-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
Got some metal fillings removed yesterday, and...
- Thread starter Ra1den
- Start date
- Status
I expect europe to eventually get rid of them while the US still allows them. After all, the US still allows buildings to have asbestos (No new buildings, but any ones built with them previously don't have to have them removed. And if they want them removed, it's at their own expense)
Wtf???
100k fibers per cubic meter?? WTFFFFF??
reminder: your daily breathing turnover is over 5 cubic meters of air.
And, wtf Canada??
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asbestos#Canada-EU_dispute
Seriously, Asbestos related cancer is rising and rising due to the long time it takes to fuck up your system but then, bamm. It's expect to climb even more in the coming decade.
WTF at the fox news columnist who only 3 days after 9/11, claimed that asbestos probably would have prevented the building from collapsing.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,34342,00.html
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,34342,00.html
NintendoGal
Member
I had them for awhile because that's what we had growing up (read: could afford). Went to a dentist while I was still in WA and got them all removed and filled with the resin stuff. They do get sensitive for a bit, but calm down after you adjust. Wasn't too bad and it's worth it IMO.
The only controversy around amalgam fillings are from people who are unable to parse actual science from hysterical tabloid bullshit. The OP is a good example of this.
MMR jabs also cause autism.
Fluoridation of water makes you a compliant citizen.
The moon is made of cheese.
etc.
Pretty much this.
MMR jabs also cause autism.
Fluoridation of water makes you a compliant citizen.
The moon is made of cheese.
etc.
Pretty much this.
I see the fluoride has already gotten to you.
In all seriousness, you are the type of person that would have ridiculed Pasteur back when he put forth his controversial theories.
p.s. Fluoride accumulates in the brain and has been proven to adversely affect brain development in children.
Buggy Loop
Gold Member
Alright, i have had metal fillings for over 15 years now i think, why should i keep them? Any articles out there saying that it doesnt affect the body after years and years?
i see the resin council creeps got to you too, huh?
*man in giant tooth costume runs away*
You're asking science to prove a negative. That's the wrong question.
Citation on that, please?
I am all up for conspiracy theories, but I love my dentist and she told us (the whole family goes to her, whenever we have issues 
) that amalgam is not dangerous - end of story.
I know, I know, anecdotal evidence at best - but maybe the hearing side effect is something very specific for you, and is not a widespread phenomenom.
) that amalgam is not dangerous - end of story. I know, I know, anecdotal evidence at best - but maybe the hearing side effect is something very specific for you, and is not a widespread phenomenom.
Chew on some foil. If you find yourself wondering "why am I chewing on foil?" then they arent metal. Otherwise they are metal.
Go ahead its fun.
Oh I've got citations. Here is a page that has many of them in one convenient spot.
http://www.holisticmed.com/fluoride/
For those that have no clue where fluoride even comes from(the stuff in our water is NOT organic naturally occurring fluorine)
"It's a substance called hexafluorosilicic acid or its sodium salt: silicon fluorides," Connett explains.
"These silicon fluorides are captured pollutants from the phosphate fertilizer industry. When you're making phosphate fertilizersÂ… the process generates two very toxic gasses; hydrogen fluoride and silicon tetrafluoride.
For about a hundred years, these decimated the local area -- the vegetation; crippled cattle and so on. Eventually, they were required to capture these toxic gasses, using a spray of water. That spray of water produces silicon fluorides.
That scrubbing liquor cannot be dumped into the sea by international law. It can't be dumped locally because it's too concentrated. But if someone buys it, it's no longer a hazardous waste, it's a product.
Â… Who buys it?
The public water utilities buy this stuff and put it in our drinking water. It's absolutely absurd."
C'mon. You're citing holistic medicine sites on matters of science?
What difference does it make what site has the links? It is just listing studies. Do those studies look suspect to you?
AUTHOR:
Tohyama E
ADDRESS:
Department of Preventive Medicine, School of Medicine, University of the Ryukyus, Okinawa, Japan.
TITLE:
Relationship between fluoride concentration in drinking water and mortality rate from uterine cancer in Okinawa prefecture, Japan.
SOURCE:
J Epidemiol (CL8), 1996 Dec; 6 (4): 184-91
ABSTRACT:
The Okinawa Islands located in the southern-most part of Japan were under U.S. administration from 1945 to 1972. During that time, fluoride was added to the drinking water supplies in most regions. The relationship between fluoride concentration in drinking water and uterine cancer mortality rate was studied in 20 municipalities of Okinawa and the data were analyzed using correlation and multivariate statistics. The main findings were as follows. (1) A significant positive correlation was found between fluoride concentration in drinking water and uterine cancer mortality in 20 municipalities (r = 0.626, p < 0.005). (2) Even after adjusting for the potential confounding variables, such as tap water diffusion rate, primary industry population ratio, income gap, stillbirth rate, divorce rate, this association was considerably significant. (3) Furthermore, the time trends in the uterine cancer mortality rate appear to be related to changes in water fluoridation practices.
