gloves when I change the engine oil on my car cause there's stuff in there that can harm me if I get it on my skin' then you wear gloves right? You don't go on getting motor oil all over your hands. But maybe if you're an unscrupulous garage owner you don't bother to tell your mechanics about the issue because then you have to do something for them and it might cut into your profits. Unfortunately I'm just as skeptical of UV cure epoxies as I am now of the amalgam I have in my head. Epoxy is the new wonderful solution but it has even less of a track record. Gold is probably fine but then I have to be careful next time I go to the third world walking around with that gold flashing in my mouth. If I go porcelain my buds will accuse me of having a glass jaw and what can I say? Ahh you can't win. Stay away from candy kiddies! Joe robert and benita rabello wrote: Joe Street wrote: Hi Robert; Yeah I got your point. My point was that people are making claims ( please for the moment don't pull a 'show me the data' just for argument's sake allow me this for a moment) they are making claims that just maybe a large upswing in the occurrance of certain diseases may be related to long term effects of low level exposure to certain toxins, mercury being one of the suspects. Sure it's complicated by rising levels of all kinds of unhealthy things in trace concentrations in our environment, the air we breathe and the water we drink, the food supply. The overall impact of environmental insults is very difficult to determine. As Keith pointed out, the SYNERGY of these chemicals may be related to a host of human ills, and our methods for identifying cause / effect relationships remains weak in many cases. But saying a negative correlation exists simply because I THINK it exists smacks of superstition. I grew up in Los Angeles during the 1960's, and I remember how TERRIBLE the air was back then. It burned my eyes and made me short of breath. It killed the trees in the Angeles National Forest and caused serious trouble for kids and elderly folk with asthma. Yet the auto makers refused to accept the correlation between car exhaust and smog. There were scientific studies and public hearings, court cases and a flurry of media attention before the state finally FORCED auto makers to address the issue. Without evidence, however, nothing would have changed. The same type of problem exists on your end of the continent with respect to pollution from factories and refineries. We have a huge backlog of investigating to do with respect to the garbage we're putting into our air, water, food and environment. But labeling a whole host of health problems on dental fillings serves no purpose but to make concerns over environmental problems sound like the rantings of Inquisitors hunting witches. Maybe that's the big picture here. Check with fisheries on the guidelines for those fish you are pulling out of the Fraser for example. So maybe the body of evidence is massive and right there in front of us. Questionmark. Check out what this SFU paper has to say about mercury levels in the Fraser watershed and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH) the ones that can slip into your DNA helix and have fun with your cellular reproduction. http://www.rem.sfu.ca/FRAP/aquae.pdf Ugh! Now I'm not going to be able sleep tonight! (insert sarcastic tone) Thanks a lot, Joe . . . : - ) Adult salmon don't eat on their way back to spawn, but their offspring are certainly exposed to toxins in the water as they grow and move out to the sea. Moreover, the problem of biomagnification ensures that whatever it is we're dumping into the air and water
Re: [Biofuel] mercury was Imaginal Cells by Deepak Chopra
Hi Joe, You are absolutely right in suggesting that there are problems with mercury and other toxins that we are exposed to but todays society presents them as a minor problem and therefore we should not worry about them. Actully new studies suggest that there are approximately 100,000 toxic chemicals that we are exposed to that were unknown to our grand parents. It sometimes takes many years before health problems show up from these toxins. The average food cart at the super market contains 60 to 80 toxic chemicals. Terry Dyck From: Joe Street [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: biofuel@sustainablelists.org To: biofuel@sustainablelists.org Subject: Re: [Biofuel] mercury was Imaginal Cells by Deepak Chopra Date: Tue, 07 Nov 2006 09:31:33 -0500 Ok this is the part I don't get. You keep saying there in a massive cohort of subjects walking around with amalgams and how come we aren't seeing a problem, and I'm telling you there's a massive cohort of subjects and we are seeing problems. I can't prove it is the amalgam and you can't prove it's not. And it has nothing to do with a coverup or conspiracy by the medical association cause they don't know for sure either.( but there is the precautionary principle right?) At the time amalgams were first used they seemed like a wonderful solution. Trans fat was going to be the solution to a problem as well remember? All I'm saying is that one day when you say to yourself 'crap, I just found out that I should wear gloves when I change the engine oil on my car cause there's stuff in there that can harm me if I get it on my skin' then you wear gloves right? You don't go on getting motor oil all over your hands. But maybe if you're an unscrupulous garage owner you don't bother to tell your mechanics about the issue because then you have to do something for them and it might cut into your profits. Unfortunately I'm just as skeptical of UV cure epoxies as I am now of the amalgam I have in my head. Epoxy is the new wonderful solution but it has even less of a track record. Gold is probably fine but then I have to be careful next time I go to the third world walking around with that gold flashing in my mouth. If I go porcelain my buds will accuse me of having a glass jaw and what can I say? Ahh you can't win. Stay away from candy kiddies! Joe robert and benita rabello wrote: Joe Street wrote: Hi Robert; Yeah I got your point. My point was that people are making claims ( please for the moment don't pull a 'show me the data' just for argument's sake allow me this for a moment) they are making claims that just maybe a large upswing in the occurrance of certain diseases may be related to long term effects of low level exposure to certain toxins, mercury being one of the suspects. Sure it's complicated by rising levels of all kinds of unhealthy things in trace concentrations in our environment, the air we breathe and the water we drink, the food supply. The overall impact of environmental insults is very difficult to determine. As Keith pointed out, the SYNERGY of these chemicals may be related to a host of human ills, and our methods for identifying cause / effect relationships remains weak in many cases. But saying a negative correlation exists simply because I THINK it exists smacks of superstition. I grew up in Los Angeles during the 1960's, and I remember how TERRIBLE the air was back then. It burned my eyes and made me short of breath. It killed the trees in the Angeles National Forest and caused serious trouble for kids and elderly folk with asthma. Yet the auto makers refused to accept the correlation between car exhaust and smog. There were scientific studies and public hearings, court cases and a flurry of media attention before the state finally FORCED auto makers to address the issue. Without evidence, however, nothing would have changed. The same type of problem exists on your end of the continent with respect to pollution from factories and refineries. We have a huge backlog of investigating to do with respect to the garbage we're putting into our air, water, food and environment. But labeling a whole host of health problems on dental fillings serves no purpose but to make concerns over environmental problems sound like the rantings of Inquisitors hunting witches. Maybe that's the big picture here. Check with fisheries on the guidelines for those fish you are pulling out of the Fraser for example. So maybe the body of evidence is massive and right there in front of us. Questionmark. Check out what this SFU paper has to say about mercury levels in the Fraser watershed and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH) the ones that can slip into your DNA helix and have fun with your cellular reproduction. http://www.rem.sfu.ca/FRAP/aquae.pdf Ugh! Now I'm not going to be able sleep tonight! (insert sarcastic tone) Thanks a lot, Joe . . . : - ) Adult
Re: [Biofuel] mercury was Imaginal Cells by Deepak Chopra
