Mercury toxicity - time to emergence of symptoms, from time of dental fillings?

[Bravoncius Roxford]

Why are people even concerned with Mercury poisoning? For starters, Mercury is present in most foods in sub micro molar amounts, and even then elemental Mercury is very poorly absorbed by the body The bioavailability of elemental Mercury is extremely, extremely low: less than 1% will be actively transported into tissues, especially nervous tissue. Considering that the amount of Mercury present in most foods is less than 1 microgram per pound, and that even the richest sources of Mercury like sea tuna has less than 10 micrograms, I don't see what is the big deal. Far more concerning, honestly, is the pico grams of Uranium and Polonium that we are breathing from the Chernobyl and Fukushima disasters. That is extremely far nastier and absorbed than elemental Mercury, and even pico gram exposure can increase your risk of getting several types of cancer chronically.

The bottom line is that unless you are a physical chemist who works with methylated Mercury derivatives or, at the very least, someone who works with extremely large amounts of elemental Mercury every day, you shouldn't be concerned with Mercury. If you work with dimethylmercury and you were exposed by your ventilator being breached or skin contact., then that is very, very serious, but this does not apply to 99.99999% of everyone on Earth. The only cases of toxicity that I have ever seen from elemental Mercury from people who do not work with it on a daily bases are a couple cases of bodybuilders who ate massive amounts of tuna. Even then, it took 10-20 years for symptoms to develop. If you do not work with Mercury or spent the last 10 years eating two pounds of sea tuna a day, you shouldn't be concerned.

 

[S.J.B.]

In Canada they still teach mercury amalgam fillings in dental school. It is a viable option for those who don't want to pay a bit extra for composite. If there were solid evidence of harm they wouldn't still be teaching it.

Here is the Canadian Dental Association's position on mercury amalgam.

 

[JohnBoy2000]

Also @emkee_reinvented I meant to ask - did you ever undergo any type of metal chelation or administered a drug or chemical to removal heavy metals from you blood?

Do you still take ADHD medication?

 

[emkee_reinvented]

In Canada they still teach mercury amalgam fillings in dental school. It is a viable option for those who don't want to pay a bit extra for composite. If there were solid evidence of harm they wouldn't still be teaching it.

Here is the Canadian Dental Association's position on mercury amalgam.

Well fuck them, metal filling's especially mercury in your mouth is a no no! Good dentist's know this, they are exposed to the mercury daily. That is why reasonable thinking dr's don't use it, as it is harmfull to humans.

Also @emkee_reinvented I meant to ask - did you ever undergo any type of metal chelation or administered a drug or chemical to removal heavy metals from you blood?

Do you still take ADHD medication?

No professional removal. I did fuck with Chlorella and such, which seems useless as it just randomly transport's it not necessarely out of your body. But only when undergoing the whole 4-sided removal.

Still on ADHD med's. But it seem's more necessary because I am used to them and have no time for the depression when I stop. But for brain fog they seem unneeded now. I am just used to them and rely on the boost.

Do dentists in the Netherlands still use amalgam for fillings?

Or has it been phased out completely?

What were your medical reasons for needing them out?

My amalgams are in 20+ years at this point but, many dentists say they can last a lifetime - potentially no need for replacement.

Per 1-juli-2018 it is forbidden to be used on kid's, pregnant's and breastfeeding. That is far as I go on info right now as it seem's still legal to be used atm.

 

[Cheshire_Kat]

I just wanted to add my experiences. I was born in the early 1940's, way before anything was known publicly regarding mercury amalgam fillings and their associated health concerns; and they were used extensively, especially in children's teeth (baby teeth) . In fact I didn't even think about it until the 1980's and had several in my teeth up to that point. At least in my case, there were no acute symptoms that could be attributed to them. I'm not saying that they are good or that one should not have them replaced with a non-toxic filling. I am saying that the time it takes to noticeably affect people (present symptoms) is measured in decades.

 

[emkee_reinvented]

I just wanted to add my experiences. I was born in the early 1940's, way before anything was known publicly regarding mercury amalgam fillings and their associated health concerns; and they were used extensively, especially in children's teeth (baby teeth) . In fact I didn't even think about it until the 1980's and had several in my teeth up to that point. At least in my case, there were no acute symptoms that could be attributed to them. I'm not saying that they are good or that one should not have them replaced with a non-toxic filling. I am saying that the time it takes to noticeably affect people (present symptoms) is measured in decades.

