Location As a Determinant of Physical Properties

[Guest guest]

We've all been reading the debate between two of our members

concerning the ACOEM mold statement. One of the arguments by ACOEM is

that mycotoxins, although recognized as a danger outdoors and in

foods, is not plausibly a problem indoors. Sharon Kramer makes the

argument that LOCATION does not alter physical properties of either

the people being exposed or the substance to which they are exposed.

However, there is a well respected organization, the American Dental

Association, who apparantly supports the LOCATION argument. As

recently as September 2006 the ADA continued to assert dental

amalgams in the mouth are safe.

http://www.ada.org/public/media/releases/0609_release01.asp

Despite the fact, both before insertion and after removal, dental

mercury (amalgams) must be handled as a hazardous material and have

been prohibited from being dumped in Boston Harbor, for example.

Which could lead one to believe that the only safe place for dental

mercury is inside a tooth in the human mouth.

Perhaps location does make a difference.

<tongue in cheek>

What triggered off this post is the notification that Norway recently

banned dental amalgams.

http://www.regjeringen.no/en/dep/md/Press-Centre/Press-

releases/2007/Bans-mercury-in-products.html?id=495138

or: TinyURL http://tinyurl.com/2cnvkb

Carl Grimes

Healthy Habitats LLC