Guest guest Posted May 16, 2002 Report Share Posted May 16, 2002 =========Start of Material Being Replied to======== > " V. Richter " <new_man85@...> >Subject: Re: Fwd: antiamalgamists > >Ira, I'm going to say this in the nicest way I know how. > >This statement is a complete lie. > >Very accurate monitoring equipment used by miners can detect the amounts >of >mercury coming off your amalgam filled teeth. This amount in my mouth >with >12 fillings was 105 micro grams per cubic meter. >>>>>>>>>>>==End of Quoted Material==<<<<<<<<<<< Fascinating. Is that the amount of mercury in your fillings? In your oral cavity? In the atmosphere? What was the rate of release of mercury? How long would it take for ALL the mercury to be released? And then would you become healthy? What equipment did you use for the measurement? When had it last been calibrated? --------------------------- IRA L. JACOBSON --------------------------- mailto:laser@... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 16, 2002 Report Share Posted May 16, 2002 =========Start of Material Being Replied to======== >very well put. I've just had 5 of my 10 fillings removed. Why would >people think that the most toxic metal known to man is toxic out side >the body, but somehow miraculously becomes non-toxic when it's IN the >body. ...- Pascucci >>>>>>>>>>>==End of Quoted Material==<<<<<<<<<<< Very simply. Because mercury in amalgam is very stable and not likely to be released. You may be thinking of elemental mercury, but that is another matter entirely. --------------------------- IRA L. JACOBSON --------------------------- mailto:laser@... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 19, 2002 Report Share Posted May 19, 2002 " V. Richter " <new_man85@...> wrote to me as follows: >Hi Ira, >I would expect no less from you than to be fascinated by such facts with >you >having such an inquiring mind and all. You have good legitimate >questions. Thanks for the compliment, Vince. >I wonder how much you really want to know the truth and how much you >want to >throw smoke in the air to obscure some of the facts, but I won't try and > >speculate on that. I can't really know. I resent the implication, so I guess that cancels out the compliment. Just to clarify, I wish to obtain facts; that is my only objective on this subject. It beats me why you feel that you must engage in personal attacks. I wish you good health and forgive you for the uncalled-for comments. >Let me start at the beginning of my previous account and fill in the >gaps >for you as you have requested. > >My Dentist(Practicing in Atlanta, Georgia and licensed) uses the same >type >of mercury monitor that miners use who trust their life to the accuracy >of >the measurment that the air monitor is designed for. Do miners monitor their oral cavities? At first glance, it might appear that your licensed dentist is not using the right tool for the job. How does he justify this? > The exact manufacturer >and model number is otherwise irrelevant. He calibrates at the same >frequency and to the same accuracy that the manufacturer recommends. If you know that, then you certainly can reveal the facts. When does the manufacturer recommend calibration, and when did your licensed dentist last calibrate the instrument before he made the measurement to which you refer? >What >exactly that frequency is is not relevent to me. I know meters have to >be >calibrated regularly and so does he. Details, please. When should it be calibrated, and when *was* it calibrated? At a certified laboratory? Which one? Traceable to the National Bureau of Standards, as the manufacturer recommends? >The test for mercury is done after ten >minutes of chewing regular over the counter gum. The meter when turned >on >and warmed up reads zero until placed in the mouth. It draws air in >from >the oral cavity just like our lungs do with every breath. It measures >the >amount of mercury in the air and mine measured about 20 times the EPA >limit >for mercury in the air. But the *interesting* limit ought to be the quantity in your oral cavity, which in absolute terms is minuscule compared to the amount of mercury in the air. > When the monitor probe is removed from the mouth it >again reads zero. The same mercury which is breathed in continuously is >absorbed in the saliva and gets swallowed. Now you've got me confused. When I breathe in, the air goes into my lungs, not into my digestive system. To what extent is the inhaled mercury (don't forget that it is not elemental mercury, but rather a very stable form as part of the amalgam) soluble in your saliva? > I'm sure you can do simple math >and calculate the rate of release of mercury. I can indeed do simple math, but I don't have the information that I would need. Can you help? > It of course varies with >whether you're chewing or not, whether you've eaten hot foods or not, >and >other factors. The fact is that up to 40% of the mercury in a filling >can >be lost