G'day all Hi Joe, You are absolutely right in suggesting that there are problems with mercury and other toxins that we are exposed to but todays society presents them as a minor problem and therefore we should not worry about them. Actully new studies suggest that there are approximately 100,000 toxic chemicals that we are exposed to that were unknown to our grand parents. It sometimes takes many years before health problems show up from these toxins. The average food cart at the super market contains 60 to 80 toxic chemicals. From a previous message: Moreover, processing enhances shelf life and limits microbial toxins. See the references below for some background. Processing, or the kind of processing you're talking about, might help to instil some sort of keepability in the thoroughly denatured industrialized crap some people call food (emotional? - yes! AND true!) but it'd be more accurate to call it embalming than life. More than 5,000 additives are used in food processing, the average consumer eats the equivalent of 13 aspirin-sized tablets per day of food additives. Many of them are naturally occurring substances, but such rates of consumption are in no way natural. All perfectly safe of course, they've all had the same safety tests as thalidomide did. Um, except that, as Thor said, nothing is known about their synergistic effects. For instance, some are safe when taken individually, but can pair up with other safe substances to form co-carcinogens. The following is about the environment, not the human body, but it applies: We do not and can not test for all the combinations of toxic synthetic chemicals and how they affect the environment. Example: The herbicide Dicamba is characterized as slightly toxic or practically nontoxic to fish. It has been found that this is widely variable. If Dicamba is absorbed by vermiculite (a common ingredient in potting soils) its toxicity increases by 30 times. No effects were observed on yearling coho salmon at 100 ppm. However, it has now been found that doses as small as 0.25 ppm can kill coho salmon as they migrate from seawater to fresh water for spawning. Researchers at the University of Florida and Tulane University have found that endosulfan, toxaphene, dieldrin and chlordane when tested by themselves had a weak estrogen response. However, when combine the response increased dramatically. For example when endosulfan and dieldrin were combined the estrogenic potency increased up to 1,600 times over the individual chemicals! Reported in Journal Science, National Wildlife Oct./Nov. 1996. Research with mice found that combinations of herbicides such as atrazine and aldicarb and fertilizers such as nitrate can alter thyroid hormones, suppress immune systems and affect nervous system functions, resulting in increased aggressive behavior among the young mice. This University of Wisconsin study headed by toxicologist Dr. Warren Porter was published in the mid-March issue of Toxicology and Industrial Health, 2002. A further awkwardness is that many of these chemicals were tested in the 1970s and early 80s by a US company called Industrial Biotests. Strangely, it's now quite hard to find information on Industrial Biotests. Anyway, the company was visited unexpectedly by tax inspectors suspecting tax evasion, but what they found instead was evidence of widespread falsification of test data. That wasn't their remit, so they left and called the feds. When the feds arrived it was to find the directors furiously shredding the evidence, most of which was destroyed. But not all. They were convicted, but in a very odd decision, considering the record of the chemical industry (and subsequent such cases), the court ruled that there was no reason to suspect that the chemical companies which had sent their chemicals to IBT for safety testing (virtually all of them) had any knowledge of the falsification. Why then were the tests being falsified? It was also ruled that the test results would be allowed to stand for those chemicals for which the records had been destroyed. With safety like that, who needs risks? :-( Best Keith Terry Dyck From: Joe Street [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: biofuel@sustainablelists.org To: biofuel@sustainablelists.org Subject: Re: [Biofuel] mercury was Imaginal Cells by Deepak Chopra Date: Tue, 07 Nov 2006 09:31:33 -0500 Ok this is the part I don't get. You keep saying there in a massive cohort of subjects walking around with amalgams and how come we aren't seeing a problem, and I'm telling you there's a massive cohort of subjects and we are seeing problems. I can't prove it is the amalgam and you can't prove it's not. And it has nothing to do with a coverup or conspiracy by the medical association cause they don't know for sure either.( but there is the precautionary principle right?) At the time amalgams were first used they seemed like a wonderful solution. Trans
Re: [Biofuel] mercury was Imaginal Cells by Deepak Chopra
My dentist says that the average age of death for dentists in Missouri is 52. He attributes this to all the mercury they're exposed to in the amalgams they use. If you read about the history of mercury in amalgams, it was despised by dental associations in the 1800's. They knew then that mercury was bad news wrt health. It still is. People with a mouthful of fillings made of amalgams (not composite resin) should get a heavy metal check through hair analysis. Dentists and doctors need to remember: First, do no harm. Mercury amalgams are banned in several European countries. The average American has eight amalgam fillings, btw. Root canals with their amalgam centers are also a cause for concern, as I've found out. Amalgams also contain tin which is toxic. I think some even contain aluminum which is suspected as a cause of Alzheimer's, as is mercury. Dentists should be using composite resins which can be made in the same color as teeth and have no dangerous by-products, as far as I know. Having amalgams replaced with composite resins needs to be done very carefully so that the patient and dentist are not exposed, or exposed minimally, to the vapors or particles of amalgam. Peace light, D. Mindock - Original Message - From: Joe Street [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: biofuel@sustainablelists.org Sent: Monday, November 06, 2006 9:11 AM Subject: Re: [Biofuel] mercury was Imaginal Cells by Deepak Chopra robert and benita rabello wrote: snipe We've found very serious, deleterious effects of depleted uranium munitions on soldiers who served in the Gulf War. That's a relatively small sample size when compared to the population of dental professionals in North America and Europe. So, if we can diagnose our veterans on the basis of exposure to depleted uranium in the Gulf War, why are we UNABLE to provide similar results in a much larger population exposed to dental amalgam? Fillings do not contain depleted uranium and DU when it vaporizes on impact and oxidizes into uranium trioxide is found to be a nano powder which is something like 100,000 to 1 meeelion times more toxic than DU is in a macro scale. Gulf war syndrom has nothing to do with mercury in fillings or vaccines. But didn't I read years ago that there is a very high suicide rate among dentists? And you are asking why we don't see wide spread health effects? But these people are saying that many wide spread problems ARE thought to be linked to mecury. Joe ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] mercury was Imaginal Cells by Deepak Chopra
In a google search for Dentist Mortality:http://www.google.com/search?q=dentist+mortalityThe first result is from the University of Toronto http://tinyurl.com/ykqtt7...the available data indicate no reduction in the life expectancy of practising dentists, nor any specific or disproportionate rates of disease associated with high mercury exposure. In fact, the available mortality studies are generally optimistic about the health of dentists...Dentists live 3 years LONGER than others in the population. Do you have anything to back up your statement other than what your dentist said?I would think that if dentists were dropping like flies, even in Misery, er Missouri, that it would probably make the news and rational dentristry students would drop out of school at very high rates. I find nothing of the sort on Google or Google News or scholar.google.com .On 11/10/06, D. Mindock [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:My dentist says that the average age of death for dentists in Missouri is 52. He attributesthis to all the mercury they're exposed to in the amalgams they use. If youread about thehistory of mercury in amalgams, it was despised by dental associations inthe 1800's. Theyknew then that mercury was bad news wrt health. It still is. People with a mouthful offillings made of amalgams (not composite resin) should get a heavy metalcheck throughhair analysis. Dentists and doctors need to remember: First, do no harm.Mercury amalgamsare banned in several European countries. The average American has eight amalgam fillings,btw. Root canals with their amalgam centers are also a cause for concern, asI've found out.Amalgams also contain tin which is toxic. I think some even contain aluminumwhich is suspected as a cause of Alzheimer's, as is mercury. Dentists should be using compositeresins which canbe made in the same color as teeth and have no dangerous by-products, as faras I know.Having amalgams replaced with composite resins needs to be done very carefully so that thepatient and dentist are not exposed, or exposed minimally, to the vapors orparticles of amalgam.Peace light, D. Mindock- Original Message -From: Joe