Times have changed for mercury. Once flying high as the speedy Greek God of Commerce, mercury is now better known as the highly-toxic natural element that everyone wants to be rid of. As the subject of recent e-Alerts, we’ve seen how mercury has caused problems in vaccinations for infants and has complicated nutrition issues because of its presence in fish due to water pollution. So it’s no surprise that I occasionally receive e-mails from HSI members who ask this question:
“Could you send me or publish information about mercury and its effects on humans when it’s used by dentists in fillings?”
That request came from Diane, and it happens to be timely, because just last week the California Dental Association (CDA) settled a lawsuit, and the resulting agreement is sure to intensify the debate over the use of mercury in fillings.
By this time next year, most dentists in California will have a notice posted in their offices informing patients that when they have cavities filled, they may be exposed to mercury in amalgam fillings (an alloy of mercury, tin, silver and copper), used for many years in more than 100 million dental patients in the U.S. alone.
The credit for the posting of this new warning goes to an environmental group called As You Sow (AYS). In 1986, California voters approved a proposition requiring that any business that exposes their customers to toxins must post a warning notice. Under this proposition, AYS recently filed suit, and last week CDA agreed to require all of its members to abide by the guidelines of the proposition.
Shawn Khorrami, attorney for AYS, characterized the agreement as an admission by the dental field that the mercury in amalgam poses a health risk. But CDA attorney Jim Dufor disagreed, portraying the warning only as a recognition that amalgam contains mercury, but not a recognition that amalgam fillings are necessarily unhealthy. And to this Khorrami responded by noting that the amount of mercury released as vapor from fillings is far higher than the threshold stipulated by the proposition.
This lawyerly give-and-take illustrates the sort of typical exchange in the debate that rages on: is it all much ado about nothing, or do the fillings in our mouth poison us, adding a little more poison every day?
In a Members Alert we sent you two years ago, we told you about the possible dangers of mercury exposure from amalgam fillings. The problem (as the anti-amalgam camp sees it) is that those of us who have these fillings are continually inhaling mercury vapor. Add to this the unsettling news that if you should have the fillings removed, the damage may already have been done, with traces of mercury absorbed over time by soft body tissue such as brain and liver tissue.
As you might expect, there are efforts in the works to make amalgam fillings a thing of the past. A group called Consumers for Dental Choice (CDC) has campaigned for “mercury-free dentistry” for more than two decades. In addition, federal legislation has been introduced by representatives Diane Watson and Dan Burton. Their House bill calls for the immediate ban of amalgam fillings for children and pregnant women, followed by a complete ban for everyone within five years.
Meanwhile, the American Dental Association claims that amalgam fillings are “clinically and scientifically substantiated to be safe and effective.” They say the efforts to portray amalgam as harmful are based on “junk science.”
Is second best good enough?
So should you go to the trouble of having amalgam fillings replaced with non-amalgam? Or should you simply take the precaution of telling your dentist to not use amalgam when filling your cavities?
For advice on answering these questions, as well as insight on the general debate, I turned to HSI Panelist Richard Cohan, D.D.S., M.S., M.B.A., who has followed this situation closely for some time now. Dr. Cohan tells me that a major point at issue is that there are simply no reliable, problem-free substitutes for amalgam fillings. On a practical level, amalgam is versatile, inexpensive, easy to use, and provides excellent bondability.
Regarding the dangers of mercury exposure, Dr. Cohan notes that one of his colleagues, Jane Hightower, M.D., believes that exposure to mercury in amalgam fillings is probably less than the exposure from the consumption of large fish. On the other hand, both Drs. Cohan and Hightower agree that individuals who grind their teeth incessantly, or others who drink hot beverages throughout the day, may be releasing unhealthy amounts of mercury from their fillings.
Obviously there are many variables that complicate any answers that might settle this debate. Because there is much more to the amalgam issue than I have space for here today, Dr. Cohen has promised to supply some further, more detailed commentary for an upcoming e-Alert after the first of the year. In the meantime, if you have any specific questions about amalgam fillings, please send them along and I’ll relay them to Dr. Cohan.
To Your Good Health,
Jenny Thompson
Health Sciences Institute
