Re: Dental Profession Logic Re: Amalgam

[Jorge Bonilla]

clintonz@prodigy.net (Clinton C Zimmerman) wrote in message news:<a4025728.0406142228.306a209c@posting.google.com>...
>
>
> Exactly, amalgam should be treated as a Drug because it releases a
> deadly toxin into the human body.


Not exactly. It should be treated as a drug if the FDA determines it
should.

>
> In the US how does the FDA treat drugs?
> Burden of proof of safety is on the manufacturer and it can take years
> for approval /not so amalgam which was grandfathered in and classified
> as a device to escape evalution for adverse effects from the high
> powered FDA drug
> division.
>
> Strict manufacturing contols are applied so that all pills or
> release capsules deliver dosage within a certain range and the
> drug company provides manufacturing data from the floor to
> assure compliance. Not so with amalgam where an incompentent dentist
> or assistant can pack amalgam in a way that substantially differs from
> what the manufacturer advertises and even known defective capsules
> from the manufacturere are subject to no regulation.


Do you mean tampering with amalgam capsules, or placing amalgam in a
different fashion?


>
> A packet including all adverse reaction data is included with the
> drug and given to physician and patient. yes, asprin has a warning
> label.

I have no problem with giving patients all the information they want.
I make sure to point out what has been accepted by the scientific
community and what has not.

>
> Adverse reactions are collected and investigated. Not so FDA dental
> devices
> which has recieved thousands of adverse reaction reports and dumped
> them
> in the garbage.
>
> So you see, that is exactly the problem. In the US Amalgam isn't
> treated like a drug at all.

Then you should concentrate your efforts in convincing the FDA that it
should be treated as a drug.

Dr. Bonilla

[ta]

Jorge Bonilla wrote:
> clintonz@prodigy.net (Clinton C Zimmerman) wrote in message
> news:<a4025728.0406142228.306a209c@posting.google.com>...
>>
>>
>> Exactly, amalgam should be treated as a Drug because it releases a
>> deadly toxin into the human body.
>
>
> Not exactly. It should be treated as a drug if the FDA determines it
> should.
>
>>
>> In the US how does the FDA treat drugs?
>> Burden of proof of safety is on the manufacturer and it can take
>> years for approval /not so amalgam which was grandfathered in and
>> classified as a device to escape evalution for adverse effects from
>> the high powered FDA drug
>> division.
>>
>> Strict manufacturing contols are applied so that all pills or
>> release capsules deliver dosage within a certain range and the
>> drug company provides manufacturing data from the floor to
>> assure compliance. Not so with amalgam where an incompentent dentist
>> or assistant can pack amalgam in a way that substantially differs
>> from what the manufacturer advertises and even known defective
>> capsules from the manufacturere are subject to no regulation.
>
>
> Do you mean tampering with amalgam capsules, or placing amalgam in a
> different fashion?
>
>
>>
>> A packet including all adverse reaction data is included with the
>> drug and given to physician and patient. yes, asprin has a warning
>> label.
>
> I have no problem with giving patients all the information they want.
> I make sure to point out what has been accepted by the scientific
> community and what has not.

Ah, the ubiquitous "scientific community", where everyone holds hands and
chants in unison the mantra of the safety of amalgams. Would that include
the Swedish scientific community, and the Dutch scientific community, or the
German scientific community?

I bet the dozens of scientists who have conducted studies exposing the
potential dangers of amalgam would be upset that you are not including them
in the "scientific community".

Obviously in every controversy (and make no mistake, there is a huge
controversy), each side lays claims to "real science".

>>
>> Adverse reactions are collected and investigated. Not so FDA dental
>> devices
>> which has recieved thousands of adverse reaction reports and dumped
>> them
>> in the garbage.
>>
>> So you see, that is exactly the problem. In the US Amalgam isn't
>> treated like a drug at all.
>
> Then you should concentrate your efforts in convincing the FDA that it
> should be treated as a drug.
>
> Dr. Bonilla

[carabelli]

