Archive for the ‘Heavy Metal Toxicity’ Category

by Ethan A. Huff, NaturalNews

The toxic effects of the mercury, also known in vaccines as Thimerosal, have once again been confirmed, this time by researchers from the University of Brazil. Marking the sixth major study in recent months to condemn the use of mercury in medicine, the new study reveals that mercury causes serious brain damage, and is linked to autism and other developmental diseases in children and Alzheimer’s disease in adults.

Dr. Jose Dorea and his colleagues conducted an extensive, peer-reviewed analysis of various studies and available information in major databases that address the effects of low-dose Thimerosal, or ethylmercury, on neural tissue and behavior. They found conclusively that Thimerosal accumulates in brain tissue, negatively affects brain development, and harms brain cells.

“Mercury is known to cause serious harm, especially to fetuses and children because of their smaller size,” said Lisa Sykes, president of the Coalition for Mercury-free Drugs (CoMeD), a non-profit group dedicated to removing mercury from medicine. “Why remove Thimerosal from pediatric vaccines only to inject it into pregnant women and children with recommended flu shots? They removed Thimerosal from other vaccines, so it should also be removed from flu shots.”

Several other recent studies confirm the numerous dangers posed by mercury, including one recently published in theFolia Neuropathologicathat links the toxin directly to autism (http://www.naturalnews.com/031678_m…). Mercury is also known to disrupt proper immune function, damage DNA, inhibit healthy embryonic development, and cause cancer.

The vast majority of the flu shots administered in the US still contain Thimerosal, as they come from multi-dose vials that require a preservative in order to prevent contamination. However, CoMeD says there is no reason to continue using Thimerosal since safer alternative preservatives already exist and are currently in use in many pediatric vaccines that used to contain Thimerosal.

Sources for this story include:

http://www.prnewswire.com/news-rele…

Learn more:http://www.naturalnews.com/031870_flu_shots_brain_damage.html#ixzz1HuaWrG8o

by Mike Adams, NaturalNews

Water fluoridation around the world is achieved through the purchase of chemically contaminated toxic waste chemicals from China which are then labeled “fluoride” and dumped into public water supplies in local cities and towns. That’s the conclusion of a shocking new mini documentary released today by the Consumer Wellness Center (www.ConsumerWellness.org).

The video is now available for viewing on NaturalNews.TV:
http://naturalnews.tv/v.asp?v=42652…

The 12-minutevideodocuments the history offluorideand how this toxic chemical is produced as an industrial byproduct of the phosphate miningindustry. Decades ago, fluoride used to be released into the air through the smokestacks of phosphateminingoperations, but this resulted in the widespreaddeathof cattle and plants on nearby farms and ranches. To stop the deaths, phosphate mining companies installed “wet scrubbers” that captured thetoxicfluoride chemical vapors.

Whileconsumersmight think that deadly fluoridechemicalscaptured in these wet scrubbers are disposed of as hazardous industrialwaste, the surprising truth is that they are sold tocitiesand towns as “fluoride” to be dumped into the localwater supplywhere they are consumed by adults andchildren. This is all being done to “prevent cavities” — a medical claim that technically turns fluoride into an unapproveddrugbeing used in an illegal mass medication scheme.

The FDA has never approved fluoride as a drug, and no recipient of fluoride has ever been medically evaluate for their “need” for the drug.

The full story of fluoride is revealed in The Fluoride Deception, available for viewing at the Consumer Wellness Center website:www.ConsumerWellness.org

The making of The Fluoride Deception

The video was created and narrated by consumer health advocateMike Adams, the executive director of the CWC. Adams is best known for creating the “Blueberry Deception”documentarywhich revealed many name-brand breakfast cereals that claim to be made withblueberriesare actually made with petrochemicals and artificial colors (and contain no blueberries at all). That video is also available at the CWCwebsite.

“Consumers have a right to know what’s in theirwater,” Adams explained. “They have a right to know where chemical fluoride really comes from, because if they knew the truth about this industrial chemical, they would never allow their children to consume it.”

