Hidden Health Science

Posts Tagged ‘silver fillings’

from IAOMT

This Friday, May 4, affiliates of the International Academy for Oral Medicine and Toxicology (IAOMT) will encourage the U.S. government to join worldwide efforts against mercury/silver fillings, the predominant source of human exposure to mercury, at an integral Department of State (DOS) mercury stakeholders meeting.

The DOS meeting (11 A.M., 2201 C Street, N.W., Washington, D.C.) is being held in preparation for a United Nations conference in June to negotiate a 2013 global treaty with the purpose of phasing-down mercury use in a variety of industries, including dentistry.

Although U.S. agencies have thus far avoided taking a definitive stance on dental amalgam, other countries have taken bold measures against the toxic dental filling material.  Norway, Sweden, and Denmark banned mercury fillings, a number of countries placed limitations on their use for pregnant women and children, and the Council of Europe called for their restriction and prohibition.

Meanwhile, it has been openly acknowledged that corporations profiting from the mercury industry sponsor the same dental groups who defend mercury fillings.

IAOMT, a non-profit organization representing dental, medical, and scientific professionals worldwide, challenges the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for failing to protect the American public from a medical device containing 50% mercury, a material known by FDA to damage the kidneys, nervous system, and brain, particularly in unborn and young children.

James Love, legal counsel to IAOMT, explains, “We’ve repeatedly brought the hazards of mercury fillings to FDA’s attention, as documented by our testimony at their Dental Products Panel Hearing in 2010, our petition filed in 2009, and our 2002 publication of over 1,000 adverse reaction reports due to dental amalgam.”

A major study used to claim safety of mercury fillings in children was found to be erroneous after more careful analysis that showed kidney damage. The “Casa Pia Children’s Amalgam Trial,” part of an $11 million experiment on children, was fundedby the U.S. National Institute of Dental and Craniofacial Research (NIDCR).

IAOMT has established a mercury safety protocol for patients and personnel, especially women who are pregnant or of child-bearing age because fetuses are known to be extremely sensitive to mercury.

Karen Palmer, a former dental assistant of 25 years diagnosed with multiple sclerosis and mercury toxicity, will share her experiences at Friday’s DOS meeting: “Studies show female dental assistants working with amalgam tend to have increased menstrual disturbances, reduced fertility, and lower probability of conception.  Many of my colleagues experienced spontaneous miscarriages, but at the time, I was unaware that working with mercury fillings could have been the cause.  The U.S. clearly lags behind other countries in upholding standards to protect people from dental mercury exposure.”

Palmer’s statement is supported by recent news that the Norwegian Labour and Welfare Service officially recognized mercury injury as an occupational disease after a dental assistant there proved that working with amalgam caused her to become seriously ill.

In the U.S. employee exposure to mercury has been strictly regulated since 1970 by the Occupational Health and Safety Act (OSHA), but the vast majority of dental workers have no idea this legislation applies to them, and few dental offices are in complete compliance.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has yet to state its position on amalgam separators designed to limit dental office mercury waste. Likewise, IAOMT notes the FDA has not taken measures to warn consumers of the potential harm from daily exposure to mercury in their mouths.

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)