Street [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: biofuel@sustainablelists.orgSent: Monday, November 06, 2006 9:11 AM Subject: Re: [Biofuel] mercury was Imaginal Cells by Deepak Chopra robert and benita rabello wrote: snipeWe've found very serious, deleterious effects of depleted uranium munitions on soldiers who served in the Gulf War.That's a relativelysmall sample size when compared to the population of dentalprofessionals in North America and Europe.So, if we can diagnose our veterans on the basis of exposure to depleted uranium in the Gulf War,why are we UNABLE to provide similar results in a much larger populationexposed to dental amalgam? Fillings do not contain depleted uranium and DU when it vaporizes on impact and oxidizes into uranium trioxide is found to be a nano powder which is something like 100,000 to 1 meeelion times more toxic than DU is in a macro scale.Gulf war syndrom has nothing to do with mercury in fillings or vaccines.But didn't I read years ago that there is a very high suicide rate among dentists?And you are asking why we don't see wide spread health effects?But these people are saying that many wide spread problems ARE thought to be linked to mecury. Joe___ Biofuel mailing listBiofuel@sustainablelists.orghttp://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever:http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.htmlSearch the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/-- Thanks,PCHe's the kind of a guy who lights up a room just by flicking a switch It's a small world, but I wouldn't want to paint it. - Steven WrightWe are confronted with insurmountable opportunities. - Walt Kelly ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] mercury was Imaginal Cells by Deepak Chopra
D. Mindock wrote: My dentist says that the average age of death for dentists in Missouri is 52. this number seems to be way far off the average age at death for North Americans, by something like 20 years. One would think that this statistic would stand out like a sore thumb. I sure wish someone would find a reference in addition to D's dentist. We can go back and forth till we all turn blue about the relative toxicity of dental amalgams, but you have suggested a simple end point which I question. He attributes this to all the mercury they're exposed to in the amalgams they use. If you read about the history of mercury in amalgams, it was despised by dental associations in the 1800's. They knew then that mercury was bad news wrt health. It still is. People with a mouthful of fillings made of amalgams (not composite resin) should get a heavy metal check through hair analysis. Dentists and doctors need to remember: First, do no harm. Mercury amalgams are banned in several European countries. The average American has eight amalgam fillings, btw. Root canals with their amalgam centers are also a cause for concern, as I've found out. Amalgams also contain tin which is toxic. I think some even contain aluminum which is suspected as a cause of Alzheimer's, as is mercury. Dentists should be using composite resins which can be made in the same color as teeth and have no dangerous by-products, as far as I know. Having amalgams replaced with composite resins needs to be done very carefully so that the patient and dentist are not exposed, or exposed minimally, to the vapors or particles of amalgam. Peace light, D. Mindock - Original Message - From: Joe Street [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: biofuel@sustainablelists.org Sent: Monday, November 06, 2006 9:11 AM Subject: Re: [Biofuel] mercury was Imaginal Cells by Deepak Chopra robert and benita rabello wrote: snipe We've found very serious, deleterious effects of depleted uranium munitions on soldiers who served in the Gulf War. That's a relatively small sample size when compared to the population of dental professionals in North America and Europe. So, if we can diagnose our veterans on the basis of exposure to depleted uranium in the Gulf War, why are we UNABLE to provide similar results in a much larger population exposed to dental amalgam? Fillings do not contain depleted uranium and DU when it vaporizes on impact and oxidizes into uranium trioxide is found to be a nano powder which is something like 100,000 to 1 meeelion times more toxic than DU is in a macro scale. Gulf war syndrom has nothing to do with mercury in fillings or vaccines. But didn't I read years ago that there is a very high suicide rate among dentists? And you are asking why we don't see wide spread health effects? But these people are saying that many wide spread problems ARE thought to be linked to mecury. Joe ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/ -- Bob Allen, ozarker.org/bob -- Actually we are all atheists. When you understand why you have rejected every other God but one, then you will understand why I have rejected yours. -Author unknown ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] mercury was Imaginal Cells by Deepak Chopra
ENDPOINT ROFL ROFL ROFL! Ahhh the technical term for death. I love it. Joe PS isn't it silver that turns you blue? ;) bob allen wrote: snip We can go back and forth till we all turn blue about the relative toxicity of dental amalgams, but you have suggested a simple end point which I question. ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] mercury was Imaginal Cells by Deepak Chopra
Ok this is the part I don't get. You keep saying there in a massive cohort of subjects walking around with amalgams and how come we aren't seeing a problem, and I'm telling you there's a massive cohort of subjects and we are seeing problems. I can't prove it is the amalgam and you can't prove it's not. And it has nothing to do with a coverup or conspiracy by the medical association cause they don't know for sure either.( but there is the precautionary principle right?) At the time amalgams were first used they seemed like a wonderful solution. Trans fat was going to be the solution to a problem as well remember? All I'm saying is that one day when you say to yourself 'crap, I just found out that I should wear gloves when I change the engine oil on my car cause there's stuff in there that can harm me if I get it on my skin' then you wear gloves right? You don't go on getting motor oil all over your hands. But maybe if you're an unscrupulous garage owner you don't bother to tell your mechanics about the issue because then you have to do something for them and it might cut into your profits. Unfortunately I'm just as skeptical of UV cure epoxies as I am now of the amalgam I have in my head. Epoxy is the new wonderful solution but it has even less of a track record. Gold is probably fine but then I have to be careful next time I go to the third world walking around with that gold flashing in my mouth. If I go porcelain my buds will accuse me of having a glass jaw and what can I say? Ahh you can't win. Stay away from candy kiddies! Joe robert and benita rabello wrote: Joe Street wrote: Hi Robert; Yeah I got your point. My point was that people are making claims ( please for the moment don't pull a 'show me the data' just for argument's sake allow me this for a moment) they are making claims that just maybe a large upswing in the occurrance of certain diseases may be related to long term effects of low level exposure to certain toxins, mercury being one of the suspects. Sure it's complicated by rising levels of all kinds of unhealthy things in trace concentrations in our environment, the air we breathe and the water we drink, the food supply. The overall impact of environmental insults is very difficult to determine. As Keith pointed out, the SYNERGY of these chemicals may be related to a host of human ills, and our methods for identifying cause / effect relationships remains weak in many cases. But saying a negative correlation exists simply because I THINK it exists smacks of superstition. I grew up in Los Angeles during the 1960's, and I remember how TERRIBLE the air was back then. It burned my eyes and made me short of breath. It killed the trees in the Angeles National Forest and caused serious trouble for kids and elderly folk with asthma. Yet the auto makers refused to accept the correlation between car exhaust and smog. There were scientific studies and public hearings, court cases and a flurry of media attention before the state finally FORCED auto makers to address the issue. Without evidence, however, nothing would have changed. The same type of problem exists on your end of the continent with respect to pollution from factories and refineries. We have a huge backlog of investigating to do with respect to the garbage we're putting into our air, water, food and environment. But labeling a whole host of health problems on dental fillings serves no purpose but to make concerns over environmental problems sound like the rantings of Inquisitors hunting witches. Maybe that's the big picture here. Check with fisheries on the guidelines for those fish you are pulling out of the Fraser for example. So maybe the body of evidence is massive and right there in front of us. Questionmark. Check out what this SFU paper has to say about mercury levels in the Fraser watershed and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH) the ones that can slip into your DNA helix and have fun with your cellular reproduction. http://www.rem.sfu.ca/FRAP/aquae.pdf Ugh! Now I'm not going to be able sleep tonight! (insert sarcastic tone) Thanks a lot, Joe . . . : - ) Adult salmon don't eat on their way back to spawn, but their offspring are certainly exposed to toxins in the water as they grow and move out to the sea. Moreover, the problem of biomagnification ensures that whatever it is we're dumping into the air and water will come back to haunt us in our food. All of these things play a role I am certain but the real world is not a closed carefully controlled lab environment so what can be said in a scientific manner? Indeed, it's not. That's one reason to avoid putting unnatural substances into the environment, or increasing the concentrations of substances known to cause us harm. I am reminded of post docs here in my lab who run plasma processes that have several variables that are wildly out of control and while they tweak one of those
