Re: Location As a Determinant of Physical Properties

[Guest guest]

Hello Steve,

The public / consumer is screwed over repeatedly by lack of accurate facts. The independent Universities used to help, but now they are about as bad as the Big Biz marketing machine. Where can the public go for straight unbiased facts on products?

I recently asked my new Doctor what the risk rate is for intestine puncture during a screening colonoscopy (sp) (after he told me I should get one). He did not have a clue. Told me its very low. I asked what that meant and he said "I should not worry about it". I asked about the virtual CT ones, and he said, Oh they can not do the polyps removal then. I said but I might not have polyps, no one in my family has them. It was interesting.

Bradley HarrSr. Environmental Scientist

-----Original Message-----From: iequality [mailto:iequality ]On Behalf Of AirwaysEnv@...Sent: Monday, January 07, 2008 5:10 PMTo: iequality Subject: Re: Location As a Determinant of Physical Properties

Carl,There is another aspect of the mercury amalgam issue in common with mold. From an AP article about the FDA study on mercury fillings in September of 2006:"The Food and Drug Administration reviewed 34 recent research studies and found ``no significant new information'' that would change its determination that mercury-based fillings don't harm patients, except in rare cases where they have allergic reactions."Except in rare cases where they have allergic reactions? How rare? What kinds of reactions?Is this like all the drugs that are approved as safe except for the rare side effects that sicken and kill thousands of people?This "blame the victim" approach to individual hypersensitivity reactions dominates public health policy. I understand the "greater good" concept but it really amounts to, in essence, a societal policy of human sacrifice to Big Pharma and Big Chem.Steve TemesStudy Finds Mercury Fillings Not HarmfulBy ANDREW BRIDGES WASHINGTON (AP) - Silver fillings used to patch cavities aren't dangerous even though they expose dental patients to the toxic metal mercury, federal health researchers said Friday. The Food and Drug Administration reviewed 34 recent research studies and found ``no significant new information'' that would change its determination that mercury-based fillings don't harm patients, except in rare cases where they have allergic reactions. The FDA released a draft of its review ahead of a two-day meeting next week to discuss the safety of mercury used in dentistry. Consumer groups opposed to its use disputed the FDA's conclusions. The groups plan to petition the agency for an immediate ban on use of the cavity-filler in pregnant women. ``The science is over. There is no safe level of exposure,'' said Brown, a lawyer for one of the groups, Consumers for Dental Choice. ``The only thing standing between this and a ban is politics. They are still pretending it is a scientific question, but it isn't.'' Amalgam fillings, also called silver fillings, by weight are about 50 percent mercury, joined with silver, copper and tin. Dentists have used amalgam to fill cavities since the 1800s. Today, tens of millions of Americans receive mercury fillings each year. Amalgam use has begun to decline, however, with many doctors switching to resin composite fillings, considered more appealing since they blend better with the natural coloring of teeth. With amalgam fillings, mercury vapor is released through tooth-brushing and chewing. In general, significant levels of mercury exposure can permanently damage the brain and kidneys. Fetuses and children are especially sensitive to its harmful effects. Scientists have found that mercury levels in the blood, urine and body tissues rise the more mercury fillings a person has. However, even among people with numerous fillings, exposure levels are well below those known to be harmful, the report said. ``If substantial scientific evidence showed that dental amalgam posed a threat to the health of dental patients, we would advise dentists to stop using it. But the best and latest available scientific evidence indicates that dental amalgam is safe,'' Dr. Zentz, senior director of the American Dental Association's council on scientific affairs, said in prepared remarks to be delivered Wednesday to the joint meeting of FDA experts on dental products and neurology. Among those expected to address the joint panel is Rep. Diane , D-Calif., who has introduced legislation that would effectively ban the use of mercury in dental fillings by 2008. will press the FDA for a ban and call on the agency to study the environmental impact of dental mercury, spokesman Bert Hammond said. Also on the legislative front, Sen. Mike Enzi, R-Wyo., and other Senate colleagues have asked President Bush's nominee to head the FDA about the safety of mercury fillings. An Enzi spokesman said the lawmaker has yet to receive Dr. von Eschenbach's answers to those questions. Meanwhile, representatives of the National Multiple Sclerosis Society and Alzheimer's Association are expected to testify that there is no known scientific evidence to connect mercury fillings and the two diseases that are the focus of their respective groups. And Swedish and Canadian experts are to discuss how their countries regulate amalgam fillings. The meeting likely won't be the last word in the drawn-out fight over mercury fillings. As early as the 1840s, dentists were squabbling over whether gold or mercury-silver fillings were better - a feud that led to the disbanding of the first national dental society in the United States, according to a March article in the Journal of the California Dental Association. 09/01/06 15:47 © Copyright The Associated Press. In a message dated 1/6/2008 7:23:54 PM Eastern Standard Time, grimeshabitats writes:

