DENTAL AMALGAM MERCURY
Solutions ............................www.amalgam.org
DAMS Intl. St
Paul MN 55105
Mercury
body burden and toxicity tests and factors that significantly complicate
usefulness of standard tests.
Blood
tests are generally not a reliable indicator of mercury body burden or mercury toxicity(595,600,etc.). Better options are often
available depending on what is to be determined (595,etc.). The
blood is pumped throughout the body and rapidly crosses into organs and tissue
where it is primarily inorganic mercury, so blood measures primarily recent
acute exposures, not body burden. For example, although mercury vapor
from dental amalgam has been documented to be the largest
source of mercury in most people who have several amalgam
fillings, the average length of time of mercury vapor in the blood is less than
10 seconds(370). High mercury body burden and mercury
toxicity and effects are more common than acknowledged due to failure of the
blood test to reliably identify mercury body burden or those most affected by
toxicity effects. Doctors with experience at treating mercury
toxicity mostly use other tests or combinations of tests.
Mercury
amalgam dental fillings have been found to be the largest
source of mercury vapor, inorganic mercury, and methyl mercury
in most people with several amalgam fillings or metal crowns over amalgam
(1,599). But although mercury has been found to be readily
methylated in the body by bacteria, yeasts, etc. and also to be demethylated to inorganic
mercury complexes, these processes are inconsistent depending on the
individual, and there is no test that is reliable for measuring all forms
of mercury, as will be shown.
A
large U.S. Centers for Disease Control epidemiological study, NHANES III, found that
those with more amalgam fillings (more mercury exposure) have significantly
higher levels of chronic health conditions(543a). A 2009 study
found that inorganic mercury levels in people have been increasing rapidly in
recent years(543b). It used data from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control
and Prevention’s National Health Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) finding
that while inorganic mercury was detected in the blood of 2 percent of women
aged 18 to 49 in the 1999-2000 NHANES survey, that level rose to 30
percent of women by 2005-2006. Surveys in all states using hair tests have
found dangerous levels of mercury in an average of 22 % of the population, with
over 30% in some states like Florida and New York(543c).
Elemental
mercury vapor and methyl mercury are rapidly transmitted throughout the body
via the blood and readily enter cells and cross the blood-brain barrier, as
well as the placenta of pregnant women (38,61,287,311,361,596). Mercury
vapor is transmitted across cell membranes at much higher levels
than inorganic mercury and also higher levels than organic mercury. Significant
levels are able to cross the blood brain barrier, placenta, and also cellular
membranes into major organs such as the heart since the oxidation rate of Hg0,
though relatively fast, is slower than the time required by pumped blood to
reach these organs(290,370). Thus the level in
the brain and heart is higher after exposure to Hg vapor than for other forms(360,370). But methyl mercury also has a
relatively short half life in blood, so even for
methyl blood mostly measures recent exposures rather than body burden.
While
mercury vapor and methyl Hg readily cross cell membranes and
the blood-brain barrier, once in cells they form inorganic mercury that does
not readily cross cell membranes or the blood brain barrier readily and is
responsible for the majority of toxicity effects. Thus inorganic mercury
in the brain has a very long half life(85,273,274,503b,etc.).
Mercury vapor passes through the
blood rapidly and accumulates in other parts of the body such as
the brain, kidneys, liver, thyroid gland, pituitary gland, etc. (370,543b,600). The
half-life of mercury vapor in blood is approximately 10 seconds before passing
into cells and forming inorganic complexes (370). Thus blood
test measures mostly recent exposure and mostly organic mercury(370,595).
Hair mercury level likewise is mostly organic and primarily measures organic
mercury (76), while urine test levels correlate most highly with the number of
dental amalgams (599). However, all 3 mercury measures are generally positively
correlated with both number of dental amalgams and amount of mercury containing
fish eaten. (600) But also note that urine mercury level is not a reliable
indicator of mercury body burden since the majority of mercury excretion is
through the liver rather than the kidneys and mercury excretions decline over
time whatever the body burden due to damage done to the kidneys(600).
Also autopsy studies have found that higher levels of mercury accumulate in
other more sensitive organs such as the brain, heart, and thyroid(600).
