DENTAL AMALGAM MERCURY Solutions
............................www.amalgam.org
DAMS Intl. 1079 Summit Ave St Paul MN 55105
Mercury
body burden and toxicity tests and factors that significantly complicate
usefulness of standard tests.
Blood tests are generally not a reliable indicator of mercury body burden
or mercury toxicity(595,600,etc.). Better options are often available depending on what is to be determined(595,etc.).
The blood is pumped throughout the body and rapidly crosses into organs
and tissue where it is primarily inorganic mercury, so blood measures primarily
recent acute exposures, not body burden. For example,
although mercury vapor from dental amalgam has been documented to be the largest source of mercury in most
people who have several amalgam fillings, the average length of time of mercury
vapor in the blood is less than 10 seconds(370). High
mercury body burden and mercury toxicity and effects are more common than
acknowledged due to failure of the blood test to reliably identify mercury body
burden or those most affected by toxicity effects. Doctors
with experience at treating mercury toxicity mostly use other tests or
combinations of tests.
Mercury amalgam dental fillings have
been found to be the largest source
of mercury vapor, inorganic mercury, and methyl mercury in most people with
several amalgam fillings or metal crowns over amalgam (1,599). But although mercury has been found to be
readily methylated in the body by bacteria, yeasts, etc. and also to be demethylated to
inorganic mercury complexes, these processes are inconsistent depending on the
individual, and there is no test that is
reliable for measuring all forms of mercury, as will be shown.
A large U.S. Centers for Disease
Control epidemiological study, NHANES III, found that those with more amalgam
fillings(more mercury exposure) have significantly higher levels of chronic
health conditions(543a). A
2009 study found that inorganic mercury levels in people have been increasing
rapidly in recent years(543b). It used data from the
U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s National Health Nutrition
Examination Survey (NHANES) finding that while inorganic mercury was detected
in the blood of 2 percent of women aged 18 to 49 in the 1999-2000 NHANES survey, that level rose to 30 percent of women by 2005-2006.
Surveys in all states using hair tests have found dangerous levels of mercury
in an average of 22 % of the population, with over 30% in some states like
Florida and New York(543c).
Elemental mercury vapor and methyl
mercury are rapidly transmitted throughout the body via the blood and readily
enter cells and cross the blood-brain barrier, as well as the placenta of
pregnant women (38,61,287,311,361,596). Mercury vapor is transmitted across cell
membranes at much
higher levels than inorganic mercury and also higher levels than organic
mercury. Significant levels are able to cross the blood brain barrier,
placenta, and also cellular membranes into major organs such as the heart since
the oxidation rate of Hg0, though relatively fast, is slower than the time
required by pumped blood to reach these organs(290,370).
Thus the level in the brain and heart is higher after exposure to Hg vapor than
for other forms(360,370). But methyl mercury also has a relatively short
half life in blood, so even for methyl blood mostly measures recent exposures
rather than body burden.
While mercury vapor and methyl Hg
readily cross cell membranes and the blood-brain barrier, once in cells
they form inorganic mercury that does not readily cross cell membranes or the
blood brain barrier readily and is responsible for the majority of toxicity
effects. Thus inorganic mercury in the
brain has a very long half life(85,273,274,503b,etc.).
Mercury vapor passes through the blood rapidly
and accumulates
in other parts of the body such as the brain, kidneys, liver, thyroid gland,
pituitary gland, etc.(370,543b,600). The
half-life of mercury vapor in blood is approximately 10 seconds before passing
into cells and forming inorganic complexes(370). Thus blood test measures mostly recent
exposure and mostly organic mercury(370,595). Hair
mercury level likewise is mostly organic and primarily measures organic mercury
(76), while urine test levels correlate most highly with the number of dental
amalgams (599). However all 3 mercury measures are generally positively
correlated with both number of dental amalgams and amount of mercury containing
fish eaten. (600) But also note that urine mercury level is not a reliable
indicator of mercury body burden since the majority of mercury excretion is
through the liver rather than the kidneys and mercury excretions decline over
time whatever the body burden due to damage done to the kidneys(600). Also
autopsy studies have found that higher levels of mercury accumulate in other
more sensitive organs such as the brain, heart, and thyroid(600).