Re: [Biofuel] mercury was Imaginal Cells by Deepak Chopra
Joe Street wrote: Ok this is the part I don't get. You keep saying there in a massive cohort of subjects walking around with amalgams and how come we aren't seeing a problem, and I'm telling you there's a massive cohort of subjects and we are seeing problems. I can't prove it is the amalgam and you can't prove it's not. How can I prove a negative? There SHOULD be some indication of widespread health issues linked to amalgam if the problem actually exists because the cohort with amalgam fillings is so large. If that's the case, what are the medical indications? If you can't prove ill effects from amalgam fillings--and I've had them in my mouth for decades now, without problems--how do you expect to convince me that a problem exists? And it has nothing to do with a coverup or conspiracy by the medical association cause they don't know for sure either.( but there is the precautionary principle right?) The precautionary principle is something I learned about HERE. Nobody else talks about it, at least in my circles, and this discussion outlines its merits. I'm learning a lot in reading and writing to other people in this forum, and that's why I'm still a subscriber after all these years. The flip side to the precautionary principle is that if I have the fillings already, I'm better off leaving them in than removing them because by removing them, I increase my exposure to mercury vapor. At the time amalgams were first used they seemed like a wonderful solution. Amalgams are tough, yet tender. They're softer than porcelain, so they're easier on the jaw, last far longer than porcelain, and they're cheaper than gold. That's why they're used. Trans fat was going to be the solution to a problem as well remember? All I'm saying is that one day when you say to yourself 'crap, I just found out that I should wear gloves when I change the engine oil on my car cause there's stuff in there that can harm me if I get it on my skin' then you wear gloves right? You don't go on getting motor oil all over your hands. But maybe if you're an unscrupulous garage owner you don't bother to tell your mechanics about the issue because then you have to do something for them and it might cut into your profits. How do we know that skin exposure to oil causes problems? Couldn't we use similar techniques to draw definitive conclusions about mercury in amalgam fillings and vaccines? Unfortunately I'm just as skeptical of UV cure epoxies as I am now of the amalgam I have in my head. Epoxy is the new wonderful solution but it has even less of a track record. Gold is probably fine but then I have to be careful next time I go to the third world walking around with that gold flashing in my mouth. If I go porcelain my buds will accuse me of having a glass jaw and what can I say? Ahh you can't win. Stay away from candy kiddies! You'd better brush, floss and visit your dentist regularly!!! robert luis rabello "The Edge of Justice" Adventure for Your Mind http://www.newadventure.ca Ranger Supercharger Project Page http://www.members.shaw.ca/rabello/ ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] mercury was Imaginal Cells by Deepak Chopra
Good information on the precautionary principle in the List archives: http://snipurl.com/11fwi precautionary principle 243 matches This below from Rachel's, go to the website version for hotlinks to the Further reading section. http://www.precaution.org/lib/prn_pp_def.htm Environmental Research Foundation, August 27, 2005 THE PRECAUTIONARY PRINCIPLE IN A NUTSHELL By Peter Montague The Wingspread Statement's definition http://rachel.org/library/getfile.cfm?ID=189 of the precautionary principle http://www.precaution.org/lib/pp_def.htm is now widely quoted: When an activity raises threats of harm to human health or the environment, precautionary measures should be taken even if some cause and effect relationships are not fully established scientifically. In this context the proponent of an activity, rather than the public, should bear the burden of proof. The process of applying the Precautionary Principle must be open, informed and democratic and must include potentially affected parties. It must also involve an examination of the full range of alternatives, including no action. The Essence of Precaution: Critics say that the precautionary principle is not well-defined. However, the Science and Environmental Health Network (SEHN http://www.sehn.org) points out that, in all formulations of the precautionary principle, we find three elements: 1) When we have a reasonable suspicion of harm, and 2) scientific uncertainty about cause and effect, then 3) we have a duty to take action to prevent harm. The precautionary approach suggests five actions we can take: (1) Set a goal (or goals); (2) Examine all reasonable ways of achieving the goal, intending to choose the least-harmful way; (3) Monitor results, heed early warnings, and make mid-course corrections as needed; (4) Shift the burden of proof -- when consequences are uncertain, give the benefit of the doubt to nature, public health and community well-being. Expect responsible parties (not governments or the public) to bear the burden of producing needed information. Expect reasonable assurances of safety for products before they can be marketed -- just as the Food and Drug Administration expects reasonable assurances of safety before new pharmaceutical products can be marketed. (5) Throughout the decision-making process, honor the knowledge of those who will be affected by the decisions, and give them a real say in the outcome. This approach naturally allows issues of ethics, right-and-wrong, and justice to become important in the decision. Instead of asking the basic risk-assessment question -- How much harm is allowable? -- the precautionary approach asks, How little harm is possible? In sum: Faced with reasonable suspicion of harm, the precautionary approach urges a full evaluation of available alternatives for the purpose of preventing or minimizing harm. == Further reading: In the U.S., the leading proponent of the precautionary approach is the Science and Environmental Health Network (SEHN). Their web site ihttp://www.sehn.org is a gold mine of information. Here are some suggested readings: Precautionary principle -- overviews -- By Schettler, Barrett and Raffensperger (2001?) -- By Nancy Myers (2002) -- The Wingspread Statement (1998) -- By Jared Blumenfeld (2003) Precautionary principle in the workplace: -- By Eileen Senn (2003) -- By Frank Ackerman and Rachel Massey (2002) -- By The American Public Health Association (1996) -- By Eileen Senn Tarlau (1990) -- By Anne Stikjel and Lucas Reijnders (1995) Precautionary principle and environmental justice: -- By the California Environmental Protection Agency (2003) -- By Peter Montague (July, 2003) -- By Peter Montague (Feb., 2003) Precautionary principle and municipal/county government: -- The San Francisco Precaution Ordinance (2002) -- The San Francisco White Paper on Precaution (2002) Precautionary principle and environmental science: -- By David Kriebel and others (2001) Precautionary principle and children's health: --By The American Public Health Association (2000) Precautionary principle and public health: -- By Tickner, Kriebel, and Wright (2003) Joe Street wrote: Ok this is the part I don't get. You keep saying there in a massive cohort of subjects walking around with amalgams and how come we aren't seeing a problem, and I'm telling you there's a massive cohort of subjects and we are seeing problems. I can't prove it is the amalgam and you can't prove it's not. How can I prove a negative? There SHOULD be some indication of widespread health issues linked to amalgam if the problem actually exists because the cohort with amalgam fillings is so large. If that's the case, what are the medical indications? If you can't prove ill effects from amalgam fillings--and I've had them in my mouth for decades now, without problems--how do you expect to convince me that a problem exists?