"ta" <ta33@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:w3Lzc.14792$I%4.1731@bignews6.bellsouth.net...
> Jorge Bonilla wrote:
> > clintonz@prodigy.net (Clinton C Zimmerman) wrote in message
> > news:<a4025728.0406142228.306a209c@posting.google.com>...
> >>
> >>
> >> Exactly, amalgam should be treated as a Drug because it releases a
> >> deadly toxin into the human body.
> >
> >
> > Not exactly. It should be treated as a drug if the FDA determines it
> > should.
> >
> >>
> >> In the US how does the FDA treat drugs?
> >> Burden of proof of safety is on the manufacturer and it can take
> >> years for approval /not so amalgam which was grandfathered in and
> >> classified as a device to escape evalution for adverse effects from
> >> the high powered FDA drug
> >> division.
> >>
> >> Strict manufacturing contols are applied so that all pills or
> >> release capsules deliver dosage within a certain range and the
> >> drug company provides manufacturing data from the floor to
> >> assure compliance. Not so with amalgam where an incompentent dentist
> >> or assistant can pack amalgam in a way that substantially differs
> >> from what the manufacturer advertises and even known defective
> >> capsules from the manufacturere are subject to no regulation.
> >
> >
> > Do you mean tampering with amalgam capsules, or placing amalgam in a
> > different fashion?
> >
> >
> >>
> >> A packet including all adverse reaction data is included with the
> >> drug and given to physician and patient. yes, asprin has a warning
> >> label.
> >
> > I have no problem with giving patients all the information they want.
> > I make sure to point out what has been accepted by the scientific
> > community and what has not.
>
> Ah, the ubiquitous "scientific community", where everyone holds hands and
> chants in unison the mantra of the safety of amalgams. Would that include
> the Swedish scientific community, and the Dutch scientific community, or
the
> German scientific community?
>
> I bet the dozens of scientists who have conducted studies exposing the
> potential dangers of amalgam would be upset that you are not including
them
> in the "scientific community".
>
> Obviously in every controversy (and make no mistake, there is a huge
> controversy), each side lays claims to "real science".

Yup.

However, the vast majority of people with amalgams live out their lives
without incident.

What's your beef? The politicians will scare everyone out of having them
anyway in the US. Amalgams will be history and JD will take up knitting.

Then you can spend your time in the ER assisting the OS on call extracting
abcessed teeth from people that couldn't afford the alternative
restorations. If you think this won't be a real problem, guess what - it is
now.

carabelli

[M.a.r.k P.r.o.b.e.r.t-June 16, 2004]

"ta" <ta33@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:w3Lzc.14792$I%4.1731@bignews6.bellsouth.net...

> potential dangers

I just love that term. *Potential* dangers.

Definition

ADJECTIVE: 1. Capable of being but not yet in existence; latent: a potential
problem.
2. Having possibility, capability, or power.

IOW, something that does not exist.

Thank you for porving that the anti-amalgamistas are just scaremongers.

[ta]

carabelli wrote:
> "ta" <ta33@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
> news:w3Lzc.14792$I%4.1731@bignews6.bellsouth.net...
>> Jorge Bonilla wrote:
>>> clintonz@prodigy.net (Clinton C Zimmerman) wrote in message
>>> news:<a4025728.0406142228.306a209c@posting.google.com>...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Exactly, amalgam should be treated as a Drug because it releases a
>>>> deadly toxin into the human body.
>>>
>>>
>>> Not exactly. It should be treated as a drug if the FDA determines it
>>> should.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> In the US how does the FDA treat drugs?
>>>> Burden of proof of safety is on the manufacturer and it can take
>>>> years for approval /not so amalgam which was grandfathered in and
>>>> classified as a device to escape evalution for adverse effects from
>>>> the high powered FDA drug
>>>> division.
>>>>
>>>> Strict manufacturing contols are applied so that all pills or
>>>> release capsules deliver dosage within a certain range and the
>>>> drug company provides manufacturing data from the floor to
>>>> assure compliance. Not so with amalgam where an incompentent
>>>> dentist or assistant can pack amalgam in a way that substantially
>>>> differs from what the manufacturer advertises and even known
>>>> defective capsules from the manufacturere are subject to no
>>>> regulation.
>>>
>>>
>>> Do you mean tampering with amalgam capsules, or placing amalgam in a
>>> different fashion?
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> A packet including all adverse reaction data is included with the
>>>> drug and given to physician and patient. yes, asprin has a warning
>>>> label.
>>>
>>> I have no problem with giving patients all the information they
>>> want. I make sure to point out what has been accepted by the
>>> scientific community and what has not.
>>
>> Ah, the ubiquitous "scientific community", where everyone holds
>> hands and chants in unison the mantra of the safety of amalgams.
>> Would that include the Swedish scientific community, and the Dutch
>> scientific community, or the German scientific community?
>>
>> I bet the dozens of scientists who have conducted studies exposing
>> the potential dangers of amalgam would be upset that you are not
>> including them in the "scientific community".
>>
>> Obviously in every controversy (and make no mistake, there is a huge
>> controversy), each side lays claims to "real science".
>
> Yup.
>
> However, the vast majority of people with amalgams live out their
> lives without incident.