Kidneys have a lot of hydroxyl(SH) groups which
mercury binds to forming inorganic complexes - causing accumulation in the
kidneys and inhibiting excretion(503).
As damage occurs to kidneys over time, mercury is less efficiently
eliminated (11,36,57,183,216,260,503), so urine tests are not reliable for body
burden after long term exposure. Some researchers suggest hair offers a better
indicator of mercury body burden than blood or urine(279,21ab,66,84),
though still not totally reliable and hair is a better indicator for organic
mercury than inorganic. But hair mercury levels have been found to be inversely
related with mercury toxicity effects and body burden in those most affected by
mercury due to having low detoxification ability for mercury(86,577).
Blood allele type has been found to have a significant effect on ability to
excrete toxic metals and accumulation of toxic metals in the body(577,86).
This significantly affects mercury test
levels by blood, urine, or hair. If a
hair test is used as an indicator of mercury toxicity, the pattern of hair levels of other
metals and minerals is a better indication of mercury body burden and toxicity
than the hair level of mercury, since mercury exposure causes significant
changes in cell membrane permeability that often be seen as imbalances from the
standard for other elements tested(229).
Mercury and other toxic
metals exert part of their toxic effects by replacing essential metals such as
zinc and magnesium at their sites in enzymes (43,427,443,464). Metalloprotein(MT)
are involved in metals transport and detoxification(442,464). Mercury inhibits
sulfur ligands in MT and in cell membranes inactivates MT that normally bind
cuprous ions(477), thus allowing buildup of copper to toxic levels in many
people and malfunction of the Zn/Cu SOD function. Prenatal and neonatal mercury
exposure has been
found to be able to block the MT function in this manner and has been to result
in MT dysfunction in the majority of autism patients tested, preventing
detoxification and excretion of mercury and other toxic metal(86,464). This
also represents a major confounding of mercury test results for either blood, urine, or hair test.
Hair tests are useful since they provide
information on other toxic metal exposures and essential mineral imbalances(229). It
is documented that essential mineral deficiencies and imbalances given a normal
diet are a strong indication of mercury toxicity, due to mercury’s causing cell
membrane permeability changes, absorption problems, and enzyme blockages(229,600). A
challenge test using a chelator like DMPS or DMSA is a more reliable test for
mercury body burden(290,360,273) .
Non organic forms of mercury are
methylated in the body by bacteria, yeast, methyl donors to methyl mercury, so
even though the largest source of mercury in most people is mercury vapor from amalgam(599), due to the short half life of vapor and
conversions to methyl, most of what is measured in the blood is methyl. And the
inorganic accumulation in organs is not measured. Ethyl mercury from vaccines has been the
largest source of mercury in most infants(598).
Feces
is the major path of excretion of mercury from the body, having a
higher correlation to systemic body burden
than urine or blood, which tend to
correlate with recent exposure level
(6,21abd,35,36,79,80,183,278). For this
reason many researchers consider feces to
be the most reliable indicator of
daily exposure level to mercury or other
toxics. The average level of mercury in
feces of populations with amalgam
fillings is as much as 1 ppm and approx.
10 times that of a similar group
without fillings (79,80,83,335,386,528,25),
with significant numbers of those with
several filings having over 10 ppm
and 150 times those without
fillings(80). For those with several
fillings daily
fecal mercury excretion levels range
between 20 to 200 ug/day.
The saliva test is another good test
for daily mercury exposure, done
commonly in Europe and representing one of
the largest sources of mercury
exposure(84,600). Mercury level in saliva has been found to
give a better
indication of body levels than blood or urine
levels(36,600). Saliva
mercury is
proportional to the number of
amalgam fillings or surfaces, but for those without
amalgam is often below
detection limits unless fish has recently been eaten(76,84).
There is only a weak correlation
between blood or urine or hair mercury
levels and body burden or level in a
target organ (36,157,183,278,11,
21abd,6).