Things like toothpaste's, and filling's probably too, don't have to comply to the same rules as food's and beverage's or any other thing ment for ingestion.

We all know you can sublingual most drugs for faster absorption sometimes even higher BA. But somehow this had no consequences on the law. Which regards the mouth as an device incapable of absorbing things, and it neglects any swallowed shit. But as mercury is breatheable it also discard's that risk.

Anyone have an idea why the gold filling lost in favor of the amalgame type? It seems at least a bit safer still a metal alloy but no quicksilver at least. Only thing what outfavored it seems to be the higher cost's. But gold filling's seem to hold much longer as composiet.

 

[Cheshire_Kat]

My wife has gold fillings. They conduct heat or cold and many are sensitive to it to the point it causes them pain. Gold fillings are still available, but not generally covered under insurance.

 

[emkee_reinvented]

My wife has gold fillings. They conduct heat or cold and many are sensitive to it to the point it causes them pain. Gold fillings are still available, but not generally covered under insurance.

Forgot about that nice aspect of metal, heat conduction. This is a feature of Amalgame just the same, I rather have gold in my mouth.

But it is annoying, and composiet doesn't share it. But is trash also. In my personal case Clonazepam would have been a better option. As I am a notorious grinder. Gold would be gone in a month probs. It is my muscle contraction's of my jaw that destroyed my teeth and filling's.

Gold is more work and somewhat more expensive. It seems more to do with gold = rich AND amalgaam = the poor.

 

[Cheshire_Kat]

Gold is more work and somewhat more expensive. It seems more to do with gold = rich AND amalgaam = the poor.

Yeah, pretty much.

 

[emkee_reinvented]

Here you go: Mercury directly inhibits COMT: ....

Goldman-Cecil Medicine E-Book

Since 1927, Goldman-Cecil Medicine has been the world’s most influential internal medicine resource. In the ground-breaking 25th edition, your original purchase ensures you will be up-to-date without the need for a subscription. Through the new, more powerful Expert Consult eBook platform, this...

books.google.com.br

Mercury inhibits COMT indirectly by potently depleting s-adenosylmethionine: https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=13&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwjhqbe9lO3jAhV2HrkGHTHyCOQ4ChAWMAJ6BAgCEAE&url=https://synapse.koreamed.org/DOIx.php?id=10.4070/kcj.2013.43.9.581&usg=AOvVaw3m9L7MwC0aEhQgJtXBFApY
Mercury reversibly and potently inhibits COMT v8ia competitive inhibition of substrate: https://books.google.com.br/books?i...KEwjhqbe9lO3jAhV2HrkGHTHyCOQ4ChDoATAGegQIBhAB

But these are not really relevant for the most part due to elemental Mercury being so poorly absorbed by the body. Mercury toxicity is mostly related to chelated Mercury in organic salts of methylated Mercury which easily permeates cell membranes due to it's liphophilic nature. This is simply not relevant when it comes to regular Mercury unless you work with Mercury and it exposed to it in huge amounts every day.

My mini search revealed some links to Parkinson, inhibiting COMT. And some 'very general' info and a 'This info is not legal' so elaborate what implications does inhibiting COMT cause to a highly sensitive individual, in the most extreme scenario?

Not meaning me, I am uber insensitive. Or is that a adverse effect of the Mercury

I just wanted to add my experiences. I was born in the early 1940's, way before anything was known publicly regarding mercury amalgam fillings and their associated health concerns; and they were used extensively, especially in children's teeth (baby teeth) . In fact I didn't even think about it until the 1980's and had several in my teeth up to that point. At least in my case, there were no acute symptoms that could be attributed to them. I'm not saying that they are good or that one should not have them replaced with a non-toxic filling. I am saying that the time it takes to noticeably affect people (present symptoms) is measured in decades.

Since 2018 it's use is forbidden for kids pregant's ed even removal during lactating or when it's in the whomb is something one really has to consider the risks for the baby.

Do you know how bizar that is, baby's with cavity's.

But baby's should not have caries. Technically!
My son born during pre-eclampse suffered dental problems from the start. The dentist blamed the sour sweet shit they poor in nursed baby's. Little did he know my wife breast fed the little guy until he was done. That's about when you loose you first set of teeth. And he never had any fruity shit or formula milk. So what happened?

Luckily she unlike my own mother has no Amalgame. My mother is from a time like how you describe. When they would remove or implant mercury during pregnancy when given the chance. Sad but true.