Maybe so. Regardless, in making any decision that involves human health, we
must consider more than just the interests of the "vast majority",
especially when we cannot identify the alleged minority until they have
already suffered, in some cases, immensely (and especially considering that
there are safer alternatives that, as far as we know, do not pose the
serious health risks that amalgams do).

We have an obligation to protect the health of the minority as well.

<snip>

[Clinton C Zimmerman]

yoyobon@msn.com (Jorge Bonilla) wrote in message news:<6354de70.0406151408.4652a756@posting.google.com>...
> clintonz@prodigy.net (Clinton C Zimmerman) wrote in message news:<a4025728.0406142228.306a209c@posting.google.com>...
> >
> >
> > Exactly, amalgam should be treated as a Drug because it releases a
> > deadly toxin into the human body.
>
>
> Not exactly. It should be treated as a drug if the FDA determines it
> should.
>

Not really,
This is like me saying--> we shouldn't drill
for oil in Alaska because it will not lower oil prices and destroy the
environment. You reply--> we should drill for oil in Alasaka if and
only
if George Bush determines we should.

Its well known, but you might not be aware that many products could
potentially be classified as a device or a drug or both. This is not
just the case for amalgam. It is also well known that if a product is
classified as a device it will face a different level of scrutiny in
some areas than if it is
classified as a drug.




> >
> > In the US how does the FDA treat drugs?
> > Burden of proof of safety is on the manufacturer and it can take years
> > for approval /not so amalgam which was grandfathered in and classified
> > as a device to escape evalution for adverse effects from the high
> > powered FDA drug
> > division.
> >
> > Strict manufacturing contols are applied so that all pills or
> > release capsules deliver dosage within a certain range and the
> > drug company provides manufacturing data from the floor to
> > assure compliance. Not so with amalgam where an incompentent dentist
> > or assistant can pack amalgam in a way that substantially differs from
> > what the manufacturer advertises and even known defective capsules
> > from the manufacturere are subject to no regulation.
>
>
> Do you mean tampering with amalgam capsules, or placing amalgam in a
> different fashion?


Are you a dentist. If so, I would ask you what the variability in
amalgam
composition is.

It is known that some capsules are defective and that the composition
and
stability of amalgam can vary considerably depending on dentist
technique.
See:

http://www.brooks.af.mil/dis/HOT/valianphd.htm
http://www.bonet.se/bwf/art/instab/introduction.html


>
>
> >
> > A packet including all adverse reaction data is included with the
> > drug and given to physician and patient. yes, asprin has a warning
> > label.
>
> I have no problem with giving patients all the information they want.
> I make sure to point out what has been accepted by the scientific
> community and what has not.

And as Ta pointed out, who is the scientifc community? Also keep in
mind
that the government said for 30 years that no mercury leaked from
amalgam when it was easily provable that amalgam is the largest source
of mercury in the population. So now should we trust the government?

However, I do commend you on informing your patients, which in fact
the
ADA avoided doing for years, (and they even removed Hg from the safety
data sheet). Do you post the information in your office so that all
patients can see it?


..
>
> Then you should concentrate your efforts in convincing the FDA that it
> should be treated as a drug.

They've heard from congressman Burton and Watson on the issue. It was
difficult
for past FDA commisioners to admit that they made a mistake. It will
be interesting to see what the new commisoner does.

[Clinton C Zimmerman]

"M.a.r.k P.r.o.b.e.r.t-June 16, 2004" <M.a.r.k P.r.o.b.e.r.t 06-16-04@lombercartel.com> wrote in message news:<1EXzc.5231$0b.4875460@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net>...
> "ta" <ta33@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
> news:w3Lzc.14792$I%4.1731@bignews6.bellsouth.net...
>
> > potential dangers
>
> I just love that term. *Potential* dangers.
>
> Definition
>
> ADJECTIVE: 1. Capable of being but not yet in existence; latent: a potential
> problem.
> 2. Having possibility, capability, or power.
>
> IOW, something that does not exist.
>
> Thank you for porving that the anti-amalgamistas are just scaremongers.