Tests
commonly used to test for mercury toxicity effects include the
blood lymphocyte immune reactivity
test(MELISA) which is used to test for
immune reactivity to mercury related to
autoimmune conditions like MS,
Lupus, Rheumatoid Arthritis, CFS,
Fibromyalgia, oral lichen planus, etc.
(342,369,405,600). The majority of those with chronic fatigue or MS were
found to be immune reactive to mercury,
and both reactivity and symptoms
declined after amalgam replacement. Another
test commonly used to test for
the common metabolic and detoxification
system blockages caused by
mercury toxicity is the comprehensive liver
detoxification test(386).
It utilizes blood, urine, and saliva
tests. Another test commonly used to
assess metabolic toxicicity effects of
mercury and other toxic exposures is
the fractionated porphyrin test (260). The type, level, and pattern of
metabolic waste porphyrins in urine indicate
the extent of toxicity effects and
give an indication of the likely toxic
source by the pattern. These tests
indicate not only degree of toxicity effects
but also suggest treatments that
usually result in improvement of the
condition.
Hair is ideal for measuring toxic metals
accumulated in the body tissues over a period of time. The growing hair
follicle is well supplied by the blood vessels, and blood transports essential
and toxic elements present in the body. These elements are incorporated and
stored in the hair proteins, which are evaluated in the test. Hair testing also
gives the most accurate information about interactions between nutrients and
toxic metals. Other advantages of hair testing are simple samples requirements
and lower cost. The test measures 39 essential and toxic metals, with
individual interpretation that will guide you in the treatment process. People
who use hair dyes, perm or chemical treatments should be aware that the hair
can sometimes give false high values due to the metals in the dyes or
chemicals. We recommend cutting the most recently grown hair closest to the
scalp. Hair samples do not expire. (but note: hair
level is not reliable for mercury body burden)
Blood is best for measuring levels of
essential minerals, determining possible deficiencies and recent exposure with
heavy metals.
Urine and fecal testing reflects the levels of
heavy metals deposited in the body tissues, but it is most accurate after
taking a chelating agent that helps extract metals in urine. These tests are
important for evaluating the efficacy of the chelating treatment since they
measure levels of metals excreted from the body and the tissues. The urine and
fecal elements tests are not recommended unless using a chelating agent before
sample collection
EPA and
National Academy of Sciences advise a limit of 5 micrograms per liter in blood
and the upper level of mercury exposure recommended by the German Commission on
Human Biomonitoring has also been lowered to 5 micrograms per liter in the blood(30), but adverse effects such as increases in blood pressure and cognitive
effects have been documented as low as 1 ug/L cord blood, with impacts higher
in low birth weight babies(308).
The EPA reference level for hair mercury is 1 part per million, but adverse
health effects have been documented in many with lower hair mercury levels(86,464,etc.). A nationwide hair test program by
Greenpeace found that 22% of the U.S. population tested had hair mercury levels
more than the EPA reference level, and several states had over 30% higher than
the EPA reference level. The U.S. Department of Health, Agency for Toxic Substances
and Disease Registry (ASTDR) standard (MRL) ‑for acute inhalation
exposure to mercury vapor is 0.2 micrograms Hg/M3, which translates to approx.
4 ug/day for the average adult(20). The EPA health
guideline for methyl mercury is 0.1 ug/kg body weight per day or 7 ug for the
average adult, and the MRL for methyl mercury is 0.3 ug/kg body weight/day(599).
DAMS has compiled a record of over 60,000
clinical cases of recovery from over 30 chronic conditions caused by mercury
toxicity, after reducing mercury exposures and detoxification treatment (597,86b,464).
References:
(1) Leistevuo J et al, Dental amalgam fillings and the amount
of organic mercury in human saliva. Caries Res 2001 May-Jun;35(3):163-6;
(6) D.W. Jones et al, “Survey of Mercury vapor in dental offices in
Atlantic Canada”,Can. Dent. Assoc. J.