Kidneys have a lot of hydroxyl(SH) groups which mercury binds to forming inorganic
complexes - causing accumulation in the kidneys and inhibiting excretion(503). As
damage occurs to kidneys over time, mercury is less efficiently eliminated (11,36,57,183,216,260,503), so urine tests are not reliable for body
burden after long term exposure. Some researchers suggest hair offers a better
indicator of mercury body burden than blood or urine(279,21ab,66,84),
though still not totally reliable and hair is a better indicator for organic
mercury than inorganic. But hair mercury levels have been found to be inversely
related with mercury toxicity effects and body burden in those most affected by
mercury due to having low detoxification ability for mercury(86,577).
Blood allele type has been found to have a significant effect on ability to
excrete toxic metals and accumulation of toxic metals in the body (577,86). This
significantly affects mercury test levels by blood, urine, or hair. If
a hair test is used as an indicator of mercury toxicity, the pattern
of hair levels of other metals and minerals is a better indication of mercury
body burden and toxicity than the hair level of mercury, since mercury exposure
causes significant changes in cell membrane permeability that often be seen as
imbalances from the standard for other elements tested(229).
Mercury and other toxic
metals exert part of their toxic effects by replacing essential metals such as
zinc and magnesium at their sites in enzymes (43,427,443,464). Metalloprotein
(MT) are involved in metals transport and detoxification(442,464).
Mercury inhibits sulfur ligands in MT and in cell membranes inactivates MT that
normally bind cuprous ions (477), thus allowing buildup of copper to toxic
levels in many people and malfunction of the Zn/Cu SOD function. Prenatal and
neonatal mercury exposure has been found to be able to block the
MT function in this manner and has been to result in MT dysfunction in the
majority of autism patients tested, preventing detoxification and excretion of
mercury and other toxic metal (86,464). This also represents a major
confounding of mercury test results for either blood, urine, or hair test.
Hair tests are useful since they
provide information on other toxic metal exposures and essential mineral imbalances
(229). It is documented that essential mineral deficiencies and
imbalances given a normal diet are a strong indication of mercury toxicity, due
to mercury’s causing cell membrane permeability changes, absorption problems,
and enzyme blockages (229,600). A challenge test using a
chelator like DMPS or DMSA is a more reliable test for mercury body burden
(290,360,273).
Non organic forms of mercury are
methylated in the body by bacteria, yeast, methyl donors to methyl mercury, so
even though the largest source of mercury in most people is mercury vapor from amalgam
(599), due to the short half life of vapor and
conversions to methyl, most of what is measured in the blood is methyl. And the
inorganic accumulation in organs is not measured. Ethyl mercury from
vaccines has been the largest source of mercury in most infants (598).
Feces
is the major path of excretion of mercury from the body, having a
higher correlation
to systemic body burden than urine or blood, which tend to
correlate with recent
exposure level (6,21abd,35,36,79,80,183,278). For this
reason many
researchers consider feces to be the most reliable indicator of
daily exposure
level to mercury or other toxics. The average level of mercury in
feces of
populations with amalgam fillings is as much as 1 ppm and approx.
10 times that of a
similar group without fillings (79,80,83,335,386,528,25),
with significant
numbers of those with several filings having over 10 ppm
and 150 times
those without fillings (80). For those with several fillings daily
fecal mercury
excretion levels range between 20 to 200 ug/day.
The saliva
test is another good test for daily mercury exposure, done
commonly in
Europe and representing one of the largest sources of mercury
exposure (84,600). Mercury
level in saliva has been found to give a better
indication of
body levels than blood or urine levels( 36,600). Saliva
mercury is
proportional to
the number of amalgam fillings or surfaces, but for those without
amalgam is often
below detection limits unless fish has recently been eaten (76,84).
There is only a weak
correlation between blood or urine or hair mercury
levels and body
burden or level in a target organ (36,157,183,278,11,
21abd,6).
Tests
commonly used to test for mercury toxicity effects include the
blood lymphocyte
immune reactivity test(MELISA) which is used to test
for
immune reactivity
to mercury related to autoimmune conditions like MS,
Lupus, Rheumatoid
Arthritis, CFS, Fibromyalgia, oral lichen planus, etc.