What is the highest amount of Hg, (organic and inorganic) being given off by an
amalgam today?

[M.a.r.k P.r.o.b.e.r.t-June 16, 2004]

"Clinton C Zimmerman" <clintonz@prodigy.net> wrote in message
news:a4025728.0406161156.70b1c69c@posting.google.com...
> "M.a.r.k P.r.o.b.e.r.t-June 16, 2004" <M.a.r.k P.r.o.b.e.r.t
06-16-04@lombercartel.com> wrote in message
news:<1EXzc.5231$0b.4875460@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net>...
> > "ta" <ta33@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
> > news:w3Lzc.14792$I%4.1731@bignews6.bellsouth.net...
> >
> > > potential dangers
> >
> > I just love that term. *Potential* dangers.
> >
> > Definition
> >
> > ADJECTIVE: 1. Capable of being but not yet in existence; latent: a
potential
> > problem.
> > 2. Having possibility, capability, or power.
> >
> > IOW, something that does not exist.
> >
> > Thank you for porving that the anti-amalgamistas are just scaremongers.
>
> What is the highest amount of Hg, (organic and inorganic) being given off
by an
> amalgam today?

What is the *actual* risk at whatever level you think is the highest. The
"danger" is still potential, i.e., not in existence.

[Clinton C Zimmerman]

"M.a.r.k P.r.o.b.e.r.t-June 16, 2004" <M.a.r.k P.r.o.b.e.r.t 06-16-04@lombercartel.com> wrote in message news:<jG2Ac.5959$0b.6121093@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net>...
> "Clinton C Zimmerman" <clintonz@prodigy.net> wrote in message
> news:a4025728.0406161156.70b1c69c@posting.google.com...
> > "M.a.r.k P.r.o.b.e.r.t-June 16, 2004" <M.a.r.k P.r.o.b.e.r.t
> 06-16-04@lombercartel.com> wrote in message
> news:<1EXzc.5231$0b.4875460@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net>...
> > > "ta" <ta33@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
> > > news:w3Lzc.14792$I%4.1731@bignews6.bellsouth.net...
> > >
> > > > potential dangers
> > >
> > > I just love that term. *Potential* dangers.
> > >
> > > Definition
> > >
> > > ADJECTIVE: 1. Capable of being but not yet in existence; latent: a
> potential
> > > problem.
> > > 2. Having possibility, capability, or power.
> > >
> > > IOW, something that does not exist.
> > >
> > > Thank you for porving that the anti-amalgamistas are just scaremongers.
> >
> > What is the highest amount of Hg, (organic and inorganic) being given off
> by an
> > amalgam today?
>
> What is the *actual* risk at whatever level you think is the highest. The
> "danger" is still potential, i.e., not in existence.

Do you agree that at some level release of mercury is harmful or poses
a significant risk? Consider that the actual composition of real
amalgam
is highly variable and that the release of mercury amalgam is subject
to many variables such as galvanic reactions with gold?

Does the amount of Hg released from the worst case amalgam reach the
level that
you think poses significant risk?

You can't answer the question because you don't know what the worst
case is.

[Jorge Bonilla]