4906:378‑395, 1983
(11) Lamm O et
al, “Subclinical effects of exposure to inorganic mercury revealed by
somatosensory‑evoked potentials. Eur Neurol, 1985, 24:237-243; &
(b)Altmann L, Sveinsson K, Visual
evoked potentials in 6 year old children in relation to mercury and lead
levels. Neurotoxicol Teratol 1998;
20(1):9-17; &
© Chang YC,Yeh CY, Wang JD, “Subclinical neurotoxicity of mercury vapor
revealed by a multimodality potential study of chloralkali workers”, Immunol,
1999, 117(3):482-8.
(21) R.A.Goyer,”Toxic effects of metals”in: Caserett
and Doull’s Toxicology- TheBasic Science of
Poisons,
McGraw-Hill Inc., N.Y., 1993; &(b) Goodman, Gillman, The Pharmacological
Basis of Therapeutics, Mac Millan Publishing Company, N.Y. 1985; &(c)
Encyclopedia of Occumpational Health and Safety, International Labour Office,
Geneva, Vol 2, 3rd Edition.;&(d) Arena, Drew, Poisoning. Fifth Edition. Toxicology-Symptoms-Treatment, Charles C.
Thomas-Publisher, Springfield, Il 1986.
(25) C.Malmström, M.Hansson, M. Nylander, Conference
on Trace Elements in Health and Disease. Stockholm May 25‑1992; & C.
Malmstrom et al., “Silver amalgam: an
unstable material”, Swedish paper translated in Bio-Probe Newsletter, Vol
9(1):5-6, Jan. 1993 & C.Malmstrom,
“Amalgam derived mercury in feces”, Journal of Trace Elements in Experimental
Medicine, 5, (Abs 122), 1992; Nylander
et al. Fourth international symposium Epidemiology
in Occupational Health. Como Italy Sept 1985,
http://home.swipnet.se/misac/infpatient.html
(30) Weihe P, Grandjean P et al;
Environmental epidemiology research leads to a decrease of the exposure limit
for mercury] Ugeskr Laeger. 2003
Jan 6;165(2):107-11:
(35) Huggins
HA, Levy,TE, Uniformed Consent: the hidden dangers in dental care, 1999,
Hampton Roads Publishing Company Inc;
& Hal Huggins, Its All in
Your Head, 1997; & Center for Progressive Medicine, 1999, http://www.hugnet.com
(36) Sam
Queen; Chronic Mercury Toxicity- New Hope Against an Endemic Disease. http://www.bioprobe.com; &
F.L.Lorscheider et al, "Mercury exposure from silver tooth fillings:
emerging evidence questions a paradigm", FASEB J 9:504-508,1995.
(38) S.Ziff
and M.Ziff, Infertility
and Birth Defects: Is Mercury from Dental Fillings a Hidden Cause?,
Bio-Probe, Inc. ISBN: 0-941011-03-8.1987
(39)M.Inouye et al, Behavioral and neuropathological
effects of prenatal
methyl mercury exposure in
mice”. Neurobehav.Toxicol Teratol., 1985:7;227‑232; &(b) Z.Annau et al, Johns Hopkins Univ., School of Public Health,
“Mechanisms of neurotoxicity and their relationships to behavioral changes”,
Toxicology, 1988, 49(2): 219-25; &(c) Vinay SD, Sood PP. Inability of thiol
compounds to restore CNS arylsulfatases inhibited by methyl mercury. Pharmacol
Toxicol 1991 Jul;69(1):71-4;&(d)
P.Grandjean et al, “MeHg and neurotoxicity in children”, Am J Epidemiol,
1999, 150(3):301-5: &(e) Budtz-Jorgensen
E, Grandjean P, Keiding N, White RF, Weihe P. Benchmark dose calculations of
methylmercury-associated neurobehavioral deficits. Toxicol Lett 2000 Mar
15;112-113:193- ; & (f) Crump KS, Kjellstrom T, Shipp AM, Silvers A,
Stewart A. Influence of prenatal mercury
exposure upon scholastic and
psychological test performance: benchmark analysis of a New Zealand cohort. Risk Anal 1998 Dec;18(6):701-13; &(g) Grandjean
P, Weihe P, Murata K, Sorensen N, Dahl R, Jorgensen PJ. Cognitive deficit in 7-year-old children with prenatal
exposure to methylmercury. Neurotoxicol
Teratol 1997 Nov-Dec;19(6):417-28
(43) (a)Knapp LT;
Klann E. Superoxide‑induced
stimulation of protein kinase C via thiol modification
and modulation of zinc content. J Biol Chem 2000 May
22; & A.Badou et al, “HgCl2-induced
IL-4 gene expression in T cells involves a protein kinase C-dependent calcium
influx through L-type calcium channels”J Biol Chem. 1997 Dec
19;272(51):32411-8.,
(76) Pesch A et al, Mercury concentrations in urine, scalp hair,
and saliva in children from
Germany. J Expo Anal Environ Epidemiol 2002
Jul;12(4):252-258; & Mercury in human
hair as an indicator of the fish consumption, Neuro Endocrinol
Lett. 2008 Oct;29(5):675-9, Kruzikova K,
Modra H, Kensova R, Skocovska B,
Wlasow T, Svoboda T, Svobodova Z.
