FDA Classifies Dental Amalgam Fillings as Class II (Moderate Risk)

Today (Tuesday, July 28th, 2009) the FDA “issued a final regulation classifying dental amalgam and its component parts – elemental mercury and a powder alloy—used in dental fillings. While elemental mercury has been associated with adverse health effects at high exposures, the levels released by dental amalgam fillings are not high enough to cause harm in patients. The regulation classifies dental amalgam into Class II (moderate risk).” (http://www.fda.gov/NewsEvents/Newsroom/PressAnnouncements/ucm173992.htm)

Moments later, the ADA issued a press release stating it agrees with the FDA’s decision.

So what does this mean for you? It means that dental amalgam fillings (often referred to as mercury fillings or silver fillings) will still be used in most dental offices despite the potential long term health risks to patients and workers alike.

“But if there are potential long term health risks, why didn’t the FDA ban the fillings?”

Dental Amalgam (Mercury) Fillings are FDA Class II

Good question. In fact, the FDA acknowledged the risks associated with mercury fillings when they issued their decision. However, they decided that the risk didn’t outweigh the difficulties of banning the fillings.

“Dental amalgam contains elemental mercury. It releases low levels of mercury vapor that can be inhaled.” (http://www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/ProductsandMedicalProcedures/DentalProducts/DentalAmalgam/ucm171094.htm)

The FDA admits that dental amalgam fillings release low levels of mercury vapors. Because Mercury is a heavy metal, low levels of mercury vapors have been proven to accumulate in the body. Over time, that low level surpasses the “safe” amount of mercury specified by the FDA and can cause long term chronic health and neurological problems.

The bottom line? Politics have once again stood in the way of science and have put the public at risk for health problems.

The good news? You still have a choice. It’s actually quite similar to bans on smoking in public places: in states that still allowing smoking in restaurants, you have the choice to eat at another restaurant to avoid the health issues associated with second hand smoke. In the case of dental amalgam fillings (and the mercury vapor present in dental offices that place the fillings), you can choose to visit a dentist that doesn’t work with mercury.

While the classification by the FDA is a defeat in the fight against mercury, you still have options. And by choosing a mercury-free dentist, you are making the biggest stand of all.

Dr. Marvin

PS: If you’d like to read the entire classification of Dental Amalgam by the FDA, click here: http://www.fda.gov/downloads/MedicalDevices/ProductsandMedicalProcedures/DentalProducts/DentalAmalgam/UCM174024.pdf.

PPS: The FDA did today reclassify the mercury component of dental amalgam fillings from Class I (low risk) to Class II (moderate risk).

The Dangers of Fluoride

I regularly get asked questions about the dangers of fluoride and water fluoridation (often misspelled as flouride and flouridation). In fact, one of my employees was recently speaking with me about the sodium fluoride drops his daughter’s pediatrician had prescribed.

In response to the questions and concerns, I’ve put together this article which is loaded with information about fluoride (flouride), symptoms of fluoridation, and the dangers of consuming fluoride.

I hope this helps answer your questions!

• The fluoride used for water fluoridation does not have FDA approval and is considered by the FDA as an “unapproved drug”. The proper use of any drug requires an understanding of how much is too much. Since fluoride is already in many foods and beverages, an estimated total intake of existing fluoride amounts is imperative. Research shows fluoridation is unnecessary since we’re already receiving 300% or more of the American Dental Association’s recommended daily amount.^#
• The chemicals used for fluoridation are not high purity, pharmaceutical quality products. Rather they are byproducts of aluminum and fertilizer manufacturing and contain a high concentration of toxins and heavy metals such as arsenic, lead and chromium. All proven to be carcinogens.^#
• Newsweek Magazine advised the public that “political decisions [about fluoridation] were at odds with expert advice” and “fluoride from your tap may not do much good-and may cause cancer.” Then, in 1992, Newsweek published another fluoride safety related article, “Is Science Censored?, a look at how political considerations influence what scientific studies get published.”^#
• The first noticeable signs of excessive exposure to fluoride in contaminated water, air, and food products include discolorations of the enamel. Dental fluorosis during tooth growth and loss of dentition in adulthood are two consequences of chronic intoxication with fluorine compounds. Abnormalities in mineralization processes affect by and large the osteoarticular system and are associated with changes in the density and structure of the bone presenting as irregular mineralization of the osteoid.^*
• Children’s sodium fluoride anti-cavity supplements were never found safe or effective by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). They were never even tested.