PRO-TIP: Anyone can cherry-pick studies.
Yes. The phrase "correlation doesn't imply causation" comes to mind. Also keep in mind the vast number of studies that show nothing of the sort. You understand how well studied the practice of fluoridating water is, correct? It's considered to be one of the most effective public health measures ever undertaken.
There is not a single LONG-TERM study proving that fluoride is safe for consumption. Everyone drinking fluoridated water is an unwilling guinea pig being force medicated without their consent. There are MORE than enough studies showing that it is potentially dangerous to warrant the practice being stopped.
The really shady studies are the ones "proving" it is good for teeth, which were mostly commissioned by special interests. There is a reason many countries have stopped their fluoridation programs.
This is complete nonsense. Much of Europe relies on fluoridated foods and toothpaste so water fluoridation is not needed everywhere. Your claims are ridiculous and are contradicted, almost unanimously, by the scientific community.
Trojita
Rapid Response Threadmaker
When it comes to scientific knowledge about Amalgam, we are a little bit farther than lol crazy people.
Scientists have confirmed that Mercury leaks from Amalgam fillings into a human body that has Amalgam fillings in their teeth. Mercury being a poison, is not safe to be consumed by humans or animals. Scientists are in an argument about whether the level of mercury that leaks into the body from Amalgam Fillings are enough to cause side affects. The problem with poisons like this is that people can develop illnesses and symptoms from continuous exposure to a poison like Mercury, but being able to prove that is where it came from is harder.
So it looks like this
Mercury = Poisonous to Humans
Amalgam Fillings leak Mercury into the human body
There hasn't been 100% consensus on whether this poison is a high enough dose to cause adverse affects in Humans.
There has been studies and samples done with urine samples from people with Amalgam fillings that had a level of Mercury in their urine that was way past the level at what would likely cause adverse affects in a human being.
I_D
Member
If this:
is accurate and it's that easy to tell the difference, then almost every person over 50 I've ever met has these.
This tells me you haven't looked into the issue very much. There is huge resistance to water fluoridation among dental professionals and the scientific community, and the movement is growing rapidly as each new study shows adverse effects. Sounds more to me like you are just "assuming" these studies must exist, since it hasn't been banned in the USA yet. I can't blame you for thinking that way, but unfortunately that is not the case.
You're full of it. And fluoride isn't "banned."
And you are not able to distinguish a good source from a bad one, it seems.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15789284?dopt=Abstract
And the ADA?? I trust US institutions as far as I can throw them. If a European one contradicts them, especially major University Clinics, I know in whom I put my trust. Knowing politics and lobbies, you should too.
Show me the long term studies proving the safety then.
No, the medical establishment changes on the spot when they are actually proven wrong. That's why you can't buy Vioxx anymore or why thalidomide is so tightly regulated. On the other hand, if the evidence is equivocal or based on nebulous claims such as "my fillings were affecting my hearing," then clearly no change will come.
Again, fallacious reasoning and fear mongering prevail. I suppose you can't think of any other good reasons that medical waste might need to be disposed of in a special manner other than it's a poison surreptitiously being unleashed upon an unwitting public, right? I see in other posts that you are also part of the anti-fluoride brigade. I can only assume you're also part of the anti-vaccine campaign that's generally based on similarly misguided assumptions.
Even though one may be wise to question strongly-held positions, doing so while only hearing one side of the argument and without truly understanding just why the position is so strongly held risks doing unwitting profound damage. You, for example, had amalgam fillings removed in favor of weaker resin, which not only required the dentist destroy some of your healthy tooth in the process, but almost certainly exposed you to far more mercury than you would have during the life of the filling itself.
I don't have the patience to keep repeating the same thing over and over, but your claims have already been brought up in this thread numerous times. It is not just some anecdotal evidence here and there.
Also, the exposure during removal has been addressed several times already. There is a safe way to do it, and an un-safe way to do it.
If my "claims" have been brought up before, they have not been rebutted. You state the medical establishment is slow to change, I gave you two clear examples where it wasn't.
Your claim about amalgam is anecdotal. Clearly there is a controversy there and one worth exploring, but from where I'm standing the evidence doesn't seem to sway decisively in favor of your position just yet, no matter how much cherry-picking is going on at PubMed. This isn't just the position of the ADA, it's also the position of the FDA and the European Comission.