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.aspDespite 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=495138or: TinyURL http://tinyurl.com/2cnvkbCarl GrimesHealthy Habitats LLC

[Guest guest]

Enjoy the consulting biz. All the best. Please stay in touch.JoeC: P: F: Re: Location As a Determinant of Physical Properties Carl, There is another aspect of the mercury amalgam issue in common with mold. From an AP article about the FDA study on mercury fillings in September of 2006: " The Food and Drug Administration reviewed 34 recent research studies and found ``no significant new information'' that would change its determination that mercury-based fillings don't harm patients, except in rare cases where they have allergic reactions. " Except in rare cases where they have allergic reactions? How rare? What kinds of reactions? Is this like all the drugs that are approved as safe except for the rare side effects that sicken and kill thousands of people? This " blame the victim " approach to individual hypersensitivity reactions dominates public health policy. I understand the " greater good " concept but it really amounts to, in essence, a societal policy of human sacrifice to Big Pharma and Big Chem. Steve Temes Study Finds Mercury Fillings Not Harmful By ANDREW BRIDGES WASHINGTON (AP) - Silver fillings used to patch cavities aren't dangerous even though they expose dental patients to the toxic metal mercury, federal health researchers said Friday. The Food and Drug Administration reviewed 34 recent research studies and found ``no significant new information'' that would change its determination that mercury-based fillings don't harm patients, except in rare cases where they have allergic reactions. The FDA released a draft of its review ahead of a two-day meeting next week to discuss the safety of mercury used in dentistry. Consumer groups opposed to its use disputed the FDA's conclusions. The groups plan to petition the agency for an immediate ban on use of the cavity-filler in pregnant women. ``The science is over. There is no safe level of exposure,'' said Brown, a lawyer for one of the groups, Consumers for Dental Choice. ``The only thing standing between this and a ban is politics. They are still pretending it is a scientific question, but it isn't.'' Amalgam fillings, also called silver fillings, by weight are about 50 percent mercury, joined with silver, copper and tin. Dentists have used amalgam to fill cavities since the 1800s. Today, tens of millions of Americans receive mercury fillings each year. Amalgam use has begun to decline, however, with many doctors switching to resin composite fillings, considered more appealing since they blend better with the natural coloring of teeth. With amalgam fillings, mercury vapor is released through tooth-brushing and chewing. In general, significant levels of mercury exposure can permanently damage the brain and kidneys. Fetuses and children are especially sensitive to its harmful effects. Scientists have found that mercury levels in the blood, urine and body tissues rise the more mercury fillings a person has. However, even among people with numerous fillings, exposure levels are well below those known to be harmful, the report said. ``If substantial scientific evidence showed that dental amalgam posed a threat to the health of dental patients, we would advise dentists to stop using it. But the best and latest available scientific evidence indicates that dental amalgam is safe,'' Dr. Zentz, senior director of the American Dental Association's council on scientific affairs, said in prepared remarks to be delivered Wednesday to the joint meeting of FDA experts on dental products and neurology. Among those expected to address the joint panel is Rep. Diane , D-Calif., who has introduced legislation that would effectively ban the use of mercury in dental fillings by 2008. will press the FDA for a ban and call on the agency to study the environmental impact of dental mercury, spokesman Bert Hammond said. Also on the legislative front, Sen. Mike Enzi, R-Wyo., and other Senate colleagues have asked President Bush's nominee to head the FDA about the safety of mercury fillings. An Enzi spokesman said the lawmaker has yet to receive Dr. von Eschenbach's answers to those questions. Meanwhile, representatives of the National Multiple Sclerosis Society and Alzheimer's Association are expected to testify that there is no known scientific evidence to connect mercury fillings and the two diseases that are the focus of their respective groups. And Swedish and Canadian experts are to discuss how their countries regulate amalgam fillings. The meeting likely won't be the last word in the drawn-out fight over mercury fillings. As early as the 1840s, dentists were squabbling over whether gold or mercury-silver fillings were better - a feud that led to the disbanding of the first national dental society in the United States, according to a March article in the Journal of the California Dental Association. 09/01/06 15:47 © Copyright The Associated Press. 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 <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- <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 <http://tinyurl.com/2cnvkb> Carl Grimes Healthy Habitats LLC

[Guest guest]

Bradley,

My wife had one and the tech (according to

the doctor) didn’t rinse the instruments correctly and the cleaning chemical

damaged her insides. Puncture and chem burns are potential factors.