Re: [Biofuel] mercury was Imaginal Cells by Deepak Chopra
Keith Addison wrote: Good information on the precautionary principle in the List archives: http://snipurl.com/11fwi precautionary principle 243 matches This below from Rachel's, go to the website version for hotlinks to the Further reading section. http://www.precaution.org/lib/prn_pp_def.htm big snip Thanks, Keith. This discussion illustrates that I have to be READY to learn something before I'm ABLE to learn something! robert luis rabello The Edge of Justice Adventure for Your Mind http://www.newadventure.ca Ranger Supercharger Project Page http://www.members.shaw.ca/rabello/ ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] mercury was Imaginal Cells by Deepak Chopra
Hi again Robert; See below robert and benita rabello wrote: Joe Street wrote: Ok this is the part I don't get. You keep saying there in a massive cohort of subjects walking around with amalgams and how come we aren't seeing a problem, and I'm telling you there's a massive cohort of subjects and we are seeing problems. I can't prove it is the amalgam and you can't prove it's not. How can I prove a negative? There SHOULD be some indication of widespread health issues linked to amalgam if the problem actually exists because the cohort with amalgam fillings is so large. If that's the case, what are the medical indications? If you can't prove ill effects from amalgam fillings--and I've had them in my mouth for decades now, without problems--how do you expect to convince me that a problem exists? How can I prove a positive when it may be buried in the noise of other toxins of trace concentration in my environment, and as Keith pointed out may be acting synergistically with them for all I know. The point is I don't have to know for sure to make a decision about how I will replace my amalgam fillings when I need to because of the following. Mercury is POISON! Let me say it again. Mercury is POISON. And contrary to what I was told, it does offgass vapour and my body is adsorbing it! If I asked you to have tea with me and as I was serving it I asked you 'oh how much poison would you like with that?' wouldn't you think it odd? And if I said 'oh a little will do you no harm' I'll bet you would answer 'yeah and neither will NONE thank you very much' Mercury is not like sunlight or selenium which may be good or bad depending on how much you get. Any is going to be bad. How much lead is ok for your kids? Is there a recommended daily allowance of arsenic? We're talking about poison here. Skull and crossbones. And it has nothing to do with a coverup or conspiracy by the medical association cause they don't know for sure either.( but there is the precautionary principle right?) The precautionary principle is something I learned about HERE. Nobody else talks about it, at least in my circles, and this discussion outlines its merits. I'm learning a lot in reading and writing to other people in this forum, and that's why I'm still a subscriber after all these years. The flip side to the precautionary principle is that if I have the fillings already, I'm better off leaving them in than removing them because by removing them, I increase my exposure to mercury vapor. That's right and that's why I said I'm not rushing out to replace them as the damage is done now. I won't choose to make a bad situation worse. I'll replace them if I have to if they come loose or unstable, because I have no choice at that point. The precautionary principle is as old as time but not everyone recognizes its value. It's something akin to wisdom in my books. Some folks see it as an impediment to their ambitions. At the time amalgams were first used they seemed like a wonderful solution. Amalgams are tough, yet tender. They're softer than porcelain, so they're easier on the jaw, last far longer than porcelain, and they're cheaper than gold. That's why they're used. Trans fat was going to be the solution to a problem as well remember? All I'm saying is that one day when you say to yourself 'crap, I just found out that I should wear gloves when I change the engine oil on my car cause there's stuff in there that can harm me if I get it on my skin' then you wear gloves right? You don't go on getting motor oil all over your hands. But maybe if you're an unscrupulous garage owner you don't bother to tell your mechanics about the issue because then you have to do something for them and it might cut into your profits. How do we know that skin exposure to oil causes problems? Couldn't we use similar techniques to draw definitive conclusions about mercury in amalgam fillings and vaccines? I didn't do the studies but I remember when it was found that combustion byproducts trapped in used motor oil were highly carcinogenic it was linked to mechanics who had high exposure to the stuff on a regular basis. Perhaps this is how the studies got launched, I don't know I don't have exact references on hand and I'm not going to waste time finding them. Could this be a similar case to the higher incidence of suicide among dentists we discussed before again due to higher exposure? Mercury does affect mental health as we discussed. The MSDS will tell you that these effects are very real but it has only been studied at higher concentrations over shorter time periods than we are talking about. Maybe this is just a social curiosity though or a result of some other unmeasurable effect out here in the complex world of life as a dentist. Unfortunately I'm just as skeptical of UV cure epoxies as I am now of the amalgam I have in my head. Epoxy is the new wonderful solution but it has even less of a track record.