over a lifetime in this way. Source for this statement? > I haven't personally done the tests, >so don't ask me to produce a double blind placebo controlled study with >which to prove this. The problem with becoming healthier as the mercury >is >released is that we don't live long enough to outlive the toxic levels >of >mercury unless we get rid of the source of the poison. It's with mixed >feelings that I answer you're post. Mi'ne <g>? > The desire for everyone else who reads >this to learn more is what tipped the scale and motivated me. That's rather an egocentric analysis of what " everyone else " wants. I should think that they are less interested in what tipped the scale for Vince, and more interested in what the potential dangers are in amalgamized mercury. And perhaps more to the point, to what extent the danger increases as part of the process of *removing* the mercury. By how many orders of magnitude the mercury concentration in one's oral cavity increases when the filling are being removed. > You seem to >be one that won't accept all the facts in the world which aren't >presented >by the establishment. Not " presented by the establishment, " but rather presented with rigor and thoroughness. I'm sorry to say that although you have made an attempt, you leave more questions unanswered than answered seriously. > If so, this reply won't help you in the slightest. I >do, however, hope it help you. It did help me, as you see. I am looking forward to a more serious reply, which would address the real issues. I have a feeling that you could do so if you really want to. My best wishes for your good health. --------------------------- IRA L. JACOBSON --------------------------- mailto:laser@... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 19, 2002 Report Share Posted May 19, 2002 " Arthur Luckower " <aluckower@...> wrote: >check out the amount of mercury in thimerosol which is used in childhood >vaccinations. and also in some other shots we get from doctors. from >what i have read, thimerosol is a much higher source of mercury than >even fillings. double jeopardy. Arthur, rather than assign tasks, we would appreciate your providing the information. This might give us the tools to judge the validity of your claim. >and even when you have your mercury fillings out, the half life in the >body is something like 20 years. Are you saying that 20 years after you have your fillings removed, 50 percent of the mercury is still in your body? That is amazing! Can you offer some documentation? Does this also apply to the amount of mercury in thimerosol that is used in childhood vaccinations? If not, why not? >dentists have the highest suicide rate of any profession. Source? > there are some countries that have banned mercury fillings. Which countries? >read hal huggins' book 'it's all in your head' for the history of >amalgam fillings. Where can I find this scientific treatise? The title is unlike that of any other scientific work I have ever read or heard of. My best wishes for your good health. -------------------------- Ira L. son mailto:laser@... ------------------------- Outgoing mail is virus free, provided that no viruses exist that cannot be identified by the latest update of Norton Antivirus 2002. In other words, you should check this email and any attachments to it for viruses; we can take no responsibility for any computer virus that might be transferred by way of this email. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 20, 2002 Report Share Posted May 20, 2002 Vince wrote: >Wanting to know the >exact manufacterer and calibration frequency of the meter? Come on Ira, >I >can spot a nit-picker when it is that obvious Come on, Vince. You know that either the instrument was not suitable for the task, or it had not been calibrated recently; more likely both. Am I right? What does that say about the measurements? --------------------------- IRA L. JACOBSON --------------------------- mailto:laser@... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 20, 2002 Report Share Posted May 20, 2002 " ~ ~ " <sbulmer@...> wrote: >Ira, noone can prove that after 20 years after mercury is removed, 50% >remains and you know that, so why even ask. Because our mutual friend, Arthur Luckower, made such a claim. You can't just make claims if they have no basis. So I repeat my questions to him or to you, for that matter: " Are you saying that 20 years after you have your fillings removed, 50 percent of the mercury is still in your body? That is amazing! Can you offer some documentation? " Does this also apply to the amount of mercury in thimerosol that is used in childhood vaccinations? If not, why not? >Even my dentist knows that the dental profession has the highest suicide >rate and HE told me. Would you like his number ? No. I was asking for the source for such a startling claim. " What my dentist knows " is not a source by which you can prove a point. >Yes, many countries have banned