The Fluoride Deceptionalso takes aim at doctors and dentists who have long recommended fluoride without telling people where the chemical fluoride really comes from. “They tell you it’s good for your teeth,” Adams explained. “But they don’t tell you how it damages your brain, your bones, yourhealthand the environment. They don’t tell you about the toxic cadmium, lead and other deadly materials that routinely contaminate the fluoride dumped into the water supply.”

As The Fluoride Deception ultimately reveals, the practice ofwater fluoridationis a method by whichthe phosphate mining industry can dispose of itstoxic wastebyproductsby passing them through the bodies of people first.

The video is available for viewing at:
http://naturalnews.tv/v.asp?v=42652…

Additional resources forlearningmore about fluoride

Mike Adams recommends these websites for learning more about the scam of water fluoridation:

www.FluorideAlert.org
www.NoFluoride.com
www.fluoridedangers.blogspot.com
www.fluoridedangers.blogspot.com
www.smilesofbellevue.com/flouride-e…
www.safewateroregon.org/fluoridatio…
http://stopfluoridation.homestead.com

The full transcript of the documentary video is available at the following link:
http://www.naturalnews.com/031541_F…

Learn more:http://www.naturalnews.com/031547_fluoride_industrial_waste.html#ixzz1FPiViCNx

by Neil Z. Miller, NaturalNews

Many “scientific” studies are literally nonsense. This is not a conspiracy theory. For example, the Journal of the American Medical Association [2005;294(2):218–28] published a paper showing that one-third of “highly cited original clinical research studies” were eventually contradicted by subsequent studies. The supposed effects of specific interventions either did not exist as the original studies concluded, or were exaggerated. It is not unusual for the “science” of today to degenerate into tomorrow’s fiction.

Vaccine studies are often funded by vaccinemanufacturers. The lead authors of important studies that will be used to validate the safety or efficacy of a vaccine are often beholden to the manufacturer in some way. They may own stock in the company or are paid by the manufacturer to travel around the country promoting their vaccines. Lead authors may receive consultation fees, grants or other benefits from the drug maker. Although many people consider this unethical or corrupt, in the world of immunizations this is an acceptable practice, condoned by the CDC and FDA.

Sometimes study conclusions contradict core data in the study. It is not uncommon to read the abstract or summary of a major paper touting a vaccine’s apparent safety or benefits, only to find that upon examining the actual paper, including important details, the vaccine is shown to be dangerous and may have poor efficacy as well. For example, a landmark study published inPediatrics[2003;112:1039-48] found that cumulative exposure to thimerosal-containing vaccines “resulted in a significant positive association with tics” and “increased risks of language delay.”

In other words, babies that received two or more vaccines containing mercury showed signs of neurological damage. This crucial information can be found in the body of the study. However, the authors concluded that “No consistent significant associations were found between thimerosal-containing vaccines and neurodevelopmental outcomes.” Sadly, the media is reluctant to publish anything that challenges the sacrosanct vaccine program. Newspaper articles about vaccines, and reviews of vaccine studies that are published, merely mimic the original spurious conclusions.

Often, important information is missing from a study. For example, the New England Journal of Medicine [2007;356:1915-27] published a paper on the HPV vaccine. It concluded that the vaccine “was highly effective” even though data in the study showed that vaccine efficacy was just 17% against high-grade cervical lesions. However, truly vital information that would help families to make informed vaccine decisions was never mentioned in the paper.

A secret FDA study [VRBPAC Meeting: May 18, 2006] had already found that the HPV vaccine may “enhance cervical disease” in girls who are sexually active prior to vaccination. In other words, the vaccine seems to work best in virgins and may actually increase a young woman’s chance of developing cervical cancer if she was previously exposed through sexual intercourse to HPV strains included in the vaccine.

In some instances, study results may be preordained. For example, when the vaccine-autism link became a public concern, vaccine proponents hastened to produce authentic-appearing studies that contradicted genuine data. Years ago, tobacco companies used this very same ploy. They financed numerous bogus studies ostensibly “proving” that cigarettes didn’t cause cancer. The real studies got lost in the muddle. Sadly, it’s all too easy to obfuscate truth and deceive the public.