Re: [Biofuel] mercury was Imaginal Cells by Deepak Chopra
robert and benita rabello wrote: snipe We've found very serious, deleterious effects of depleted uranium munitions on soldiers who served in the Gulf War. That's a relatively small sample size when compared to the population of dental professionals in North America and Europe. So, if we can diagnose our veterans on the basis of exposure to depleted uranium in the Gulf War, why are we UNABLE to provide similar results in a much larger population exposed to dental amalgam? Fillings do not contain depleted uranium and DU when it vaporizes on impact and oxidizes into uranium trioxide is found to be a nano powder which is something like 100,000 to 1 meeelion times more toxic than DU is in a macro scale. Gulf war syndrom has nothing to do with mercury in fillings or vaccines. But didn't I read years ago that there is a very high suicide rate among dentists? And you are asking why we don't see wide spread health effects? But these people are saying that many wide spread problems ARE thought to be linked to mecury. Joe ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] mercury was Imaginal Cells by Deepak Chopra
Joe Street wrote: Fillings do not contain depleted uranium and DU when it vaporizes on impact and oxidizes into uranium trioxide is found to be a nano powder which is something like 100,000 to 1 meeelion times more toxic than DU is in a macro scale. Gulf war syndrom has nothing to do with mercury in fillings or vaccines. I understand that, but I don't think you're grasping my point. There is a VERY large percentage of the overall population walking around with dental amalgams, and a cohort of professionals that have been working with this material for decades. Yet there is no study that supports negative health impacts within that population that can be directly linked to mercury in dental fillings. But didn't I read years ago that there is a very high suicide rate among dentists? Can that impact be isolated to mercury exposure? And you are asking why we don't see wide spread health effects? But these people are saying that many wide spread problems ARE thought to be linked to mecury. The cause / effect linkage breaks down when examined across the population. Now, I TRY to be open minded about this . . . We once took our youngest son to an naturopath (who came highly recommended) because he'd developed a skin rash. The naturopath hooked him up to a machine that measured electrical resistance in his skin and diagnosed my son with mercury poisoning. I asked: Where did he get exposed to mercury? Eating shellfish, the doctor responded. But we don't EVER eat shellfish, and the only other fish we eat is salmon that we catch ourselves in the Fraser River. Well, then it's amalgam fillings. He doesn't HAVE any fillings, I protested. Does your wife? he asked. Yes, I replied. Then he was exposed in utero. Mind you, the boy was six years old when this rash appeared. Heavy metals are excreted in sweat, and like every other normal boy, my son plays hard enough to often work himself into a lather. So, I was supposed to believe that this skin rash he developed came from in utero exposure to mercury from my sweetheart's amalgam fillings, even though SIX YEARS had passed since his birth, and he'd sweat regularly enough to warrant at least one bath per day. My wife doesn't suffer from skin rashes and neither do I, yet both of us have had amalgam fillings in our teeth for many years. So my point in this, is that just because someone believes in a cause / effect relationship doesn't mean it actually exists. People used to burn or drown women as witches on unsubstantiated claims. When I hear complaints about mercury in dental fillings, these are normally accompanied by testimonials put forth as evidence for the veracity of the claim. But why are those testimonials more valid than my own experience? And why can't people who believe in this kind of thing answer the basic question of: Why do we not see widespread, consistent impacts across a population that has been exposed to mercury in dental amalgams for decades? Yes, we should be use the precautionary principle. Yes, we should try to limit our exposure to things we know are dangerous. But let's be careful about drawing unsubstantiated conclusions, too. robert luis rabello The Edge of Justice Adventure for Your Mind http://www.newadventure.ca Ranger Supercharger Project Page http://www.members.shaw.ca/rabello/ ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] mercury was Imaginal Cells by Deepak Chopra
Hi Robert; robert and benita rabello wrote: snip I understand that, but I don't think you're grasping my point. There is a VERY large percentage of the overall population walking around with dental amalgams, and a cohort of professionals that have been working with this material for decades. Yet there is no study that supports negative health impacts within that population that can be directly linked to mercury in dental fillings. Yeah I got your point. My point was that people are making claims ( please for the moment don't pull a 'show me the data' just for argument's sake allow me this for a moment) they are making claims that just maybe a large upswing in the occurrance of certain diseases may be related to long term effects of low level exposure to certain toxins, mercury being one of the suspects. Sure it's complicated by rising levels of all kinds of unhealthy things in trace concentrations in our environment, the air we breathe and the water we drink, the food supply. Maybe that's the big picture here. Check with fisheries on the guidelines for those fish you are pulling out of the Fraser for example. So maybe the body of evidence is massive and right there in front of us. Questionmark. Check out what this SFU paper has to say about mercury levels in the Fraser watershed and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH) the ones that can slip into your DNA helix and have fun with your cellular reproduction. http://www.rem.sfu.ca/FRAP/aquae.pdf All of these things play a role I am certain but the real world is not a closed carefully controlled lab environment so what can be said in a scientific manner? I am reminded of post docs here in my lab who run plasma processes that have several variables that are wildly out of control and while they tweak one of those variables and they get one device on their wafer out of a hundred at the end which has a desireable characteristic they then assume it is due to their matrix of values for this one variable and not to some chance confluence of uncontrolled parameters. They realize it later ( after they have published) that they have the devils own time trying to reproduce it! ROFL. Are you going to put a bunch of humans in a cage and control everything they are exposed to over their lifetime? When you hear that something you have been eating, drinking, or smoking is potentially harmful do you stop consuming it, or do you wait to get sick so you have your own personal data? How fanatic do you need to be in your adherence to the dogma of the church of reason? But didn't I read years ago that there is a very high suicide rate among dentists? Can that impact be isolated to mercury exposure? ISOLATED? No, not beyond a reasonable doubt, not out here in the real, complicated world. Maybe in a 50 year lab experiment with real human subjects, or maybe with rats that have an 80 year life expectancy if they existed. But see my comments above. What is isolated in the real world? Read up on the mental health effects of exposure to mercury vapour. Is there a correlation? Perhaps? Ever heard the _expression_ "mad as a hatter"? Felt hats used to be made with mercury. Is contemplating suicide a form of madness? Sometimes I wonder. And there's probably a few db difference in the exposure level between me and a dentist! LOL Joe ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] mercury was Imaginal Cells by Deepak Chopra