(79) L.Bjorkman
et al, "Mercury in Saliva and Feces after Removal of Amalgam
Fillings", Toxicology and Applied Pharmacology, 1997, 144(1), p156-62;
& (b) J Dent Res 75: 38-, IADR Abstract 165, 1996.
(80) M.Osterblad
et al, "Antimicrobial and Mercury Resistance among Persons with and
without Amalgam Fillings", Antimicrobial Agents and Chem, 39(11):2499,1995
(83) I.Skare
et al, Swedish National Board of Occupational Safety and Health, "Human
Exposure to Hg and Ag Released from Dental Amalgam Restorations", Archives
of Environmental Health 1994;
49(5):384-394.
(85) J.A.Weiner
et al,“The relationship between mercury concentration in human organs and
predictor variables", Sci Tot Environ, 138(1-3):101-115,1993; & "An estimation of the uptake of
mercury from amalgam fillings in Swedish subjects", Science of the Total
Environment, v168,n3, p255-265, 1995.
(86) A.S. Holmes,
M.F. Blaxill and B.E. Haley, Reduced Levels of Mercury in First Baby
Haircuts
of Autistic Children; International
Journal of Toxicology, 2003;
www.safeminds.org/ ; & Autism Treatment Center, Baton Rouge, La, Experience
from Treating 300 Mercury Toxic Autism Patients, http://www.healing-arts.org/children/holmes.htm#wethink
(157) L.J Goldwater, “Toxicology of Inorganic
Mercury”, Annals: NY Acad Sci, 65:498-503, 1957; &
J.B.Nielsen et
al, “Evaluation of Mercury in Hair & Blood as Biomarkers for Methyl
mercury Exposure”, Arch of Toxicology, 1994,65(5):317-321.
(183) World Health
Organization(WHO),1991, Environmental Health Criteria 118, Inorganic
Mercury, WHO, Geneva; & Environ metal Health. Criterion. 101, Methyl Mercury; 1990.
(229) Andrew Hall Cutler, PhD, PE; Amalgam Illness:Diagnosis and Treatment; 1996 , www.noamalgam.com/
(260) J.S.
Woods et al, “Urinary porphyrin profiles
as biomarker of mercury exposure: studies on dentists”, J Toxicol Environ
Health, 40(2-3):1993, p235-; &
“Altered porphyrin metabolites as a biomarker of mercury exposure and
toxicity”, Physiol Pharmocol, 1996,74(2):210-15,
(273) R.Schiele
et al, Institute of Occupational Medicine, Univ. Of Erlamgem- Nurnberg,
“Studies of organ mercury content related to number of amalgam fillings”,Symposium paper, March 12, 1984,
Cologne, Germany; (& 38); & “Quecksilber-Mobiliztion durch DMPS bei Personen mit und ohne
Amalgamfullungen”, Zahnarztl. Mitt,
1989, 79(17): 1866-1868; & J.J.Kleber, “Quecksilberverkonzen- tration im Urin nach DMPS” in [Status Quo
and Perspectives of Amalgam], L.T. Friberg(ed.), Georg-Thieme Verlag, Stuttgart,
New York, 1005, p 61-69.