(342,369,405,600). The majority
of those with chronic fatigue or MS were
found to be
immune reactive to mercury, and both reactivity and symptoms
declined after
amalgam replacement. Another test commonly used to test for
the common
metabolic and detoxification system blockages caused by
mercury toxicity
is the comprehensive liver detoxification test(386).
It utilizes
blood, urine, and saliva tests. Another test commonly used to
assess metabolic
toxicicity effects of mercury and other toxic
exposures is
the fractionated
porphyrin test (260). The type, level, and pattern of
metabolic waste
porphyrins in urine indicate the extent of toxicity effects and
give an
indication of the likely toxic source by the pattern. These tests
indicate not
only degree of toxicity effects but also suggest treatments that
usually result
in improvement of the condition.
According to Great Plains Medical Lab: What metals test to
choose? (595)
Hair is
ideal for measuring toxic metals accumulated in the body tissues over a period
of time. The growing hair follicle is well supplied by the blood vessels, and
blood transports essential and toxic elements present in the body. These
elements are incorporated and stored in the hair proteins, which are evaluated
in the test. Hair testing also gives the most accurate information about
interactions between nutrients and toxic metals. Other advantages of hair
testing are simple samples requirements and lower cost. The test measures 39
essential and toxic metals, with individual interpretation that will guide you
in the treatment process. People who use hair dyes, perm or chemical treatments
should be aware that the hair can sometimes give false high values due to the
metals in the dyes or chemicals. We recommend cutting the most recently grown
hair closest to the scalp. Hair samples do not expire. (but note: hair
level is not reliable for mercury body burden)
Blood is best
for measuring levels of essential minerals, determining possible deficiencies
and recent exposure with heavy metals.
Urine and
fecal testing reflects the levels of
heavy metals deposited in the body tissues, but it is most accurate after
taking a chelating agent that helps extract metals in urine. These tests are
important for evaluating the efficacy of the chelating treatment since they measure
levels of metals excreted from the body and the tissues. The urine and fecal
elements tests are not recommended unless using a chelating agent before sample
collection
EPA
and National Academy of Sciences advise a limit of 5 micrograms per liter in
blood and the upper level of mercury exposure recommended by the German
Commission on Human Biomonitoring has also been lowered to 5 micrograms per
liter in the blood(30), but adverse effects such as increases
in blood pressure and cognitive effects have been documented as low as 1 ug/L cord blood, with impacts higher in low birth weight
babies(308). The EPA reference level for hair mercury is 1 part per
million, but adverse health effects have been documented in many with lower
hair mercury levels(86,464,etc.). A nationwide
hair test program by Greenpeace found that 22% of the U.S. population tested
had hair mercury levels more than the EPA reference level, and several states had
over 30% higher than the EPA reference level. The U.S. Department of Health,
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ASTDR) standard (MRL) ‑for
acute inhalation exposure to mercury vapor is 0.2 micrograms Hg/M3, which
translates to approx. 4 ug/day for the average adult(20). The EPA health guideline for methyl mercury is
0.1 ug/kg body weight per day or 7 ug for the average adult, and the MRL for methyl mercury is
0.3 ug/kg body weight/day(599).
DAMS
has compiled a record of over 60,000 clinical cases of recovery from over 30
chronic conditions caused by mercury toxicity, after reducing mercury exposures
and detoxification treatment (597,86b,464).
References:
(1) Leistevuo J et al, Dental amalgam
fillings and the amount of organic mercury in human saliva. Caries
Res 2001 May-Jun;35(3):163-6;
(6) D.W. Jones et al, “Survey of Mercury vapor
in dental offices in Atlantic Canada”,Can. Dent.
Assoc. J.
4906:378‑395,
1983
(11) Lamm O et al, “Subclinical effects of exposure to inorganic
mercury revealed by somatosensory‑evoked potentials. Eur
Neurol, 1985, 24:237-243; & (b)Altmann L, Sveinsson K, Visual
evoked potentials in 6 year old children in relation to mercury and lead
levels. Neurotoxicol Teratol
1998; 20(1):9-17; & © Chang YC,Yeh CY, Wang JD, “Subclinical neurotoxicity of mercury
vapor revealed by a multimodality potential study of chloralkali
workers”, Immunol, 1999, 117(3):482-8.