  So why are these prescription drugs allowed despite no FDA approval? Because fluoride supplements were “grandfathered in” before the 1938 law was enacted requiring drug testing.

  So, products on the market before 1938 were presumed safe by the FDA who allowed grandfathered drugs to be sold without any testing. Once a drug is on the market for any reason, doctors can use them to treat any disease or condition.

  Sodium fluoride was on the market pre-1938, but not to stop cavities and not for any medical reason. Sodium fluoride sold as a rat poison.

  So, in effect, the FDA says – since sodium fluoride safely and effectively killed rats before 1938, the FDA considers it is safe to give to little children to prevent tooth decay.From a 1951 American Dental Association brochure:
  “There is no proof that commercial preparations such as tablets, dentifrices, mouthwashes or chewing gum containing fluorides are effective in preventing dental decay. Unfortunately such preparations are being offered to the public without adequate scientific evidence of their value.”^*

• 97% of western Europe has chosen fluoride-free water. This includes: Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Iceland, Italy, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Northern Ireland, Norway, Scotland, Sweden, and Switzerland. (While some European countries add fluoride to salt, the majority do not.) Thus, rather than mandating fluoride treatment for the whole population, western Europe allows individuals the right to choose, or refuse, fluoride.^{^}
• Contrary to previous belief, fluoride has minimal benefit when swallowed. When water fluoridation began in the 1940s and ’50s, dentists believed that fluoride needed to be swallowed in order to be most effective. This belief, however, has now been discredited by an extensive body of modern research (1).According to the Centers for Disease Control, fluoride’s “predominant effect is posteruptive and topical” (2). In other words, any benefits that accrue from the use of fluoride, come from the direct application of fluoride to the outside of teeth (after they have erupted into the mouth) and not from ingestion. There is no need, therefore, to expose all other tissues to fluoride by swallowing it.^{^}
• Ingestion of fluoride has little benefit, but many risks. Whereas fluoride’s benefits come from topical contact with teeth, its risks to health (which involve many more tissues than the teeth) result from being swallowed.

  Adverse effects from fluoride ingestion have been associated with doses attainable by people living in fluoridated areas. For example:

  • Risk to the brain. According to the National Research Council (NRC), fluoride can damage the brain. Animal studies conducted in the 1990s by EPA scientists found dementia-like effects at the same concentration (1 ppm) used to fluoridate water, while human studies have found adverse effects on IQ at levels as low as 0.9 ppm among children with nutrient deficiencies, and 1.8 ppm among children with adequate nutrient intake. (7-10)
  • Risk to the thyroid gland. According to the NRC, fluoride is an “endocrine disrupter.” Most notably, the NRC has warned that doses of fluoride (0.01-0.03 mg/kg/day) achievable by drinking fluoridated water, may reduce the function of the thyroid among individuals with low-iodine intake. Reduction of thyroid activity can lead to loss of mental acuity, depression and weight gain (11)
  • Risk to bones. According to the NRC, fluoride can diminish bone strength and increase the risk for bone fracture. While the NRC was unable to determine what level of fluoride is safe for bones, it noted that the best available information suggests that fracture risk may be increased at levels as low 1.5 ppm, which is only slightly higher than the concentration (0.7-1.2 ppm) added to water for fluoridation. (12)
  • Risk for bone cancer. Animal and human studies – including a recent study from a team of Harvard scientists – have found a connection between fluoride and a serious form of bone cancer (osteosarcoma) in males under the age of 20. The connection between fluoride and osteosarcoma has been described by the National Toxicology Program as “biologically plausible.” Up to half of adolescents who develop osteosarcoma die within a few years of diagnosis. (13-16)
  • Risk to kidney patients. People with kidney disease have a heightened susceptibility to fluoride toxicity. The heightened risk stems from an impaired ability to excrete fluoride from the body. As a result, toxic levels of fluoride can accumulate in the bones, intensify the toxicity of aluminum build-up, and cause or exacerbate a painful bone disease known as renal osteodystrophy. (17-19)^{^}