(274) L.Friberg
et al, “Mercury in the brain and CNS in relation to amalgam fillings”,
Lakartidningen, 83(7):519-521,1986(Swedish Medical Journal);
(278) NIDR/ADA
Workshop, Biocompatibility of Metals in Dentistry, JADA, 109(3): 469-471, Sept
1984. (& 38)
(279) Jenkins,
Biological Monitoring of Toxic Trace Metals, Vol 1, Biological
Monitoring and Surveillance, U.S.
EPA, Sept 1980, p3; & Cernichiari E, Brewer R, Myers GJ, Marsh DO, Berlin M, Clarkson TW; Monitoring methyl mercury during pregnancy:
maternal hair predicts fetal brain
exposure. Neurotoxicology 1995
Winter;16(4):705‑10: & M.J.Gonzalez et el, “Mercury in
human hair; residents of Madrid, Spain”, Arch Environ Health, 1985,
40(4):225-8; & D.Airey, Mercury in human hair: a review” Environmental
Health Perspectives,1983. 52:303-316;
& “Total mercury concentrations in human
hair form 13 countries”, Sci Total Environ 1983, 32(2): 157-80; & S.A.Katz et al, “Use of hair analysis
for evaluating mercury intoxication of the human body”, J Appl Toxicol, 1992,
12(2): 79-84; & Wilhelm M; Muller F; Idel H. Biological monitoring of mercury vapor
exposure by scalp hair analysis in
comparison to blood and urine. Toxicol
Lett 1996 Nov;88(1‑3):221‑6; & Ziff, Validity of Hair Anlysis
for Diagnosis of Mercury Status, Bioprobe Newsletter, Jan 1988,
www.bioprobe.com.
(290) D. Echeverria et
al, “Neurobehavioral
effects from exposure to dental amalgam:
new distinctions between recent exposure and Hg body burden” FASEB J, Aug 1998,
12(11):971-980; & Amalgam and
Health, Swedish Council for Planning and Coordination of Research, 1999;
p297-307.
(308) Sorensen N, Murata K, Budtz-Jorgensen E, Weihe P, Grandjean
P. Prenatal
methylmercury exposure as a cardiovascular risk factor at seven years of age. Epidemiology 1999 Jul;10(4):370-5;& D.O.Marsh et al, “Fetal Methyl mercury
Poisoning”, Ann Neurol, 1980, 7:348-55
(335) A. Engqvist et al, “Speciation of mercury excreted in feces from individuals
with amalgam fillings”,
Arch Environ Health, 1998, 53(3):205-13; & Dept. of Toxicology &
Chemistry, Stockholm Univ., National Institute for Working Life, 1998 (www.niwl.se/ah/1998-02.html)
(342) Stejskal VDM, Danersund A,
Lindvall A, Hudecek R, Nordman V, Yaqob A et al. Metal- specific
memory lymphocytes: biomarkers of sensitivity in man. Neuroendocrinology Letters, 1999; 20: 289-98.
www.melisa.org
(369)Prochazkova J, Sterzl I, Kucerova H,
Bartova J, Stejskal VD; The beneficial
effect of amalgam
replacement on health in patients with autoimmunity. Neuro Endocrinol
Lett. 2004 Jun;25(3):211-8.
(405) Stejskal J, Stejskal V. The role of
metals in autoimmune diseases and the
link to neuroendocrinology Neuroendocrinology
Letters, 20:345‑358, 1999; www.melisa.org/knowledge/education14.html
(360) Buchet JP, Lauwerys RR, Influence of DMPS on the
mobilization of mercury from tissues of rats pretreated with mercuric chloride, phenylmercury
acetate, or mercury vapor, Toxicology 1989;54(3):323-33 .
(370) Magos L, Clarkson TW, Hudson AR. The effects of dose of elemental mercury and
first
pass
circulation time on organ
distribution of inorganic mercury in rats.
Biochem Biophys Acta 1989; 991(1):85-9.
(386) Great Smokies Diagnostic Lab, research web pages (by
condition) http://www.gsdl.com; &
Doctors Data Lab , http://www.doctorsdata.com , inquiries @doctors data.com, www.doctorsdata.com,
& MetaMetrix Lab, www.metametrix.com; &(d) Biospectron Lab, LMI, Lennart Månsson
International AB, lmi.analyslab@swipnet.se
(427)
Chetty CS, McBride V, Sands S, Rajanna B.