(21) R.A.Goyer,”Toxic
effects of metals”in: Caserett
and Doull’s Toxicology- TheBasic Science of
Poisons,
McGraw-Hill Inc., N.Y., 1993; &(b) Goodman, Gillman, The Pharmacological
Basis of Therapeutics, Mac Millan Publishing Company, N.Y. 1985; &(c)
Encyclopedia of Occumpational Health and Safety,
International Labour Office, Geneva, Vol 2, 3rd
Edition.;&(d) Arena, Drew, Poisoning. Fifth
Edition. Toxicology-Symptoms-Treatment, Charles C. Thomas-Publisher,
Springfield, Il 1986.
(25)
C.Malmström, M.Hansson, M. Nylander, Conference
on Trace Elements in Health and Disease. Stockholm May 25‑1992; & C.
Malmstrom et al., “Silver amalgam: an
unstable material”, Swedish paper translated in Bio-Probe Newsletter, Vol
9(1):5-6, Jan. 1993 & C.Malmstrom,
“Amalgam derived mercury in feces”, Journal of Trace Elements in Experimental
Medicine, 5, (Abs 122), 1992; Nylander
et al. Fourth international symposium Epidemiology in
Occupational Health. Como Italy Sept 1985, http://home.swipnet.se/misac/infpatient.html
(30)
Weihe P, Grandjean P et al;
Environmental epidemiology research leads to a decrease of the exposure limit
for mercury] Ugeskr Laeger. 2003
Jan 6;165(2):107-11:
(35) Huggins
HA, Levy,TE, Uniformed
Consent: the hidden dangers in dental care, 1999, Hampton Roads Publishing
Company Inc; & Hal Huggins, Its All in Your Head, 1997; & Center
for Progressive Medicine, 1999, http://www.hugnet.com
(36) Sam
Queen; Chronic Mercury Toxicity- New Hope Against an
Endemic Disease. http://www.bioprobe.com; & F.L.Lorscheider et al, "Mercury exposure from
silver tooth fillings: emerging evidence questions a paradigm", FASEB J
9:504-508,1995.
(38) S.Ziff and M.Ziff, Infertility and
Birth Defects: Is Mercury from Dental Fillings a Hidden Cause?, Bio-Probe,
Inc. ISBN: 0-941011-03-8.1987
(39)M.Inouye
et al, Behavioral and neuropathological effects of prenatal methyl
mercury exposure in
mice”. Neurobehav.Toxicol
Teratol., 1985:7;227‑232; &(b)
Z.Annau et al, Johns Hopkins Univ., School
of Public Health, “Mechanisms of neurotoxicity and their relationships to
behavioral changes”, Toxicology, 1988, 49(2): 219-25; &(c) Vinay SD, Sood PP. Inability of thiol compounds to restore CNS
arylsulfatases inhibited by methyl mercury. Pharmacol
Toxicol 1991 Jul;69(1):71-4;&(d) P.Grandjean et al, “MeHg and
neurotoxicity in children”, Am J Epidemiol, 1999, 150(3):301-5: &(e) Budtz-Jorgensen E, Grandjean P, Keiding N, White RF, Weihe P.
Benchmark dose calculations of methylmercury-associated neurobehavioral
deficits. Toxicol Lett 2000 Mar 15;112-113:193- ; & (f) Crump KS, Kjellstrom
T, Shipp AM, Silvers A, Stewart A. Influence of prenatal mercury
exposure upon scholastic and
psychological test performance: benchmark analysis of a New Zealand cohort. Risk
Anal 1998 Dec;18(6):701-13;
&(g) Grandjean
P, Weihe P, Murata K, Sorensen N, Dahl R, Jorgensen
PJ. Cognitive deficit
in 7-year-old children with prenatal
exposure to methylmercury. Neurotoxicol
Teratol 1997 Nov-Dec;19(6):417-28
(43) (a)Knapp LT; Klann
E. Superoxide‑induced stimulation of protein kinase C via thiol modification
and modulation
of zinc content. J Biol Chem
2000 May 22; & A.Badou
et al, “HgCl2-induced IL-4 gene expression in T cells involves a protein kinase
C-dependent calcium influx through L-type calcium channels”J
Biol Chem. 1997 Dec 19;272(51):32411-8.,
(76) Pesch A et al, Mercury
concentrations in urine, scalp hair, and saliva in children from
Germany. J Expo Anal Environ Epidemiol 2002
Jul;12(4):252-258; & Mercury in human hair as an
indicator of the fish consumption, Neuro
Endocrinol Lett. 2008 Oct;29(5):675-9, Kruzikova K, Modra H, Kensova R, Skocovska B, Wlasow T, Svoboda T, Svobodova
Z.