Really? Without damaging intact tooth? Without releasing any mercury vapor? I'm not quite sure where you addressed it in this thread. Are you sure it's not just wishful thinking, or do you think you can enlighten us as to how this "safe" procedure is performed?
Correct.
The amount released by ripping the filling out is greater than the amount that will leech out over your entire lifetime.
http://health.gov/environment/ReviewofFluoride/
http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Risk/fluoridated-water
http://www.york.ac.uk/inst/crd/CRD_Reports/crdreport18.pdf
http://www.nhmrc.gov.au/_files_nhmrc/publications/attachments/eh41_1.pdf
http://www.nhmrc.gov.au/_files_nhmrc/publications/attachments/eh41_2.pdf
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9332806
Always-honest
Banned
The wind was in your direction
I kind of have to wonder then...
There are some people sensitive to mercury. In 2004, I had some metal fillings replaced with new fillings... a few months later, my eczema flared severely.
Maybe it's not a direct link, but it could be. *shrug* Need to have a new allergy test done.
There are some people sensitive to mercury. In 2004, I had some metal fillings replaced with new fillings... a few months later, my eczema flared severely.
Maybe it's not a direct link, but it could be. *shrug* Need to have a new allergy test done.
Check out some of the other studies those researchers have conducted.
From what I am seeing here, these are not long term studies. The issue with fluoride is the continuous buildup over time.
But let's say these studies are legit. OK, we appear to have conflicting data then. And from what I can tell, the more recent studies have shown fluoride in a progressively more negative light. For instance one of your cited studies stated that fluorosis doesn't increase with water fluoridation, but there are plenty of studies showing this to be false.
"This study assessed the relationship between dental caries and fluorosis at varying fluoride levels in drinking water. Methods: Subjects were followed from birth with questionnaires every 3-4 months to gather information on fluoride intake. 420 study subjects received dental examinations at age 5 on primary teeth and at age 9 on early-erupting permanent teeth... Conclusions: Fluorosis prevalence increased significantly with higher water fluoride levels; however, caries prevalence did not decline significantly."
SOURCE: Hong L, Levy S, Warren J, Broffit B. (2006). Dental caries and fluorosis in relation to water fluoride levels. ADEA/AADR/CADR Conference, Orlando Florida, March 8-11, 2006.
It may be safe, it may not be. Does it make sense to add it to our water supply when the safety is in question? The government has no business doing anything of the sort. If somebody wants fluoride, they can buy it themselves.
Also, one has to ask what the type of fluoride used was. Was it the naturally occurring kind, or the waste disposal kind (which is added to our water).
They gather many studies together over long periods. Water fluoridation in a community is a constant, so if you use subjects who've lived in an area all their lives, you're getting long term results.
Remember that almost all of these studies linking fluoride to harmful effects like cancer are given low scores for quality. What report are you referring to in regards to fluorosis?
Be careful and read the full summary of that paper: it studies the effect of increasing fluoride levels. It shows that over .7 ppm the prevalence of fluorosis increases without a corresponding decrease in cavities. In other words, the benefits of a fluoride concentration larger than .7ppm are not worth the cost.
The benefit to public health is enormous and we have no credible links between fluoride and unacceptable side effects.
It doesn't matter what kind. Fluorosilicic acid is most commonly used and therefore, in the US, the most commonly studied. If it were, for god only knows what reason, harmful in any special way it would be borne out in the studies. It's not.
There is no way to measure the dosage a person is receiving though, which further shows the ridiculousness of mass fluoridation. Some people may drink more water than others. One of the most basic concepts of effective medicine is giving the correct dosages, which is completely impossible in this situation. It is quite likely that many people are receiving much higher dosages than the "safe" ones tested, and many are receiving less than what is needed to make any difference in their teeth.
Look, you can find plenty of studies saying it is safe, and plenty saying it is not safe. In all honesty, there seem to be a lot more saying it is not safe, and I've been reading about this for awhile. Add to the fact that there are plenty of studies showing NO advantages in preventing cavities from water fluoridation.
The prevalence of caries decreased over time in the fluoridation-ended community while remaining unchanged in the fluoridated community."
SOURCE: Maupome G, Clark DC, Levy SM, Berkowitz J. (2001). Patterns of dental caries following the cessation of water fluoridation. Community Dentistry and Oral Epidemiology 29: 37-47.
"The fact that no increase in caries was found in Kuopio despite discontinuation of water fluoridation and decrease in preventive procedures suggests that not all of these measures were necessary for each child."
SOURCE: Seppa L, Karkkainen S, Hausen H. (2000). Caries Trends 1992-1998 in Two Low-Fluoride Finnish Towns Formerly with and without Fluoridation. Caries Research 34: 462-468.