Joe, thank you for your observations, specifically:"the real world is not a closed carefully controlled lab environment so what can be said in a scientific manner?"Maybe these are the words we have been needing. When you think about it, so many new (human-made) variables are impacting the environment that"science" itself must necessarily be impacted. No longer are we studying processes that have evolved for millions of years. We are studying processes that have never before occurred in the history of the planet.The questions become whether or not"science" changes too and if so, how? More and more, it seems to me, "science" must take into account asinclusive of a pictureas possible to be relevant. If so, it also seems to me, perhaps finally we are ready to learn just how significant tothe changes thattake place is what we imagine."In peace and light I journey through forever." Mike DuPree - Original Message - From: Joe Street To: biofuel@sustainablelists.org Sent: Monday, November 06, 2006 12:27 PM Subject: Re: [Biofuel] mercury was Imaginal Cells by Deepak Chopra Hi Robert;robert and benita rabello wrote:snip I understand that, but I don't think you're grasping my point. There is a VERY large percentage of the overall population walking around with dental amalgams, and a cohort of professionals that have been working with this material for decades. Yet there is no study that supports negative health impacts within that population that can be directly linked to mercury in dental fillings. Yeah I got your point. My point was that people are making claims ( please for the moment don't pull a 'show me the data' just for argument's sake allow me this for a moment) they are making claims that just maybe a large upswing in the occurrance of certain diseases may be related to long term effects of low level exposure to certain toxins, mercury being one of the suspects. Sure it's complicated by rising levels of all kinds of unhealthy things in trace concentrations in our environment, the air we breathe and the water we drink, the food supply. Maybe that's the big picture here. Check with fisheries on the guidelines for those fish you are pulling out of the Fraser for example. So maybe the body of evidence is massive and right there in front of us. Questionmark.Check out what this SFU paper has to say about mercury levels in the Fraser watershed and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH) the ones that can slip into your DNA helix and have fun with your cellular reproduction. http://www.rem.sfu.ca/FRAP/aquae.pdfAll of these things play a role I am certain but the real world is not a closed carefully controlled lab environment so what can be said in a scientific manner? I am reminded of post docs here in my lab who run plasma processes that have several variables that are wildly out of control and while they tweak one of those variables and they get one device on their wafer out of a hundred at the end which has a desireable characteristic they then assume it is due to their matrix of values for this one variable and not to some chance confluence of uncontrolled parameters. They realize it later ( after they have published) that they have the devils own time trying to reproduce it! ROFL. Are you going to put a bunch of humans in a cage and control everything they are exposed to over their lifetime? When you hear that something you have been eating, drinking, or smoking is potentially harmful do you stop consuming it, or do you wait to get sick so you have your own personal data? How fanatic do you need to be in your adherence to the dogma of the church of reason? But didn't I read years ago that there is a very high suicide rate among dentists? Can that impact be isolated to mercury exposure? ISOLATED? No, not beyond a reasonable doubt, not out here in the real, complicated world. Maybe in a 50 year lab experiment with real human subjects, or maybe with rats that have an 80 year life expectancy if they existed. But see my comments above. What is isolated in the real world? Read up on the mental health effects of exposure to mercury vapour. Is there a correlation? Perhaps? Ever heard the _expression_ "mad as a hatter"? Felt hats used to be made with mercury. Is contemplating suicide a form of madness? Sometimes I wonder. And there's probably a few db difference in the exposure level between me and a dentist! LOLJoe ___Biofuel mailing listBiofuel@sustainablelists.orghttp://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.orgBiofuel at Journey to Forever:http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.htmlSearch the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messag
Re: [Biofuel] mercury was Imaginal Cells by Deepak Chopra
Hi Mike;
You don't need to tell me about the power of the mind, - subconscious
or as some like to call it the superconscious. You'd be preaching to
the converted. The thing is I find myself on niether side of the debate
(it happens often) I could actually argue for both sides many times.
This doesn't mean I am riding the fence which is something I detest,
but rather that I often see the two sides of an issue as two sides of
the same single coin. Too often we can get the blinders on and insist
that our view of the coin is THE one, and we lose sight of the fact
that it is a coin. The forest and the trees. Science has it's place and
so does mysticism. One day when our species comes of age people will
look back and laugh that we even saw something to argue about. It's the
same with religious debates, political debates and on and on.
Ultimately it is all one integral energy with some fascinating swirls
that we currently like to obsess over. What more can one say? The more
one says, the farther he gets from the truth. I'm feeling particularly
mystical today, sorry if I dripped any on your monitor! LOL
Peace.
Joe
MK DuPree wrote:
Joe,
thank you for your observations, specifically:"the real world is not a closed carefully controlled lab
environment so what can be said in a scientific manner?"Maybe these
are the words we have been needing. When you think about it, so many
new (human-made) variables are impacting the environment that"science"
itself must necessarily be impacted. No longer are we studying
processes that have evolved for millions of years. We are studying
processes that have never before occurred in the history of the
planet.The questions become whether or not"science" changes too and
if so, how? More and more, it seems to me, "science" must take into
account asinclusive of a pictureas possible to be relevant. If so,
it also seems to me, perhaps finally we are ready to learn just how
significant tothe changes thattake place is what we imagine."In
peace and light I journey through forever." Mike DuPree
-
Original Message -
From:
Joe Street
To:
biofuel@sustainablelists.org
Sent:
Monday, November 06, 2006 12:27 PM
Subject:
Re: [Biofuel] mercury was Imaginal Cells by Deepak Chopra
Hi Robert;
robert and benita rabello wrote:
snip
I understand that, but I don't think you're grasping my point.
There is a VERY large percentage of the overall population walking
around with dental amalgams, and a cohort of professionals that have
been working with this material for decades. Yet there is no study that
supports negative health impacts within that population that can be
directly linked to mercury in dental fillings.
Yeah I got your point. My point was that people are making claims (
please for the moment don't pull a 'show me the data' just for
argument's sake allow me this for a moment) they are making claims that
just maybe a large upswing in the occurrance of certain diseases may be
related to long term effects of low level exposure to certain toxins,
mercury being one of the suspects. Sure it's complicated by rising
levels of all kinds of unhealthy things in trace concentrations in our
environment, the air we breathe and the water we drink, the food
supply. Maybe that's the big picture here. Check with fisheries on the
guidelines for those fish you are pulling out of the Fraser for
example. So maybe the body of evidence is massive and right there in
front of us. Questionmark.
Check out what this SFU paper has to say about mercury levels in the
Fraser watershed and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH) the ones
that can slip into your DNA helix and have fun with your cellular
reproduction.
http://www.rem.sfu.ca/FRAP/aquae.pdf
All of these things play a role I am certain but the real world is not
a closed carefully controlled lab environment so what can be said in a
scientific manner? I am reminded of post docs here in my lab who run
plasma processes that have several variables that are wildly out of
control and while they tweak one of those variables and they get one
device on their wafer out of a hundred at the end which has a
desireable characteristic they then assume it is due to their matrix of
values for this one variable and not to some chance confluence of
uncontrolled parameters. They realize it later ( after they have
published) that they have the devils own time trying to reproduce it!
ROFL. Are you going to put a bunch of humans in a cage and control
everything they are exposed to over their lifetime? When you hear that
something you have been eating, drinking, or smoking is potentially
harmful do you stop consuming it, or do you wait to get sick so you
have your own personal data? How fanatic do you need to be in your
adherence to the dogma of the church of reason?
