Fw: California Judge Approves Landmark Warning on Mercury Use in Dentistry.

[Guest guest]

----- Original Message -----

From: " Kathi " <pureheart@...>

<undisclosed-recipients:>

Sent: Monday, January 13, 2003 11:32 AM

Subject: California Judge Approves Landmark Warning on Mercury Use in

Dentistry.

> California Judge Approves Landmark Warning on Mercury Use in Dentistry.

>

> (San Francisco, CA) - For the first time anywhere, dentists will be

> required to post a warning about the dangers of mercury in their dental

> fillings. A California Superior court

> judge finalized the language for the warning to be posted in dentists'

> offices here today.

>

> The warning will read as follows:

>

> Notice to Patients, Proposition 65:

>

> Warning on dental amalgams, used in many dental fillings, causes

> exposure to mercury, a chemical known to the state of California to

> cause birth defects or other

> reproductive harm.

>

> Root canal treatments and restorations including fillings, crowns and

> bridges, use chemicals known to the state of California to cause cancer.

>

> The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has studied the situation and

> approved for use all dental restorative materials.

>

> Consult your dentist to determine which materials are appropriate for

> your treatment.

>

> The exact language of the warning was argued and then finalized before

> Superior Court Judge A. on II between the California

> DentalAssociation, the largest

> constituent organization of the American Dental Association and Attorney

> Khorrami (Cor-ahm-mee). The agreement requires its member dentists

> to warn patients about

> the toxic dangers of

> mercury dental fillings and root canals. The agreement also allows

> non-CDA dentists to opt in to the agreement and post the warning.

>

> The warning is the result of a lawsuit filed by The Law Offices of

> Khorrami on behalf of As You Sow, a not-for-profit foundation dedicated

> to advocacy and activism in

> the public interest.

>

> " This is the first admission by organized dentistry that amalgams pose a

> potential health risk, " says Khorrami, lead attorney. " The only

> problem is that it's

> about 100 years too late. "

>

> This California consent judgment follows on the heels of recent lawsuits

> filed in Georgia, Texas, Ohio and Los Angeles, California charging that

> mercury fillings placed in a

> woman's mouth contributed to the autism of her child, as well as

> lawsuits in land, California, and New York charging the American

> Dental Association with misrepresenting

> amalgam dental fillings

> as " silver. " The lawsuits basically allege that such fillings actually

> contain approximately 50% mercury by weight. They cause continuous,

> daily exposure to mercury and, thereby

> pose substantial health risks to certain users. Mercury, a highly toxic

> substance, is the most widely used substance in dental fillings today.

>

> The use of mercury-based thimerosal in vaccines also has been the source

> of the recent controversy in the Homeland Security legislation.

>

> Khorrami filed the lawsuit against Fieldman D.D.S., Inc., the

> Citadel Dental Group, Inc. dental offices, dental laboratories and

> private dental schools and training

> programs with more than nine employees. The suit won the enforcement of

> Proposition 65, Safe Drinking Water and Toxics Enforcement Act [Health &

> Safety Code §

> 25249.6].

>

> Proposition 65 requires that a clear and reasonable warning be provided

> to persons prior to their exposure to a chemical known to cause cancer

> or reproductive harm. This

> statute lists mercury, contained in dental amalgam, as a substance that

> can cause reproductive toxicity. The lawsuit was based on the absence of

> warnings to patients treated

> with amalgam restorative

> materials in dental offices.

>

> The judgment on Proposition 65 mandates that all dental offices with

> more than nine employees provide warnings on the dangers of Mercury

> dental fillings to patients. Those in

> non-compliance could incur a fine of up to $2,500 per day.

>

>

>

>