At the infamous Simpsonwood conference held in Norcross, Georgia [June 2000], CDC and FDA authorities knew that mercury in vaccines was damaging children. They had irrefutable proof: a comprehensive study conducted by the CDC itself. However, instead of making this important information public, they hatched a plan to produce additional “studies” that denied such a link. In fact, vaccine proponents had the audacity to claim in some of these papers that mercury in vaccines not only doesn’t hurt children but that it actually benefits them! In the topsy-turvy world of overreaching vaccine authorities, the well-documented neurotoxic chemical mercury somehow makes children smarter and more functional, improving cognitive development and motor skills. Of course, this is nonsense. Numerous real studies document mercury’s destructive effect on brain development and behavior.

Another ploy used by vaccine proponents is to design studies comparing vaccinated people to other vaccinated people. Honest studies would compare them to an unvaccinated population. In addition, vaccine control groups rarely receive a true placebo, which should be a harmless substance. The scientific method has always been predicated upon removing all potentially confounding influences. However, many vaccine studies do not conform to this integral component of valid research. This is an important concept to grasp. For example, when a new vaccine is being tested for safety, one group may receive the new vaccine which contains an attenuated virus and an aluminum adjuvant while the “control” group receives an injection of aluminum as well (rather than water or another harmless substance). When vaccines are compared in this way, that is, to other substances that are capable of causing adverse reactions, the vaccine appears safer than it really is. Whenever this deceptive tactic is utilized, officially acknowledged adverse reactions to a vaccine may represent only a fraction of the true potential risks to the recipient.

It should also be noted that some clinical studies that are used to license vaccines exclude people in certain groups. For example, they may be too young, too old, pregnant, ill, or have other preexisting health ailments. However, once the vaccine is licensed, it may be recommended for people in these groups. Much like using false placebos, this unethical practice artificially inflates the vaccine’s safety profile and places more people at risk for adverse reactions.

Although some studies are mere propaganda, part of a larger disinformation campaign designed to promote a vaccine agenda, other studies link vaccines to debilitating and fatal diseases. For example, the British Medical Journal [1999;319:1133.] and Autoimmunity [2002;35(4):247-53] published data correlating the haemophilus influenzae type b (Hib) vaccine to rising rates of type 1 diabetes. The hepatitis B vaccine has been linked to autoimmune and neurological disorders. Guillain-Barre syndrome — a serious paralytic disease — is a well-known adverse reaction to the flu vaccine. These are just a few of the many scientifically documented correlations between vaccines and incapacitating ailments that I will discuss in upcoming articles.

To learn more about vaccines, read the Vaccine Safety Manual: www.VacBook.com and visit the Thinktwice Global Vaccine Institute: www.ThinkTwice.com

Learn more:http://www.naturalnews.com/031113_vaccines_science.html#ixzz1CDQ13vpl

A new risk assessment, prepared for the Parker-Hannifin Foundation by SNC-Lavalin Environment, warns that mercury from dental fillings (called amalgams or “silver” fillings) is exposing 67.2 million Americans to toxic levels exceeding EPA standards.¹ The report was submitted to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) by the International Academy of Oral Medicine and Toxicology (IAOMT) as part of testimony for the upcoming hearings regarding amalgam fillings.²

The assessment shows that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) rules for mercury exposure (called the Reference Exposure Level, or REL), established in 1995, are far exceeded by a huge population of Americans due to mercury fillings. Amalgam fillings are 50% mercury and are a danger to both dental care providers³ and their patients. They are also a danger, it has been shown, to patients with the fillings, even long after they’ve been installed in the mouth.⁴

The upcoming hearings by the FDA (December 14-15) will consider the science related to mercury exposure health risks from dental amalgam fillings. Mercury-based dental fillings have already been banned in Norway and Sweden. The assessment from Parker-Hannifin states that mercury exposures from dental fillings are the primary means of non-occupational exposures in the public – more so than through seafood.

Currently, in the U.S., 181.1 million Americans of all ages carry 1.46 billion restored teeth. Using past data and available information on dental practice, the report concludes that the vast majority of these are mercury-based amalgams. Because exact data is unavailable, the assessment used four scenarios to calculate total risks.