But didn't I read
Re: [Biofuel] mercury was Imaginal Cells by Deepak Chopra
consider why the hatter was Mad. Jason ICQ#: 154998177 MSN: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Original Message - From: Joe Street [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: biofuel@sustainablelists.org Sent: Monday, November 06, 2006 9:11 AM Subject: Re: [Biofuel] mercury was Imaginal Cells by Deepak Chopra robert and benita rabello wrote: snipe We've found very serious, deleterious effects of depleted uranium munitions on soldiers who served in the Gulf War. That's a relatively small sample size when compared to the population of dental professionals in North America and Europe. So, if we can diagnose our veterans on the basis of exposure to depleted uranium in the Gulf War, why are we UNABLE to provide similar results in a much larger population exposed to dental amalgam? Fillings do not contain depleted uranium and DU when it vaporizes on impact and oxidizes into uranium trioxide is found to be a nano powder which is something like 100,000 to 1 meeelion times more toxic than DU is in a macro scale. Gulf war syndrom has nothing to do with mercury in fillings or vaccines. But didn't I read years ago that there is a very high suicide rate among dentists? And you are asking why we don't see wide spread health effects? But these people are saying that many wide spread problems ARE thought to be linked to mecury. Joe ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/ -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.409 / Virus Database: 268.13.28/518 - Release Date: 11/4/2006 -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.409 / Virus Database: 268.13.28/518 - Release Date: 11/4/2006 ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] mercury was Imaginal Cells by Deepak Chopra
Robert, Thank you for your very logical, succinct, insightful, and thoughtful assertions. Very refreshing. Dave Buck - Original Message - From: robert and benita rabello [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: biofuel@sustainablelists.org Sent: Monday, November 06, 2006 8:33 AM Subject: Re: [Biofuel] mercury was Imaginal Cells by Deepak Chopra Joe Street wrote: Fillings do not contain depleted uranium and DU when it vaporizes on impact and oxidizes into uranium trioxide is found to be a nano powder which is something like 100,000 to 1 meeelion times more toxic than DU is in a macro scale. Gulf war syndrom has nothing to do with mercury in fillings or vaccines. I understand that, but I don't think you're grasping my point. There is a VERY large percentage of the overall population walking around with dental amalgams, and a cohort of professionals that have been working with this material for decades. Yet there is no study that supports negative health impacts within that population that can be directly linked to mercury in dental fillings. But didn't I read years ago that there is a very high suicide rate among dentists? Can that impact be isolated to mercury exposure? And you are asking why we don't see wide spread health effects? But these people are saying that many wide spread problems ARE thought to be linked to mecury. The cause / effect linkage breaks down when examined across the population. Now, I TRY to be open minded about this . . . We once took our youngest son to an naturopath (who came highly recommended) because he'd developed a skin rash. The naturopath hooked him up to a machine that measured electrical resistance in his skin and diagnosed my son with mercury poisoning. I asked: Where did he get exposed to mercury? Eating shellfish, the doctor responded. But we don't EVER eat shellfish, and the only other fish we eat is salmon that we catch ourselves in the Fraser River. Well, then it's amalgam fillings. He doesn't HAVE any fillings, I protested. Does your wife? he asked. Yes, I replied. Then he was exposed in utero. Mind you, the boy was six years old when this rash appeared. Heavy metals are excreted in sweat, and like every other normal boy, my son plays hard enough to often work himself into a lather. So, I was supposed to believe that this skin rash he developed came from in utero exposure to mercury from my sweetheart's amalgam fillings, even though SIX YEARS had passed since his birth, and he'd sweat regularly enough to warrant at least one bath per day. My wife doesn't suffer from skin rashes and neither do I, yet both of us have had amalgam fillings in our teeth for many years. So my point in this, is that just because someone believes in a cause / effect relationship doesn't mean it actually exists. People used to burn or drown women as witches on unsubstantiated claims. When I hear complaints about mercury in dental fillings, these are normally accompanied by testimonials put forth as evidence for the veracity of the claim. But why are those testimonials more valid than my own experience? And why can't people who believe in this kind of thing answer the basic question of: Why do we not see widespread, consistent impacts across a population that has been exposed to mercury in dental amalgams for decades? Yes, we should be use the precautionary principle. Yes, we should try to limit our exposure to things we know are dangerous. But let's be careful about drawing unsubstantiated conclusions, too. robert luis rabello The Edge of Justice Adventure for Your Mind http://www.newadventure.ca Ranger Supercharger Project Page http://www.members.shaw.ca/rabello/ ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/ ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] mercury was Imaginal Cells by Deepak Chopra
Joe Street wrote: Hi Robert; Yeah I got your point. My point was that people are making claims ( please for the moment don't pull a 'show me the data' just for argument's sake allow me this for a moment) they are making claims that just maybe a large upswing in the occurrance of certain diseases may be related to long term effects of low level exposure to certain toxins, mercury being one of the suspects. Sure it's complicated by rising levels of all kinds of unhealthy things in trace concentrations in our environment, the air we breathe and the water we drink, the food supply. The overall impact of environmental insults is very difficult to determine. As Keith pointed out, the SYNERGY of these chemicals may be related to a host of human ills, and our methods for identifying cause / effect relationships remains weak in many cases. But saying a negative correlation exists simply because I THINK it exists smacks of superstition. I grew up in Los Angeles during the 1960's, and I remember how TERRIBLE the air was back then. It burned my eyes and made me short of breath. It killed the trees in the Angeles National Forest and caused serious trouble for kids and elderly folk with asthma. Yet the auto makers refused to accept the correlation between car exhaust and smog. There were scientific studies and public hearings, court cases and a flurry of media attention before the state finally FORCED auto makers to address the issue. Without evidence, however, nothing would have changed. The same type of problem exists on your end of the continent with respect to pollution from factories and refineries. We have a huge backlog of investigating to do with respect to the garbage we're putting into our air, water, food and environment. But labeling a whole host of health problems on dental fillings serves no purpose but to make concerns over environmental problems sound like the rantings of Inquisitors hunting witches. Maybe that's the big picture here. Check with fisheries on the guidelines for those fish you are pulling out of the Fraser for example. So maybe the body of evidence is massive and right there in front of us. Questionmark. Check out what this SFU paper has to say about mercury levels in the Fraser watershed and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH) the ones that can slip into your DNA helix and have fun with your cellular reproduction. http://www.rem.sfu.ca/FRAP/aquae.pdf Ugh! Now I'm not going to be able sleep tonight! (insert sarcastic tone) Thanks a lot, Joe . . . : - ) Adult salmon don't eat on their way back to spawn, but their offspring are certainly exposed to toxins in the water as they grow and move out to the sea. Moreover, the problem of biomagnification ensures that whatever it is we're dumping into the air and water will come back to haunt us in our food. All of these things play a role I am certain but the real world is not a closed carefully controlled lab environment so what can be said in a scientific manner? Indeed, it's not. That's one reason to avoid putting unnatural substances into the environment, or increasing the concentrations of substances known to cause us harm. I am reminded of post docs here in my lab who run plasma processes that have several variables that are wildly out of control and while they tweak one of those variables and they get one device on their wafer out of a hundred at the end which has a desireable characteristic they then assume it is due to their matrix of values for this one variable and not to some chance confluence of uncontrolled parameters. They realize it later ( after they have published) that they have the devils own time trying to reproduce it! ROFL. Are you going to put a bunch of humans in a cage and control everything they are exposed to over their lifetime? When you hear that something you have been eating, drinking, or smoking is potentially harmful do you stop consuming it, or do you wait to get sick so you have your own personal data? How fanatic do you need to be in your adherence to the dogma of the church of reason? Ah, but I've been attending that church for so long, it's habitual now! It's very hard to escape the influence of education and environment. (impact of mercury exposure) ISOLATED? No, not beyond a reasonable doubt, not out here in the real, complicated world. Maybe in a 50 year lab experiment with real human subjects, or maybe with rats that have an 80 year life expectancy if they existed. We've got several generations of human beings exposed to mercury amalgams now. It's a HUGE population sample. If there was a direct, causal relationship between amalgams and health problems, it should be showing up by this point. I simply don't buy the conspiracy theory that the dental associations are trying to cover up some heinous truth and suppress data concerning amalgam fillings. There are other materials used to fill holes in teeth, including porcelain and gold, which are inert,