EnviroBob

From: iequality

[mailto:iequality ] On Behalf

Of Sabbatis, ph

Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2008

4:55 PM

To: iequality

Subject: Re: Location

As a Determinant of Physical Properties

Enjoy the

consulting biz. All the best. Please stay in touch.

Joe

C:

P:

F:

Re: Location As

a Determinant of Physical Properties

Carl,

There is another aspect of the

mercury amalgam issue in common with mold. From an AP article about the

FDA study on mercury fillings in September of 2006:

" The Food and Drug

Administration reviewed 34 recent research studies and found ``no significant

new information'' that would change its determination that mercury-based

fillings don't harm patients, except in rare cases where they have allergic

reactions. "

Except in rare cases where they have

allergic reactions? How rare? What kinds of reactions?

Is this like all the drugs that are

approved as safe except for the rare side effects that sicken and kill

thousands of people?

This " blame the victim "

approach to individual hypersensitivity reactions dominates public health

policy. I understand the " greater good " concept but it really

amounts to, in essence, a societal policy of human sacrifice to Big Pharma and

Big Chem.

Steve Temes

Study Finds Mercury Fillings Not

Harmful

By ANDREW BRIDGES

WASHINGTON (AP) - Silver fillings

used to patch cavities aren't dangerous even though they expose dental patients

to the toxic metal mercury, federal health researchers said Friday.

The Food and Drug Administration

reviewed 34 recent research studies and found ``no significant new information''

that would change its determination that mercury-based fillings don't harm

patients, except in rare cases where they have allergic reactions.

The FDA released a draft of its

review ahead of a two-day meeting next week to discuss the safety of mercury

used in dentistry.

Consumer groups opposed to its use

disputed the FDA's conclusions. The groups plan to petition the agency for an

immediate ban on use of the cavity-filler in pregnant women.

``The science is over. There is no

safe level of exposure,'' said Brown, a lawyer for one of the groups,

Consumers for Dental Choice. ``The only thing standing between this and a ban

is politics. They are still pretending it is a scientific question, but it

isn't.''

Amalgam fillings, also called silver

fillings, by weight are about 50 percent mercury, joined with silver, copper

and tin. Dentists have used amalgam to fill cavities since the 1800s. Today,

tens of millions of Americans receive mercury fillings each year. Amalgam use

has begun to decline, however, with many doctors switching to resin composite

fillings, considered more appealing since they blend better with the natural

coloring of teeth.

With amalgam fillings, mercury vapor

is released through tooth-brushing and chewing. In general, significant levels

of mercury exposure can permanently damage the brain and kidneys. Fetuses and

children are especially sensitive to its harmful effects.

Scientists have found that mercury

levels in the blood, urine and body tissues rise the more mercury fillings a

person has. However, even among people with numerous fillings, exposure levels

are well below those known to be harmful, the report said.

``If substantial scientific evidence

showed that dental amalgam posed a threat to the health of dental patients, we

would advise dentists to stop using it. But the best and latest available

scientific evidence indicates that dental amalgam is safe,'' Dr. Zentz,

senior director of the American Dental Association's council on scientific

affairs, said in prepared remarks to be delivered Wednesday to the joint

meeting of FDA experts on dental products and neurology.

Among those expected to address the

joint panel is Rep. Diane , D-Calif., who has introduced legislation that

would effectively ban the use of mercury in dental fillings by 2008.

will press the FDA for a ban and call on the agency to study the environmental

impact of dental mercury, spokesman Bert Hammond said.

Also on the legislative front, Sen.

Mike Enzi, R-Wyo., and other Senate colleagues have asked President Bush's

nominee to head the FDA about the safety of mercury fillings. An Enzi spokesman

said the lawmaker has yet to receive Dr. von Eschenbach's answers to

those questions.

Meanwhile, representatives of the

National Multiple Sclerosis Society and Alzheimer's Association are expected to

testify that there is no known scientific evidence to connect mercury fillings

and the two diseases that are the focus of their respective groups. And Swedish

and Canadian experts are to discuss how their countries regulate amalgam

fillings.

The meeting likely won't be the last

word in the drawn-out fight over mercury fillings. As early as the 1840s,

dentists were squabbling over whether gold or mercury-silver fillings were

better - a feud that led to the disbanding of the first national dental society

in the United States,

according to a March article in the Journal of the California Dental

Association.

09/01/06 15:47 © Copyright The

Associated Press.

In a message dated 1/6/2008 7:23:54

PM Eastern Standard Time, grimeshabitats writes:

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

<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-

<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 <http://tinyurl.com/2cnvkb>

Carl Grimes

Healthy Habitats LLC