The first scenario is for all restored tooth surfaces and assumed no materials other than 50% mercury amalgams were used. This acted as the base measurement for the other three scenarios. The second scenario took the totals from Scenario 1 and subtracted five surfaces as being non-amalgam. The third assumed only 50% of restorations were with amalgams and the fourth assumed 30% of people from Scenario 1 had no amalgams and that five of each of the remaining people’s tooth surfaces were non-amalgam and that 50% of the remaining restored tooth surfaces were amalgams. The scenarios thus create a worst-case to best-case series of assumptions.

The best-case option, Scenario 4, still shows 67.2 million Americans are over-exposed to mercury by EPA standards (REL of 0.3ug/m³). This would also mean that 122.3 million Americans would exceed the California Environmental Protection Agency’s standard (REL of 0.03ug/m³). The RELs for the U.S. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry and the Canadian Federal Department of Health fall in between the EPA and CEPA standards.

The breakdown of data from the Parker-Hannifin report shows that, again in Scenario 4, toddlers in the U.S. have 379,004 fillings, 45.2% of which exceed EPA standards for mercury exposure. Children and teens make up another 19 million (roughly) with about 30% of them exceeding exposure standards. Children are less likely to have cavities and more likely to have non-mercury fillings. In adults and seniors, the total number of mercury-based fillings are in about 103 million people with roughly 60% of them exceeding mercury toxicity standards.

After the hearings this month, the FDA will give a final ruling on mercury fillings sometime in 2011.

Resources:
1 – Amalgam Risk Assessments 2010, IAOMT website with links to both assessments by G. Mark Richarson, PhD, et al, SNC-Lavalin Environment.

2 – FDA to Review Safety of Mercury Fillings, The Weston Price Foundation, The Epoch Times (Sept. 28, 2010)

3 – Mercury: The Silent Epidemic is Killing American Dental Professionals, Part I, Part II, Part III by Aaron Turpen, NaturalNews (Aug., 2010)

4 – Mercury Dental Fillings: What the FDA and the ADA are not Telling You by Aaron Turpen, Natural News (June 16, 2010)

Special thanks to Dr. Richardson for forwarding his assessments to the author.

The aluminum content of several of the most popular brands of infant formulas is high. Especially for soy-based and lactose intolerant substitutes. This should be as frightening to parents as is the presence of aluminum in vaccinations, since an infant’s digestive system is more vulnerable to systemic permeation (which is why mother’s milk is able to impart many things it otherwise can’t).

A new research article from Keele University in Staffordshire demonstrates the vulnerability of infants to early exposure to aluminum and was published in BMC Pediatrics.¹

Drs. Shelle-Anne M. Burrell and Chrisopher Exley measured the aluminum content of several milk-based and soy-based formulas (both milks and powders) and found concern with the very high aluminum content in each type and brand. They found concentrations of up to 700 micrograms per liter. Which means the infant would be ingesting up to 600 micrograms of aluminum daily.

These concentrations are about forty times higher than what is found in human breast milk and are much higher than that which is allowed in municipal drinking water. Most disconcerting of all, the highest concentration was in a formula made for pre-term (premature) babies.

Because formula manufacturers are not required to measure or filter aluminum content from their milks and because they claim that they are not adding it themselves, it is considered a contaminant. The source remains unknown, but is most likely the aluminum equipment used to pasteurize, process, and store the formulas, including packaging. The Soybean plant readily absorbs aluminum from acidic soils and it has long been known that commercial dairy milk is often high in aluminum content as well.

No clinical studies into the near- or long-term effects of aluminum in infants was found, so no science-based evidence can be given as to aluminum’s direct effect on infants. It is, however, known that aluminum is associated with neurological disorders such as Alzheimer’s.² Aluminum is a non-essential element to human nutrition.

Drs. Burrell and Exley do point out that there is preliminary research showing that not only do infants have a heightened vulnerability to toxins, but that aluminum has been shown to have both an immediate and delayed toxicity in infants, especially those born pre-term.

Many of the major brands sold in the UK are also sold in the U.S. and the researchers tested 15 different formulas, so it’s likely that many of those tested are sold on American shelves as well. At birth, infants are given a hypodermic containing aluminum (Hepatitis B) and many then start drinking aluminum-contaminated formula. Over the first two years of their lives, infants will receive up to 36 vaccines (most containing aluminum) while drinking gallons of infant formulas that are likely contaminated with aluminum as well.