Effects in vitro on rat brain Mg(++)-ATPase. Arch Int
Physiol Biochem 1990
(69) Olanow CW, Arendash GW. Metals
and free radicals in neurodegeneration. Curr Opin Neurol 1994, 7(6):548-58;
& Kasarskis EJ(MD), Metallothionein in ALS Motor Neurons(IRB #91-22026),
FEDRIP DATABASE, National
Technical Information Service(NTIS), ID: FEDRIP/1999/07802766
(443)
Troy CM, Shelanski ML. Down-regulation
of copper/zinc superoxide dismustase causes apoptotic death in PC12 neuronal
cells. Proc. National Acad Sci, USA, 1994, 91(14):6384-7; & Rothstein JD,
Dristol LA, Hosier B, Brown
RH, Kunci RW. Chronic inhibition of
superoxide dismustase produces apoptotic death of
spinal neurons. Proc Nat Acad Sci, USA,
1994, 91(10):4155-9.
(503) Rupp, Paffenberger, Significance to health of
mercury used in dental practice, Reports of Councils and Bureaus, JADA, Vol
182, June 1971; & Rao, Hefferen, Biocompatibility of Dental Materials,
Vol III,D.C. Smith and D.F.
Williams, Eds., CRC Press, Boca Raton, Fl 1982, Toxicity of Mercury; &
Center for Chemical Hazard Assessment, Potential Occupational Hazards:
Dentistry, Syracuse Research, Contract No.210-78-0019, 1980; & Merck Manuel, 14th Edition,
p1552.
(528) Doctors Data Inc.; Fecal Elements Test; P.O.Box
111, West Chicago, Illinois, 60186-0111;
(543) U.S. Centers
for Disease Control, National Center for Health Statistics, NHANES III
study(thousands of
people’s health monitored), www.flcv.com/NHanes3.html
; &
www.mercola.com/article/mercury/no_mercury.htm & Review: cancer related to mercury
exposure, B.
Windham (Ed) www.flcv.com/cancerhg.html ; & (b) Laks,
Dan R. Assessment
of chronic mercury
exposure within the U.S. population, National Health and Nutrition
Examination Survey,
1999–2006. Biometals. August 2009; & Laks, D.R. et al, Mercury has
an affinity for
pituitary hormones, Medical Hypotheses, Dec 2009; & (c) An Investigation of
Factors Related to Levels of Mercury in Human Hair, Environmental
Quality Institute,
October 01, 2005,
www.greenpeace.org/raw/content/usa/press/reports/mercury-report.pdf
www.greenpeace.org/usa/assets/binaries/addendum-to-mercury-report
(577)
Joachim Mutter et al, Alzheimer Disease: Mercury as pathogenetic factor and
apolipoprotein E
as a moderator, Neuroendocrinol Lett 2004; 25(5):331–339;
& Apolipoprotein E genotyping as a potential biomarker
for mercury neurotoxicity. J Alzheimers Dis. 2003Jun;5(3):189-95. Godfrey ME, Wojcik DP, Krone CA;
& & Amer. College of Medical
Genetics Working Group on ApoE and Alzheimer’s Disease, JAMA, 1995, 274:
1627-29
(595) Great Plains Medical Lab, Testing for Toxic Metals, http://www.greatplainslaboratory.com/test19.html
(596) Review: Fetal Effects of Amalgam, B Windham(Ed),
www.flcv.com/fetaln.html
(597) Results of Replacement of Amalgam Fillings, B
Windham(Ed), www.flcv.com/hgremove.html
(598) Review: Children’s neurological conditions, B
Windham(Ed), www.flcv.com/kidshg.html
(599) Exposure Levels from Amalgam Fillings, Review, www.flcv.com/damspr1.html
(600)Health Effects Related to Dental Amalgam, B
Windham(Ed), www.flcv.com/amalg6.html
National/technical contact: B. Windham, berniew1@embarqmail.com, 850-878-9024