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/