Given that the autism rate is nearing 1 in 100 in America, isn’t it time we start looking at what environmental factors could be behind this? It’s obvious that the FDA, the CDC, WHO, both the British and Canadian Health Services, and all manner of governmental bodies aren’t interested in tackling this issue. So it’s up to us, the People to stand up and do something about it.

Stop buying these contaminated products! Stop patronizing vaccination-loving doctors and hospitals! Stop eating factory-farmed “food”! There are non-contaminated, organic baby formulas (made without GMOs or BPA packaging), there are doctors who will not force the vaccination issue and who even understand our concerns, and there are local farmers and gardeners who have excellent, nutritious food without all of the contamination and processing. Give your business to those people who care!

Resources:
1 – There is (still) too much aluminium in infant formulas by Dr. Shelle-Anne M. Burrell and Dr. Christopher Exley, BMC Pediatrics, Aug. 31, 2010

2 – Brain aluminum distribution in Alzheimer’s disease and experimental neurofibrillary degeneration. by DR Crapper, et all
and
Alzheimer’s disease: X-ray spectrometric evidence of aluminum accumulation in neurofibrillary tangle-bearing neurons by DP Perl and AR Brody

3 – Aluminum is Potential Cause of Thirty-Five Million with Dementia Worldwide by Kim Evans, NaturalNews

For anyone interested, I’ll be on the radio tomorrow with Dale Williams of Free West Radio.  We’ll be talking about my current series of articles on NaturalNews.com and HiddenHealthScience.com regarding mercury toxicity and the apparent drive towards filling all of us up with as many neurotoxins as they can pack into our bodies.

The discussion will be fun (Dale and I talked on the phone today and the conversation turned into one of those “we should just do this on the air” things).  There is a pandemic of heavy metal toxins and most of us are infected and likely don’t know it.  Find out some of the surprising sources for this and why it appears to be all engineered on purpose.

I will be giving scientific data and citing studies and resources to find out more information.  No conspiranoid stuff here, folks, this is real.

You can listen in Salt Lake City, Utah on KTKK AM-630 or online for free at the live stream on Dale’s website.  The show starts at 1:00pm Mountain Standard Time (12:00 noon Pacific, 3:00pm Eastern).

In part 2 of this series, it was alluded that mercury fillings (“silver fillings,” properly called amalgams) are a primary contributor to mercury contamination in our drinking water. There are two primary reasons for this: improper dental office amalgam removal/disposal and the mercury leach from fillings into a person’s blood stream and its eventual excretion.

Every agency involved, from the American Dental Association (ADA) to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) admit that the removal of dental mercury emits mercury vapor and particles and that removed amalgams are often flushed without separation into the sewer system.¹ These are often dumped directly into the wastewater system and end up in the public water supply.

Three agencies in particular, the ADA, the EPA, and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), have all given guidelines and rules for dental practices to follow in the proper disposal of mercury fillings. Few, if any, of these suggestions and requirements are enforced and rarely are dentists even informed of the recommendations.²

According to David Kennedy, DDS, a dentist with over 30 years experience in practice, San Francisco, California instituted an EPA-based requirement for all dental practices in the SF Regional Water Quality Control District to use mercury separators in their offices. While the mandate met with a large outcry from the dental community, the result was that 90% of the mercury traveling “downstream” from the sewer system to the treatment plant was cut off at the source. The other 10% was mainly believed to be from excrement from dental patients laden with mercury from their amalgam fillings.²

That second source is another grave concern because it points to two distinct problems. First, it’s a hazard to the water supply. Secondly, it is obviously a health hazard to the people who have silver fillings that are emitting mercury into their bodies. For those who work in the dental profession, as dentists, assistants, and hygienists, this is an even graver concern.

Former dental assistant Rebecca Dutton, whose newborn daughter was diagnosed with scoliosis – which Dutton is convinced was due to her own high exposure to mercury – says that “Mercury is the third most toxic substance on the planet and we are still putting it in people’s mouths – yet the only place dental amalgam is not regarded as toxic waste is in a living mouth!”³

Despite the overwhelming evidence that mercury fillings are unsafe for both dental professionals and their patients, the ADA continues to recommend them and the FDA declares them “safe.”⁴

That may be changing as new hearings at the Food and Drug Administration this winter will open to bring that question to bear, once again. Dr. Kennedy is hopeful that at least a partial ban will be in the offing, overturning the recent reversal, but says that with the way Washington works, anything more is unlikely.