I hope this helps answer some of your questions about fluoride, fluoridation, and fluorosis. If there are questions this article didn’t answer, please leave me a comment and I’ll be happy to do my best to provide ou with the info you’re looking for!

^{# http://www.nofluoride.com}

^{* http://fluoridedangers.blogspot.com/}

^{^ http://www.fluoridealert.org/fluoride-facts.htm}

^{1. Featherstone JDB. (2000). The Science and Practice of Caries Prevention. Journal of the American Dental Association. 131: 887-899. (Additional references available at: www.fluoridealert.org/health/teeth/caries/topical-systemic.html )}

^{2. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (2001). Recommendations for Using Fluoride to Prevent and Control Dental Caries in the United States. Mortality and Morbidity Weekly Review. (MMWR). August 17. 50(RR14):1-42.7. National Research Council. (2006). Fluoride in Drinking Water: A Scientific Review of EPA’s Standards. National Academies Press, Washington D.C. p. 173-188.}

^{8. Varner JA, et al. (1998). Chronic Administration of Aluminum-Fluoride and Sodium-Fluoride to Rats in Drinking Water: Alterations in Neuronal and Cerebrovascular Integrity.Brain Research. 784: 284-298.}

^{9. Lin Fa-Fu, et al. (1991). The relationship of a low-iodine and high-fluoride environment to subclinical cretinism in Xinjiang. Iodine Deficiency Disorder Newsletter. Vol. 7. No. 3.}

^{10. Xiang Q, et al. (2003a). Effect of fluoride in drinking water on children’s intelligence. Fluoride 36: 84-94; 198-199.}

^{11. NRC (2006). p. 189-224.}

^{12. NRC (2006). p. 107-148.}

^{13. National Toxicology Program. (1990). Toxicology and Carcinogenesis Studies of Sodium Fluoride in F344/N Rats and B6C3f1 Mice. Technical report Series No. 393. NIH Publ. No 91-2848. National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, Research Triangle Park, N.C.}

^{14. Hoover RN, et al. (1991). Time trends for bone and joint cancers and osteosarcomas in the Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) Program. National Cancer Institute In: Review of Fluoride: Benefits and Risks. US Public Health Service. Appendix E & F.}

^{15. Cohn PD. (1992). A Brief Report On The Association Of Drinking Water Fluoridation And The Incidence of Osteosarcoma Among Young Males. New Jersey Department of Health Environ. Health Service: 1- 17.}

^{16. Bassin EB, Wypij D, Davis RB, Mittleman MA. (2006). Age-specific Fluoride Exposure in Drinking Water and Osteosarcoma (United States). Cancer Causes and Control 17: 421-8.}

^{17. Johnson W, et al. (1979). Fluoridation and bone disease in renal patients. In: E Johansen, DR Taves, TO Olsen, Eds. Continuing Evaluation of the Use of Fluorides. AAAS Selected Symposium. Westview Press, Boulder, Colorado. pp. 275-293.}

^{18. Ittel TH, et al. (1992). Effect of fluoride on aluminum-induced bone disease in rats with renal failure. Kidney International 41: 1340-1348.}

^{19. Ayoob S, Gupta AK. (2006). Fluoride in Drinking Water: A Review on the Status and Stress Effects. Critical Reviews in Environmental Science and Technology 36:433–487}

Just Say ‘NO’: States Stepping Up to Stop Mercury

There’s a great article in the Associated Press this morning about the government’s attempts to find a site to deposit excess mercury.

