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/