“I find the machinations of Washington, D.C., where money speaks far louder than words, that they would make such as a determination prior to any testimony except, of course, from the ADA lobbyists.”

Perhaps he is right, but as we saw in the last segment, a round-about ban could be achieved if OSHA or the EPA were to decide to actually do their jobs in regards to mercury contamination.

Given the lackluster performance of governmental agencies in the past and the current near-moratorium on health-conscious, mercury-free dentists by the ADA’s licensing arm, it’s unlikely we’ll see change anytime soon unless the American People stand up and demand it loudly, on their own behalf.

Resources:
1 – Safe Removal of Amalgam Fillings, International Academy of Oral Medicine and Toxicology

2 – Interview with Dr. David Kennedy, DDS, June 21, 2010 by Aaron Turpen – link to full text.

3 – Rebecca’s Story – Mercury, Babies, and Suffering

4 – Mercury Dental Fillings: What the FDA and the ADA are not Telling You by Aaron Turpen, NaturalNews

Special thanks to NaturalNews readers Karen Palmer and Robert Reeves for research assistance and support for this article series on mercury poisoning.

Related articles by Zemanta

• FDA reopens debate on dental amalgam fillings (cbc.ca)

One thing that has certainly been proven over and over again on NaturalNews is that the U.S. government is extremely good at insider dealing and very inept at actually protecting the people. From sellouts in the Food and Drug Administration, the U.S. Department of Agriculture, to the Environmental Protection Agency and more, it’s all been documented here. So it should come as no surprise that the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) is no different.

When it comes to dental office safety, OSHA hasn’t just dropped the ball, they never showed up to the game. OSHA has clear rules regarding how mercury is to be handled when in inorganic form (such as amalgams).¹ David Kennedy, DDS, has more than thirty years experience in dental practice and sums those rules up in what he calls the “7 steps to employee protection.”²

1. Inform the employee and, at a minimum, review the MSDS sheets as required by the Right to Know Act of 1987
2. Providing training in how to protect yourself
3. Providing all the protective equipment
4. Institute engineering controls like fans and vacuums
5. Employ work practices to minimize exposures such as how you drill
6. Monitor both their facility when exposure is likely and medically test their employees for mercury
7. Record all of the above and keep these records available for immediate inspection upon OSHA enforcement request for a minimum of 30 years

Despite their own rules, OSHA does not enforce this in most dental offices in the country, says Dr. Kennedy.

Most people are aware of the news stories that created laughter last year when the Environmental Protection Agency issued cleanup procedures in the event of a broken compact fluorescent light bulb. What most don’t know is that dental offices are subject to the Clean Water Act, under the EPA, which requires municipal water sources to enforce mercury disposal mitigation at its source (in this case the dental office).³ This is rarely done.

Studies have shown the danger of mercury from dental amalgams (silver fillings) to humans. According to one study done for the World Health Organization (WHO), the largest single source is dental amalgams at more than seven times the amount from eating seafood.⁴

Exposures to mercury are clearly not just limited to dentists and dental assistants (see the previous entry in this article series), but are also affecting patients. A study by the University of Iowa showed a clear correlation between the number of silver fillings (amalgams) and the amount of mercury in a person’s blood.⁵

Yet despite all of the evidence regarding mercury dangers and poisonings to both people and nature, the American Dental Association, the Food and Drug Administration, and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration all do nothing to inform the public or stop its continued spread.

“If you include [only] the costs of… repeated dental care, amalgams are terribly costly,” says Dr. Kennedy. That, of course, is only one aspect of the huge cost of mercury fillings to the population as a whole, which we’ll be exploring throughout this article series on silver fillings.

He has a solution, however.

“Now if we could just fire all the OSHA enforcement people who aren’t doing their jobs and hire some who would, the problem would simply go away. Since you cannot legally open the amalgam mixing capsule with a civilian (patient) present, they wouldn’t have to ban amalgam. They simply couldn’t use it because of existing laws.”