So far the list has been narrowed to seven states: Washington, Idaho, Nevada, Colorado, Texas, Missouri and South Carolina. Why were these chosen? Partly because 6 are already nuclear or federal defense sites, so the government probably expected less opposition than they may have received in states such as Oregon or California.

Not so fast.

As it turns out, Mercury is so toxic that even in Grand Junction Colorado… where uranium is currently held, Governor Bill Ritter is opposing the plan.

It’s a good article and puts into perspective the way legislatures and residents alike view mercury… and it makes you wonder why mercury is still approved for use in dental amalgam (silver) fillings!

Here’s a snippet of the article. The full article can be read online at Google News.

Gov’t considers 7 states for mercury site

By SHANNON DININNY (AP) – 9 hours ago

RICHLAND, Wash. — The federal government is trying to find a location to store the nation’s excess mercury deposits, with seven states being considered. But the government is quickly finding out that very few people want the stuff.

A Colorado woman who showed up at a public forum on the issue last week had this to say about the plan: “No, no, no, no, no. No mercury.” The Idaho governor was equally emphatic in his opposition, saying “not gonna happen.” The Kansas City Council already passed a resolution against the plan.

Even people in this city, where locals embrace the atomic legacy of the neighboring Hanford nuclear reservation, are a little skittish.

“I don’t like it,” waitress Amanda Wyrick said as she poured a Half-Life Hefeweizen for a customer at Atomic Ale Brewpub and Eatery. “I would rather it not be close to me.”

The United States still exports surplus elemental mercury, the purest form, often to developing countries with less restrictive environmental regulations. Then-U.S. Sen. Barack Obama sponsored a bill last year to bar mercury exports beginning in 2013, and President Bush signed it.

The bill also requires the Department of Energy to identify a safe, long-term storage site for up to 17,000 tons of mercury, which is so dense that it would fill less than half of an Olympic-size swimming pool. That includes stockpiles held by the federal government, as well as commercial supplies.

Officials are considering sites in seven states: Washington, Idaho, Nevada, Colorado, Texas, Missouri and South Carolina. Six already operate as federal defense or nuclear sites, but residents are swiftly voicing opposition because mercury is such a toxic substance.

Sometimes called “quicksilver,” mercury is a dense, metallic element that occurs naturally in the environment and has been used in gold mining, manufacturing chlorine and caustic soda, batteries, thermometers and other uses. Its use has been in decline in this country since it was linked to health issues, including pulmonary and neural disorders.

In Colorado, the Energy Department is considering a site near Grand Junction where uranium tailings are stored. Residents fear mercury could contaminate tributaries that flow into the Colorado River, a water source for millions of people in the West.

Colorado Gov. Bill Ritter came out against the plan Thursday, saying he will convey his opposition about the proposal to the Department of Energy.

“Colorado’s Western Slope is no place for the federal government to deposit thousands of tons of mercury. The risks to ground and surface water are too great. The risks to our air quality are too great. The risks of transporting elemental mercury over long distances and on routes that run adjacent to or cross major water sources, such as the Colorado River, are too great,” Ritter said.

Nevada officials expressed “grave concerns” about storing the waste at the Hawthorne Army Depot, a 150,000-acre depot in a small, struggling desert town 130 miles south of Reno.

Allen Biaggi, director of the Nevada Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, said the state has already done its share for the federal government, as home to the Nevada Test Site, a test range, U.S. Naval and Air Force bases and the depot.

“It’s time for another state to step up,” he said.

The federal government wants to work cooperatively with states to find a safe site, said Frank Marcinowski, the Energy Department’s deputy assistant secretary for regulatory compliance.