 

[Cheshire_Kat]

Yeah, it was a wild and wacky time.

I remember melting lead to make lead soldiers as a young boy. House paint had lead base. We did things that are considered crazy now and the world was much more dangerous.

 

[Hodor]

Things like toothpaste's, and filling's probably too, don't have to comply to the same rules as food's and beverage's or any other thing ment for ingestion.

We all know you can sublingual most drugs for faster absorption sometimes even higher BA. But somehow this had no consequences on the law. Which regards the mouth as an device incapable of absorbing things, and it neglects any swallowed shit. But as mercury is breatheable it also discard's that risk.

Except what you just said is completely wrong.
Toothpaste with anti-caries-activity is regarded as a "drug" by the FDA; otherwise it is considered a cosmetic, which also falls under the purview of the FDA.

Is It a Cosmetic, a Drug, or Both? (Or Is It Soap?)

An overview of the legal differences between cosmetics and drugs, and whether a cosmetic can be both or just a soap.

www.fda.gov

Dental amalgam fillings are regarded as "medical devices" by the FDA, and are regulated as such. The FDA has reviewed the evidence concerning their potential toxicity, and come to the conclusion that the amounts of mercury they release are just so small (again, less than the amount of mercury you'd take in just by regularly eating sushi or tuna salad) that they can be considered reasonably safe for adults and children above the age of 6; they do not recommend removing pre-existing amalgam fillings unless you are actually allergic to any of the metals in them.

And yes, the exact regulations for drugs/medical devices and food products are, of course, not identical. It would make little sense to ban soy sauce because it is unsafe to inject into your veins, or to allow foods that people eat by the pound to contain the same amounts of additives as a cough syrup where the dose is just two tablespoons per day.
But to claim that "the law regards the mouth as a device incapable of absorbing things" is just flat out wrong.

 

[emkee_reinvented]

Except what you just said is completely wrong.
Toothpaste with anti-caries-activity is regarded as a "drug" by the FDA; otherwise it is considered a cosmetic, which also falls under the purview of the FDA.

Is It a Cosmetic, a Drug, or Both? (Or Is It Soap?)

An overview of the legal differences between cosmetics and drugs, and whether a cosmetic can be both or just a soap.

www.fda.gov

Dental amalgam fillings are regarded as "medical devices" by the FDA, and are regulated as such. The FDA has reviewed the evidence concerning their potential toxicity, and come to the conclusion that the amounts of mercury they release are just so small (again, less than the amount of mercury you'd take in just by regularly eating sushi or tuna salad) that they can be considered reasonably safe for adults and children above the age of 6; they do not recommend removing pre-existing amalgam fillings unless you are actually allergic to any of the metals in them.

And yes, the exact regulations for drugs/medical devices and food products are, of course, not identical. It would make little sense to ban soy sauce because it is unsafe to inject into your veins, or to allow foods that people eat by the pound to contain the same amounts of additives as a cough syrup where the dose is just two tablespoons per day.
But to claim that "the law regards the mouth as a device incapable of absorbing things" is just flat out wrong.

I get your point, in the Us the situation is not in anyway like in the Netherland's. But toothpaste and mouth wash are not regulated as food's you would ingest. Oral application's! Stevia was illegal over here for a while, one of the things in America that rules imo is the availability of supplement's. But the Stevia being not allowed for internal use resulted in people using a 'not for internal' use version. To drop in the herbal tea's. As oral shit has different regulation's it was labeled as mouthwash btw.

But you are I guess right on tootpaste not falling under regular oral shit, the non digestable kind, when there is Fluoride in it. Who know's?

A not for human consumption scenario.


The claim about filling's was like I said a probability. Didn't investigate it or so. But ime they do react to heat, acid's and shit in weed and who knows what and will prob be absorbed. The ban for use in kids pregnants and lactating was based upon it, I wrecken. But ain´ t doing no proving here. Getting it out was a great relief, bit late I guess but better late then never.

But considering it a inert substance is just wrong. Wether it has no or outright dangerous properties is of no interest to me. But it is def bizar it was used on infant's in the 40's measuring with today's standard's.

While reading the link the first thing to pop up in my mind was, how they rank a toothpaste without Fluoride. Is that a cosmetic?

They Fluoride some area's of the US drinking water right. They did that untill '72 overhere I believe. So that tap water could, or should be considered as a drug going by the FDA interpretation. Wow.