clintonz@prodigy.net (Clinton C Zimmerman) wrote in message news:<a4025728.0406161150.1a88fdbb@posting.google.com>...
> yoyobon@msn.com (Jorge Bonilla) wrote in message news:<6354de70.0406151408.4652a756@posting.google.com>...
> > clintonz@prodigy.net (Clinton C Zimmerman) wrote in message news:<a4025728.0406142228.306a209c@posting.google.com>...
> > >
> > >
> > > Exactly, amalgam should be treated as a Drug because it releases a
> > > deadly toxin into the human body.
> >
> >
> > Not exactly. It should be treated as a drug if the FDA determines it
> > should.
> >
>
> Not really,
> This is like me saying--> we shouldn't drill
> for oil in Alaska because it will not lower oil prices and destroy the
> environment. You reply--> we should drill for oil in Alasaka if and
> only
> if George Bush determines we should.
>
> Its well known, but you might not be aware that many products could
> potentially be classified as a device or a drug or both. This is not
> just the case for amalgam. It is also well known that if a product is
> classified as a device it will face a different level of scrutiny in
> some areas than if it is
> classified as a drug.
>
>
>
>
> > >
> > > In the US how does the FDA treat drugs?
> > > Burden of proof of safety is on the manufacturer and it can take years
> > > for approval /not so amalgam which was grandfathered in and classified
> > > as a device to escape evalution for adverse effects from the high
> > > powered FDA drug
> > > division.
> > >
> > > Strict manufacturing contols are applied so that all pills or
> > > release capsules deliver dosage within a certain range and the
> > > drug company provides manufacturing data from the floor to
> > > assure compliance. Not so with amalgam where an incompentent dentist
> > > or assistant can pack amalgam in a way that substantially differs from
> > > what the manufacturer advertises and even known defective capsules
> > > from the manufacturere are subject to no regulation.
> >
> >
> > Do you mean tampering with amalgam capsules, or placing amalgam in a
> > different fashion?
>
>
> Are you a dentist. If so, I would ask you what the variability in
> amalgam
> composition is.
>
> It is known that some capsules are defective and that the composition
> and
> stability of amalgam can vary considerably depending on dentist
> technique.
> See:
>
> http://www.brooks.af.mil/dis/HOT/valianphd.htm
> http://www.bonet.se/bwf/art/instab/introduction.html
>
>
> >
> >
> > >
> > > A packet including all adverse reaction data is included with the
> > > drug and given to physician and patient. yes, asprin has a warning
> > > label.
> >
> > I have no problem with giving patients all the information they want.
> > I make sure to point out what has been accepted by the scientific
> > community and what has not.
>
> And as Ta pointed out, who is the scientifc community? Also keep in
> mind
> that the government said for 30 years that no mercury leaked from
> amalgam when it was easily provable that amalgam is the largest source
> of mercury in the population. So now should we trust the government?
>
> However, I do commend you on informing your patients, which in fact
> the
> ADA avoided doing for years, (and they even removed Hg from the safety
> data sheet). Do you post the information in your office so that all
> patients can see it?
>
>
> .
> >
> > Then you should concentrate your efforts in convincing the FDA that it
> > should be treated as a drug.
>
> They've heard from congressman Burton and Watson on the issue. It was
> difficult
> for past FDA commisioners to admit that they made a mistake. It will
> be interesting to see what the new commisoner does.


The fact remains that the FDA is the entity who will make the
determination, not us. I doubt they will do it anytime soon, though.
The key may be to have all insurance companies provide at least an
alternate benefits clause for amalgam restorations. You will find that
most of us prefer to place composites.

Sorry I couldn't view your links, they go to "Page not found".

We inform our patients of the most common or probable risks in their
treatment, and I include what the anti-amalgamists say about amalgam.
I do point out that these views are not accepted by mainstream
dentistry (I don't feel it would be honest to have them believe that
it is), and I don't claim to be able to cure any of the so many
illnesses attributed to amalgam. We also give them a detailed estimate
of every option.

[Clinton C Zimmerman]

..> >
> .
>

I couldn't view your links, they go to "Page not found".
>
..


Sorry there should be a t in valianphd. I don't know what happened to
the second one, I'll post the correct links later.

[M.a.r.k P.r.o.b.e.r.t-June 17, 2004]

"Clinton C Zimmerman" <clintonz@prodigy.net> wrote in message
news:a4025728.0406161848.634fff54@posting.google.com...
> "M.a.r.k P.r.o.b.e.r.t-June 16, 2004" <M.a.r.k P.r.o.b.e.r.t
06-16-04@lombercartel.com> wrote in message
news:<jG2Ac.5959$0b.6121093@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net>...
> > "Clinton C Zimmerman" <clintonz@prodigy.net> wrote in message
> > news:a4025728.0406161156.70b1c69c@posting.google.com...
> > > "M.a.r.k P.r.o.b.e.r.t-June 16, 2004" <M.a.r.k P.r.o.b.e.r.t
> > 06-16-04@lombercartel.com> wrote in message
> > news:<1EXzc.5231$0b.4875460@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net>...
> > > > "ta" <ta33@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
> > > > news:w3Lzc.14792$I%4.1731@bignews6.bellsouth.net...
> > > >
> > > > > potential dangers
> > > >
> > > > I just love that term. *Potential* dangers.
> > > >
> > > > Definition
> > > >
> > > > ADJECTIVE: 1. Capable of being but not yet in existence; latent: a
> > potential
> > > > problem.
> > > > 2. Having possibility, capability, or power.
> > > >
> > > > IOW, something that does not exist.
> > > >
> > > > Thank you for porving that the anti-amalgamistas are just
scaremongers.
> > >
> > > What is the highest amount of Hg, (organic and inorganic) being given
off
> > by an
> > > amalgam today?
> >
> > What is the *actual* risk at whatever level you think is the highest.
The
> > "danger" is still potential, i.e., not in existence.
>
> Do you agree that at some level release of mercury is harmful or poses
> a significant risk?