(79) L.Bjorkman et al, "Mercury in
Saliva and Feces after Removal of Amalgam Fillings", Toxicology and
Applied Pharmacology, 1997, 144(1), p156-62; & (b) J Dent Res 75: 38-, IADR
Abstract 165, 1996.
(80) M.Osterblad et al,
"Antimicrobial and Mercury Resistance among Persons with and without
Amalgam Fillings", Antimicrobial Agents and Chem,
39(11):2499,1995
(83) I.Skare et al, Swedish National
Board of Occupational Safety and Health, "Human Exposure to Hg and Ag
Released from Dental Amalgam Restorations", Archives of Environmental
Health 1994; 49(5):384-394.
(84) Scalp
hair and saliva as biomarkers in determination of mercury levels in Iranian
women: Amalgam as a determinant of exposure; Fakour
H, Esmaili-Sari A, Zayeri
F. J Hazard Mater. 2009 Dec 4.
(85) J.A.Weiner et al,“The
relationship between mercury concentration in human organs and predictor
variables", Sci Tot Environ, 138(1-3):101-115,1993; &
"An estimation of the uptake of mercury from amalgam fillings in Swedish
subjects", Science of the Total Environment, v168,n3, p255-265, 1995.
(86) A.S. Holmes, M.F. Blaxill and B.E. Haley, Reduced Levels of Mercury
in First Baby Haircuts
of Autistic Children; International
Journal of Toxicology, 2003; www.safeminds.org/ ; & Autism
Treatment Center, Baton Rouge, La, Experience from Treating 300 Mercury Toxic
Autism Patients, http://www.healing-arts.org/children/holmes.htm#wethink
(157) L.J Goldwater, “Toxicology of Inorganic Mercury”,
Annals: NY Acad Sci, 65:498-503, 1957; &
J.B.Nielsen et
al, “Evaluation of Mercury in Hair & Blood as Biomarkers for Methyl
mercury Exposure”, Arch of Toxicology,
1994,65(5):317-321.
(183) World
Health Organization(WHO),1991, Environmental Health
Criteria 118, Inorganic Mercury, WHO, Geneva; &
Environ metal Health. Criterion. 101, Methyl Mercury; 1990.
(229) Andrew Hall Cutler, PhD, PE; Amalgam Illness:Diagnosis
and Treatment; 1996 , www.noamalgam.com/
(260) J.S.
Woods et al, “Urinary porphyrin profiles as
biomarker of mercury exposure: studies on dentists”, J Toxicol
Environ Health, 40(2-3):1993, p235-; & “Altered porphyrin metabolites
as a biomarker of mercury exposure and toxicity”, Physiol
Pharmocol, 1996,74(2):210-15,
(273) R.Schiele et al, Institute of
Occupational Medicine, Univ. Of Erlamgem- Nurnberg,
“Studies of organ mercury content related to number of amalgam fillings”,Symposium paper, March
12, 1984, Cologne, Germany; (& 38); & “Quecksilber-Mobiliztion
durch DMPS bei Personen mit und ohne Amalgamfullungen”, Zahnarztl. Mitt, 1989, 79(17): 1866-1868; & J.J.Kleber, “Quecksilberverkonzen- tration im Urin
nach DMPS” in [Status Quo and Perspectives of
Amalgam], L.T. Friberg(ed.), Georg-Thieme Verlag,
Stuttgart, New York, 1005, p 61-69.