"In contrast to the anticipated increase in dental caries following the cessation of water fluoridation in the cities Chemnitz and Plauen, a significant fall in caries prevalence was observed."
SOURCE: Kunzel W, Fischer T, Lorenz R, Bruhmann S. (2000). Decline of caries prevalence after the cessation of water fluoridation in the former East Germany. Community Dentistry and Oral Epidemiology 28: 382-9.
"In 1997, following the cessation of drinking water fluoridation, in contrast to an expected rise in caries prevalence, DMFT and DMFS values remained at a low level for the 6- to 9-year-olds and appeared to decrease for the 10/11-year-olds. In the 12/13-year-olds, there was a significant decrease, while the percentage of caries-free children of this age group had increased..."
SOURCE: Kunzel W, Fischer T. (2000). Caries prevalence after cessation of water fluoridation in La Salud, Cuba. Caries Research 34: 20-5.
Look, you can find plenty of studies saying it is safe, and plenty saying it is not safe. In all honesty, there seem to be a lot more saying it is not safe, and I've been reading about this for awhile. Add to the fact that there are plenty of studies showing NO advantages in preventing cavities from water fluoridation.
The prevalence of caries decreased over time in the fluoridation-ended community while remaining unchanged in the fluoridated community."
SOURCE: Maupome G, Clark DC, Levy SM, Berkowitz J. (2001). Patterns of dental caries following the cessation of water fluoridation. Community Dentistry and Oral Epidemiology 29: 37-47.
"The fact that no increase in caries was found in Kuopio despite discontinuation of water fluoridation and decrease in preventive procedures suggests that not all of these measures were necessary for each child."
SOURCE: Seppa L, Karkkainen S, Hausen H. (2000). Caries Trends 1992-1998 in Two Low-Fluoride Finnish Towns Formerly with and without Fluoridation. Caries Research 34: 462-468.
"In contrast to the anticipated increase in dental caries following the cessation of water fluoridation in the cities Chemnitz and Plauen, a significant fall in caries prevalence was observed."
SOURCE: Kunzel W, Fischer T, Lorenz R, Bruhmann S. (2000). Decline of caries prevalence after the cessation of water fluoridation in the former East Germany. Community Dentistry and Oral Epidemiology 28: 382-9.
"In 1997, following the cessation of drinking water fluoridation, in contrast to an expected rise in caries prevalence, DMFT and DMFS values remained at a low level for the 6- to 9-year-olds and appeared to decrease for the 10/11-year-olds. In the 12/13-year-olds, there was a significant decrease, while the percentage of caries-free children of this age group had increased..."
SOURCE: Kunzel W, Fischer T. (2000). Caries prevalence after cessation of water fluoridation in La Salud, Cuba. Caries Research 34: 20-5.
The differences are negligible.
Almost every study saying it isn't is a bad study! You give absolutely no thought to the quality of the methodology used.
In other words, water fluoridation is not the only source of fluoride. There are also many other concerns with regards to access to dental care and other socioeconomic factors.
See above. These types of studies are cited specifically for not taking into account other factors(or they do and the website you're feeding your paranoia from is giving an incomplete summary).
It is no surprise you see mostly negative effects discussed in papers. You first find a website either ideologically or otherwise opposed to fluoridation and then use it to gather information.
I prefer small independent studies to ones that are funded or intensely lobbied by industry. When lots and lots of these small studies are looked at together and show similar results, they become a valuable resource. I don't put all my trust in large government studies, as that is where the lobbying goes. Surely you are aware of how easy it is to "prove" ANYTHING you want, if one is inclined to do so?
That has nothing to do with the quality of the study. You are deciding what you like and don't like based solely on the conclusion it reaches. Small studies that agree with you are good, big studies that don't are bad.
Proving "anything you want" is not easy in science. To do that you need to...wait for it...use poor experimental methodology. And then your peers point it out and your conclusions are ignored until you do better. Which perfectly explains the state of fluoridation research.
Only trusting the studies that agree with your pre-determined point of view works wonders.
My view has nothing to do with it. I see many more studies which show fluoride as potentially dangerous than ones that say it is safe. I'd be happy to be proven wrong here, I'd feel much better actually.
We don't conduct science by just using a scale to measure which view has more papers.
That's the opposite of how science works. Interesting small studies are always followed up by large studies to see if the findings of the small study were actually correct.
I have metal ones and my hearing is great. And I wouldn't have the money to replace them anyway, and wouldn't want to go through the pain of doing so.
I had these put in about.. 1997? 98? or so? Maybe it's balanced out by the fact that I barely eat fish, being in a landlocked state and all.
I had these put in about.. 1997? 98? or so? Maybe it's balanced out by the fact that I barely eat fish, being in a landlocked state and all.
- Status