There is no question that there is a level where it becomes toxic. You raise
a strawman argument.

However, the evidence that it is toxic at the levels of vapors from
amalgams, even assuming that you hold your breat for a few hours a day, is
absent.

Consider that the actual composition of real
> amalgam
> is highly variable and that the release of mercury amalgam is subject
> to many variables such as galvanic reactions with gold?

Highly variable? Hardly.

> Does the amount of Hg released from the worst case amalgam reach the
> level that
> you think poses significant risk?

That was my question to you. Show that there is a worst case scenario, and
demonstrable risk at the worst case scenario.

> You can't answer the question because you don't know what the worst
> case is.

No, you cannot answer the question, as there is no proof of damage at the
levels of relase of amalgams.

[Jan]

>Subject: Re: Dental Profession Logic Re: Amalgam
>From: clintonz@prodigy.net (Clinton C Zimmerman)
>Date: 6/16/2004 11:56 AM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <a4025728.0406161156.70b1c69c@posting.google.com>
>
>"M.a.r.k P.r.o.b.e.r.t-June 16, 2004" <M.a.r.k P.r.o.b.e.r.t
>06-16-04@lombercartel.com> wrote in message
>news:<1EXzc.5231$0b.4875460@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net>...
>> "ta" <ta33@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
>> news:w3Lzc.14792$I%4.1731@bignews6.bellsouth.net...
>>
>> > potential dangers
>>
>> I just love that term. *Potential* dangers.
>>
>> Definition
>>
>> ADJECTIVE: 1. Capable of being but not yet in existence; latent: a
>potential
>> problem.
>> 2. Having possibility, capability, or power.
>>
>> IOW, something that does not exist.
>>
>> Thank you for porving that the anti-amalgamistas are just scaremongers.
>
>
>
>
>What is the highest amount of Hg, (organic and inorganic) being given off by
>an
>amalgam today?

You'll have to forgive Mark, he is one of those who puts down anything not
endorsed by *organized medicine and dentsitry*, That's his one and only aim on
theis ng. He knows not nor cares to know anything about the subject.

http://www.testfoundation.org/amalgamhgrelease.htm

Jan

[M.a.r.k P.r.o.b.e.r.t-June 18, 2004]

"Jan" <jdrew63929@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20040618003139.25561.00000192@mb-m29.aol.com...
> >Subject: Re: Dental Profession Logic Re: Amalgam
> >From: clintonz@prodigy.net (Clinton C Zimmerman)
> >Date: 6/16/2004 11:56 AM Pacific Standard Time
> >Message-id: <a4025728.0406161156.70b1c69c@posting.google.com>
> >
> >"M.a.r.k P.r.o.b.e.r.t-June 16, 2004" <M.a.r.k P.r.o.b.e.r.t
> >06-16-04@lombercartel.com> wrote in message
> >news:<1EXzc.5231$0b.4875460@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net>...
> >> "ta" <ta33@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
> >> news:w3Lzc.14792$I%4.1731@bignews6.bellsouth.net...
> >>
> >> > potential dangers
> >>
> >> I just love that term. *Potential* dangers.
> >>
> >> Definition
> >>
> >> ADJECTIVE: 1. Capable of being but not yet in existence; latent: a
> >potential
> >> problem.
> >> 2. Having possibility, capability, or power.
> >>
> >> IOW, something that does not exist.
> >>
> >> Thank you for porving that the anti-amalgamistas are just scaremongers.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >What is the highest amount of Hg, (organic and inorganic) being given off
by
> >an
> >amalgam today?
>
> You'll have to forgive Mark, he is one of those who puts down anything not
> endorsed by *organized medicine and dentsitry*, That's his one and only
aim on
> theis ng. He knows not nor cares to know anything about the subject.
>
> http://www.testfoundation.org/amalgamhgrelease.htm


And your sole purpose is to put down anyone who disagrees with you, as you
did here.