mercury, do your own research and you >will >learn this. Yes. Thanks to Agnes for providing information, which was new to me. >The title of Huggins book is of no relevance. No. It is just a sign of the serious scientific approach that this well-know scholar takes. >Ira, you have not offered anything here that has helped me one iota, >don't >know about the others. All you do is occasionally offer someone good >health. I wish that I could *offer* good health. Sorry, but the best I can do is wish someone good health. What I don't understand is why the moderators permit these personal attacks to be disseminated. I would hope that in the future, if anyone feels the deep personal need to be nasty, at least do it off-line, in a private email. >Ira, you have caused some problems before, then were quiet for a while >and >now you are back. I'm sick of your posts and wish you would >leave. Don't >bother responding b/c your posts are being deleted from me from now on >b/c >they are useless to me. You are a real sweetheart. I, on the other hand, have encountered statements that are new to me, and I would like to know their sources, if any. Once again, I am only slightly offended by such attacks, but I do wish that the moderators paid attention to them and spared the rest of the readers. --------------------------- IRA L. JACOBSON --------------------------- mailto:laser@... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 21, 2002 Report Share Posted May 21, 2002 " Arthur Luckower " <aluckower@...> wrote: >if you don't believe mercury is bad, then break open a thermometer and >have a party with your kids. >i'll come to visit your family in the asylum. Arthur, I love your style. I hope that you are aware of the difference between elemental mercury, which is indeed " bad, " and an amalgam containing mercury, in which the mercury is very stable and not nearly so " bad. " I would suggest that it would be worth your while to get at least this fact clear in your mind before you take major steps in changing your lifestyle. --------------------------- IRA L. JACOBSON --------------------------- mailto:laser@... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 21, 2002 Report Share Posted May 21, 2002 > " V. Richter " <new_man85@...> >Subject: Re: Re: > >You've lost me now Ira. Measuring the air in the mouth is different >than >measuring the air that we are breathing outside of our mouth? Here's an interesting analogy. The weatherman uses a barometer to measure the air pressure in the environment. I would like to take his instrument and measure the air pressure in my tires. What value would such a measurement have? Now, substitute " mine meter " for barometer, mercury concentration for air pressure, and mouth for tire. Perhaps I have now clarified why the measurement that you have made is not relevant. If my view needs further clarification, I'd be glad to try again. Otherwise, my questions about your measurement are still valid and have not been answered. >This is why I >don't see the point in discussing it any more. If we can't even accept >something so obvious and basic, why punish ourselves and the whole list >further? Simply because it is obvious that your measurements are made with an uncalibrated, unidentified instrument that appears to be unsuitable for the job. --------------------------- IRA L. JACOBSON --------------------------- mailto:laser@... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 22, 2002 Report Share Posted May 22, 2002 Arthur Luckower " <aluckower@...> wrote, quoting one andy cutler: >The usual terminology: > >liquid mercury and its vapor - the cool silvery looking stuff - is >metallic >mercury. > >The form of mercury in your amalgam fillings is metallic mercury. That is rather inaccurate, I'm afraid. The mercury amalgam that you refer to contains an alloy of mercury, not elemental mercury. As such, the mercury in the amalgam is very stable and not nearly so dangerous as the mercury in a thermometer, for example. Please relay this to Mr. Cutler, with my best wishes. On a personal note, it's becoming rather tiresome to rehash this point over and over again. --------------------------- IRA L. JACOBSON --------------------------- mailto:laser@... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 22, 2002 Report Share Posted May 22, 2002 Vince wrote: >If this gets a little more >tedious, you'll just drop the subject and go on to something else? How >can >I help? Just for your information, I'm not going to address it. > >Vince >>>>>>>>>>>==End of Quoted Material==<<<<<<<<<<< You leave me no choice but to conclude that the instrument that was used in your mouth is uncalibrated and therefore has no relevance to the science of metrology. As I had guessed and you have made clear by refusing to answer the questions I asked five (5) times. --------------------------- IRA L. JACOBSON --------------------------- mailto:laser@... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.