Mercury in fillings

So, basically, the Minamata disaster never happened? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minamata_disaster

Then someone needs to take down that wiki article.
I believe you are taking his statement out of context

NO MERCURY (FROM FILLINGS) HAS KILLED CHILDREN.

Although, it'd be easy for someone to postulate "Maybe some of the deaths from SIDS, congenital defects, cancer" come from mercury fillings. not just the fillings in the child, but in the mother. the whole, Mercury crosses the placenta issue.

My gut says no, but i haven't looked at the lit to say. Anyway, again it is pointless. There is no safer alternative so we go with it.
 
What does a large release of methyl mercury from an industrial plant have to do dental amalgam? Pretty much nothing.

That is using the idea that:
A large amount = can kill you.
A smaller amount = is of no harm whatsoever.

By the time the mercury dumped into the water was consumed by the fish, and the fish was consumed by the local people, the levels of mercury would have been rather small. All of the children became sick because of the small levels of mercury in the fish, they never touched the mercury directly in the environment.

So since the levels of mercury were quite small, but still caused a lot of harm, then why would the mercury of an entire filling of ingested mercury not be a problem?
 
That is using the idea that:
A large amount = can kill you.
A smaller amount = is of no harm whatsoever.

By the time the mercury dumped into the water was consumed by the fish, and the fish was consumed by the local people, the levels of mercury would have been rather small. All of the children became sick because of the small levels of mercury in the fish, they never touched the mercury directly in the environment.

So since the levels of mercury were quite small, but still caused a lot of harm, then why would the mercury of an entire filling of ingested mercury not be a problem?
methyl mercury does not equal elemental mercury or amalgam mercury.

Just like, sodium does not equal sodium chloride. They are different substances.

This isn't to say elemental mercury isn't toxic, it's just orders of magnitude less toxic than methyl mercury.

methyl mercury is easily absorbed through eating, skin and inhalation. elemental mercury is only easy inhaled. It isn't easily taken up through eating or skin contact.
 
That is using the idea that:
A large amount = can kill you.
A smaller amount = is of no harm whatsoever.

By the time the mercury dumped into the water was consumed by the fish, and the fish was consumed by the local people, the levels of mercury would have been rather small. All of the children became sick because of the small levels of mercury in the fish, they never touched the mercury directly in the environment.

So since the levels of mercury were quite small, but still caused a lot of harm, then why would the mercury of an entire filling of ingested mercury not be a problem?

To quote joobz:
Methyl-Hg is nasty nasty stuff. Tiny amounts you absorb to your skin can kill you. There was a researcher several years back who died becasue of a small drop that landed on her glove, went through that and touched her skin.

Methyl-Hg is not the same as the Hg in dental fillings.

Steven
 
Last edited:
So, basically, the Minamata disaster never happened? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minamata_disaster

Then someone needs to take down that wiki article.

I am suprised you did not infer the context from the thread, If, however you wish me to be specific, then:

mercury amalgam as used for dental fillings in children in appropriate doses consistent with current dental practice

DOES NOT KILL CHILDREN.

ETA - beaten by about 5 posts! Thanks anyway to those who could see where I was coming from...
 
Last edited:
Not only is elemental mercury a lot less toxic than methyl mercury, as others above point out, dental amalgam is not elemental mercury; it is an alloy in which the mercury is tightly bound.

You'd think that if mercury in amalgam were dangerous this would appear in blood concentration or epidemiological data. Yet the evidence posted by others above seems to indicate this is not the case.

Can you explain why, if amalgam is dangerous, the danger is not reflected in either of these data sets?
 
methyl mercury does not equal elemental mercury or amalgam mercury.

Just like, sodium does not equal sodium chloride. They are different substances.

This isn't to say elemental mercury isn't toxic, it's just orders of magnitude less toxic than methyl mercury.

methyl mercury is easily absorbed through eating, skin and inhalation. elemental mercury is only easy inhaled. It isn't easily taken up through eating or skin contact.

No we need to see if we can get him worried about all the clorine in his system, after all it was used as poison gas in WWI. That would be much better to scare people about than the sodium in sodium cloride.
 
No we need to see if we can get him worried about all the clorine in his system, after all it was used as poison gas in WWI. That would be much better to scare people about than the sodium in sodium cloride.
Yeah:) , i was going to use chlorine but I thought Sodium was a better analogy.
Chlorine is a diatomic gas and represents a greater chemical change. Sodium is highly caustic metal. Yet, the sodium ion from any salt of it is rather benign.
 
Yeah:) , i was going to use chlorine but I thought Sodium was a better analogy.
Chlorine is a diatomic gas and represents a greater chemical change. Sodium is highly caustic metal. Yet, the sodium ion from any salt of it is rather benign.

It is not benign but absolutely vital as is potatium. You mess those levels up and your heart does not work, and me I like having a pulse.
 
It is not benign but absolutely vital as is potatium. You mess those levels up and your heart does not work, and me I like having a pulse.
lousy membrane potentials, always getting in the way.

MITOCONDRIAAAAA! (think startrek 2)
 

Back
Top Bottom