In our next segment, we’ll explore how dental mercury poisons the public water supply.

Resources:
1 – OSHA Standards: Mercury from OSHA.gov

2 – Interview with Dr. David Kennedy, DDS, June 21, 2010 by Aaron Turpen – link to full text.

3 – EPA.gov Hg [mercury] Regulations

4 – International Programme on Chemical Safety, Environmental Health Criteria 118, Inorganic Mercury by Dr. L. Friberg for WHO, 1991.

5 – The contribution of dental amalgam to mercury in blood by K.R. Snapp, et al, University of Iowa

Special thanks to NaturalNews readers Karen Palmer and Robert Reeves for research assistance and support for this article series on mercury poisoning.

Related articles by Zemanta

• FDA reopens debate on dental amalgam fillings (cbc.ca)

Dental amalgams (known as “silver” or “mercury” fillings) are known to be a health threat to people who’ve had them installed to fill in cavities.¹ From the moment you step into the average American dental office, you’re likely being exposed to large amounts of mercury vapor. It gets worse for those who work in that environment every day.

“I was diagnosed with heavy metal toxicity to mercury and lead in May 2004 after a year of testing,” says Karen Palmer. “Not only did I have ‘silver’ mercury fillings in my mouth, (since safely removed), I handled amalgam daily at my job as a dental assistant…”² She says the American Dental Association (ADA) not only refuses to acknowledge any health concerns with mercury amalgams, but fails to give adequate warnings to dental staff about their safe handling.

Karen’s story is, sadly, not entirely unique. Studies of dental offices and personnel have revealed startling safety issues in regards to mercury exposures. In a large sampling of U.S. dentists, 10% were found to have high mercury levels and 1% to have very high levels.³ An OSHA study also found that up to 16% of U.S. dental offices exceed their standard of mercury in the air, on equipment, etc.

David Kennedy, DDS, has over 30 years of experience in dental practice and is now public information chair for the International Academy of Oral Medicine and Toxicology (IAOMT). He is a participating author in several studies regarding mercury in the dental office and co-produer of Is Your Water Safe, a documentary on mercury from dentistry entering public water supplies. Dr. Kennedy says that there are about 250,000 dental assistants in the U.S. who are at risk “solely because of [the ADA's] denials and the utter failure of the profession to implement OSHA [Occupational Safety and Health Administration] guidelines and of OSHA personnel failures to enforce their employee protections.”⁴

Dr. Kennedy further states that many dentists are aware of the dangers of mercury both in their offices and to their patients, but risk losing their license if they speak out. They are often cited by the ADA for “practicing medicine without a license” despite ADA guidelines which encourage dentists to take a patient’s blood pressure if they appear to need a referral to a physician for heart problems and to watch for signs of diabetes.

So which do they do? Commit the crime of “practicing medicine without a license” by informing patients of the danger of mercury fillings or ignore every other health issue they may suspect about their patients and leave their clientelle in the dark about their own physical well-being? The ADA can’t have it both ways and selectively enforce “medicine without a license.” All or none or it’s just politics.

Dr. Kennedy also states that despite having spent years abiding by the OSHA guidelines in his office regarding mercury contamination control, his mercury levels would still repeatedly test high.

In our next segment, we’ll explore those OSHA guidelines, Dr. Kennedy’s thoughts on them, and how dental mercury is one of the primary sources of mercury contamination in humans.

Resources:
1 – Mercury Dental Fillings: What the FDA and the ADA are not Telling You by Aaron Turpen, NaturalNews

2 – Case History of Karen Palmer full text, as sent to Aaron Turpen on June 18, 2010.

3 – Health Effects from Dental Personnel Exposures to Mercury Vapor from Dental Amalgam B. Witham, FLCV.

4 – Interview with Dr. David Kennedy, DDS, June 21, 2010 by Aaron Turpen – link to full text.

5 – Legal brief filed in 1995 by attorneys for the ADA in W.H. Tolhurts vs. American Dental Association, et al recorded on IAOMT website.

Special thanks to NaturalNews readers Karen Palmer and Robert Reeves for research assistance and support for this article series on mercury poisoning.

Related articles by Zemanta

• FDA reopens debate on dental amalgam fillings (cbc.ca)