(274) L.Friberg et al, “Mercury in the
brain and CNS in relation to amalgam fillings”, Lakartidningen,
83(7):519-521,1986(Swedish Medical Journal);
(278) NIDR/ADA
Workshop, Biocompatibility of Metals in Dentistry, JADA, 109(3): 469-471, Sept
1984. (& 38)
(279) Jenkins, Biological
Monitoring of Toxic Trace Metals, Vol 1, Biological Monitoring and
Surveillance, U.S. EPA, Sept 1980, p3; & Cernichiari
E, Brewer R, Myers GJ, Marsh DO, Berlin M,
Clarkson TW; Monitoring methyl mercury during pregnancy:
maternal hair predicts fetal brain exposure. Neurotoxicology
1995 Winter;16(4):705‑10: & M.J.Gonzalez et el, “Mercury in
human hair; residents of Madrid, Spain”, Arch Environ Health, 1985,
40(4):225-8; & D.Airey, Mercury in human hair: a
review” Environmental Health Perspectives,1983. 52:303-316; &
“Total mercury concentrations in human
hair form 13 countries”, Sci Total Environ 1983, 32(2): 157-80; &
S.A.Katz et al, “Use of hair analysis for evaluating
mercury intoxication of the human body”, J Appl Toxicol, 1992, 12(2): 79-84; & Wilhelm M; Muller F; Idel H. Biological monitoring of mercury vapor
exposure by scalp hair analysis in
comparison to blood and urine. Toxicol
Lett 1996 Nov;88(1‑3):221‑6; & Ziff, Validity of Hair Anlysis
for Diagnosis of Mercury Status, Bioprobe Newsletter,
Jan 1988,
(290) D.
Echeverria et al, “Neurobehavioral
effects from exposure to dental amalgam: new distinctions between recent
exposure and Hg body burden” FASEB
J, Aug 1998, 12(11):971-980; & Amalgam and Health,
Swedish Council for Planning and Coordination of Research, 1999; p297-307.
(308) Sorensen
N, Murata K, Budtz-Jorgensen E, Weihe
P, Grandjean P. Prenatal
methylmercury exposure as a cardiovascular risk factor at seven years of age. Epidemiology
1999 Jul;10(4):370-5;&
D.O.Marsh et al, “Fetal Methyl mercury Poisoning”,
Ann Neurol, 1980, 7:348-55
(335)
A. Engqvist et al, “Speciation
of mercury excreted in feces from individuals with amalgam fillings”,
Arch Environ Health, 1998, 53(3):205-13; & Dept. of Toxicology & Chemistry,
Stockholm Univ., National Institute for Working Life, 1998 (www.niwl.se/ah/1998-02.html)
(342)
Stejskal VDM, Danersund A, Lindvall
A, Hudecek R, Nordman V, Yaqob A et al. Metal- specific
memory lymphocytes: biomarkers of
sensitivity in man. Neuroendocrinology Letters, 1999; 20: 289-98.
www.melisa.org
(369)Prochazkova J, Sterzl
I, Kucerova H, Bartova
J, Stejskal VD; The beneficial
effect
of amalgam replacement on health in patients with autoimmunity. Neuro
Endocrinol Lett. 2004 Jun;25(3):211-8.
(405) Stejskal
J, Stejskal V. The role of metals in autoimmune diseases and the
link
to neuroendocrinology Neuroendocrinology
Letters, 20:345‑358, 1999; www.melisa.org/knowledge/education14.html
(360)
Buchet JP, Lauwerys RR,
Influence of DMPS on the mobilization of mercury from tissues of rats
pretreated with mercuric
chloride, phenylmercury acetate, or mercury vapor, Toxicology 1989;54(3):323-33.
(370) Magos L, Clarkson TW, Hudson
AR. The effects of dose of elemental mercury and first
pass
circulation time on organ distribution of inorganic mercury in rats. Biochem Biophys Acta 1989; 991(1):85-9.
(386)
Great Smokies Diagnostic Lab, research web pages (by condition)
http://www.gsdl.com& Doctors Data Lab , http://www.doctorsdata.com,
inquiries @doctors
data.com, www.doctorsdata.com,
& MetaMetrix Lab, www.metametrix.com; &(d) Biospectron Lab, LMI, Lennart Månsson
International AB, lmi.analyslab@swipnet.se
(427) Chetty CS, McBride V, Sands S,
Rajanna B. Effects in vitro on rat
brain Mg(++)-ATPase. Arch Int
Physiol Biochem 1990
(69)
Olanow CW, Arendash GW.
Metals and free radicals in neurodegeneration. Curr Opin Neurol 1994, 7(6):548-58;
& Kasarskis EJ(MD), Metallothionein in ALS Motor Neurons(IRB #91-22026), FEDRIP DATABASE,
National Technical Information Service(NTIS), ID: FEDRIP/1999/07802766
(443) Troy CM, Shelanski ML. Down-regulation
of copper/zinc superoxide dismustase causes apoptotic
death in PC12 neuronal cells. Proc. National Acad
Sci, USA, 1994, 91(14):6384-7; & Rothstein JD, Dristol
LA, Hosier B, Brown RH, Kunci
RW. Chronic inhibition of superoxide dismustase
produces apoptotic death of spinal
neurons. Proc Nat Acad Sci, USA, 1994,
91(10):4155-9.
(503)
Rupp, Paffenberger, Significance to health of mercury
used in dental practice, Reports of Councils and Bureaus, JADA, Vol 182, June
1971; & Rao, Hefferen, Biocompatibility
of Dental Materials, Vol III,D.C. Smith
and D.F. Williams, Eds., CRC Press, Boca Raton, Fl 1982, Toxicity of Mercury;
& Center for Chemical Hazard Assessment, Potential Occupational
Hazards: Dentistry, Syracuse Research, Contract No.210-78-0019, 1980;
& Merck Manuel, 14th Edition, p1552.
(528) Doctors Data Inc.; Fecal Elements Test; P.O.Box 111, West Chicago, Illinois,
60186-0111;
(543) U.S. Centers for Disease Control,
National Center for Health Statistics, NHANES III
study(thousands of people’s health
monitored), http://www.myflcv.com/NHanes3.html ; &
www.mercola.com/article/mercury/no_mercury.htm &
Review: cancer related to mercury
exposure, B. Windham (Ed) www.myflcv.com/cancerhg.html ; & (b) Laks,
Dan R. Assessment
of chronic mercury exposure within the
U.S. population, National Health and Nutrition
Examination Survey, 1999–2006. Biometals. August 2009; & Laks,
D.R. et al, Mercury has
an affinity for pituitary hormones,
Medical Hypotheses, Dec 2009; & (c) An Investigation
of
Factors Related to
Levels of Mercury in Human Hair, Environmental Quality Institute,
October 01, 2005,
www.greenpeace.org/raw/content/usa/press/reports/mercury-report.pdf ?
www.greenpeace.org/usa/assets/binaries/addendum-to-mercury-report
?
(577) Joachim
Mutter et al, Alzheimer Disease:
Mercury as pathogenetic factor and apolipoprotein E
as a moderator, Neuroendocrinol
Lett 2004; 25(5):331–339; & Apolipoprotein E genotyping as a potential biomarker for
mercury neurotoxicity. J Alzheimers Dis.
2003Jun;5(3):189-95. Godfrey ME, Wojcik DP, Krone CA; & & Amer.
College of Medical Genetics Working Group on
ApoE and Alzheimer’s Disease, JAMA, 1995, 274:
1627-29
(595) Great Plains Medical Lab, Testing for Toxic Metals,
(596) Review: Fetal Effects of Amalgam, B Windham(Ed), http://www.myflcv.com/fetaln.html
(597) Results of Replacement of Amalgam Fillings, B Windham(Ed), http://www.myflcv.com/hgremove.html
(598) Review: Children’s neurological conditions, B Windham(Ed), http://www.myflcv.com/kidshg.html
(599) Exposure Levels from Amalgam Fillings, Review, http://www.myflcv.com/damspr1.html
(600)Health Effects Related to
Dental Amalgam, B Windham(Ed), www.myflcv.com/amalg6.html
National/technical contact: B. Windham, berniew1@embarqmail.com, 850-878-9024