A draft environmental impact statement is expected to be released for public comment in the fall.

Read The Rest:

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5ibf7FttZJzgID6yI5TL1sKYYQo7QD99KM3402

Symptoms of Mercury in the Human Body

As a dentist who removes a high quantity of mercury amalgam fillings from patients every week, I am exposed to higher levels of mercury than most people. Despite the precautions we take in the office to protect ourselves (including high quality masks), I regularly have my mercury levels tested to see where I’m at.

After my most recent test, I was talking with Dr. Bruce Dooley, Medical Director at MercOut International, about elevated levels of mercury and some of the symptoms. The information he provided is top-notch so I wanted to be sure to share it with you.

Check out Dr. Dooley’s letter, below, followed by a list of symptoms someone with elevated mercury levels may encounter.

Whether or not you currently are experiencing any of the symptoms of mercury toxicity (listed below), you need to be aware that mercury has effects at the cellular, hormonal, and enzymatic levels.  Micromercurialism is a term designating chronic low-level mercury toxicity, the clinical testing, diagnosis and treatment of which has been essentially non-existent in our health care system (1). This is likely due to the vague and non-specific nature of the presenting signs and symptoms.  Dental amalgam is the greatest source of mercury in the general population (2), and is released in vapor form, which is detectable and quantifiable (3,4).  Mercury also enters the body through certain food fish, and through environmental and occupational exposure.

Tissue-bound mercury levels are not adequately measured by standard blood and urine analysis and there are many inconsistencies and false negatives associated with hair analysis (5).  In addition, these deeply embedded stores of mercury are not adequately removed by the body on its own.  DMPS (2,3-dimercaptopropane-1-sulfonate) is safe and highly effective in the oral form for chelating (binding to) mercury, lead and arsenic in the body (6,7).  Recent investigational patient outcome studies in New Zealand and the United States reported 63% of the study group had a reduction of measured urine mercury levels greater than 50% within 30 to 60 days of using the oral DMPS formulation. The average mercury reduction in this group was a highly significant 69% (8).

Many people with elevated levels question how long it takes to reduce their body burden of mercury using the oral program instead of the traditional and more costly IV therapy.  There are no hard and fast rules in this area of detoxification for sub-acute or chronic heavy metal tissue contamination, especially mercury. However, my experience treating thousands of individuals for heavy metal toxicity certainly points to one rule: Expect differences between individuals in their speed and ease of detoxification. So I have developed protocols based on the urine results to determine the appropriate number of MercOut 30-day programs to take before retesting.  Some individuals prefer to perform a “waypoint” urine challenge after each 30-day program no matter how high their initial mercury level. I am quite happy with that approach. Others choose to do multiple programs in a row before retesting to see their new level. I am also entirely comfortable with that choice. For them I have created the following guidelines:

Mercury Score           Number of MercOut Programs Before Urine Retest

4 – 24                                                   1

24 – 60                                                 2

Greater than 60                                    3

Much more information is available on the website www.MercOut.com regarding mercury and its removal using the safe, effective and oral MercOut Detoxification Program with DMPS. If you want to begin reducing your tissue burden of mercury (as well as lead and arsenic) simply order online at www.MercOut.com and select the “How To Get Rid of My Mercury” tab on the home page.  Or click here to go right to the order page http://www.mercout.com/product.php?productid=4&cat=9&page=1 .

I look forward to working with you,

Yours for excellent health,
Bruce R. Dooley, M.D.
Medical Director
MercOut International

Physical Symptoms of Mercury In The Human Body
Autism
Chronic fatigue
Amyotropic lateral sclerosis
Ankylosing spondylitis
Myasthenia gravis
Paresthesias (loss of sensation) and neuralgias
Vision, taste, smell and hearing disturbances
Vertigo and tinnitus
Multiple Sclerosis
Parkinson’s disease
Alzheimer’s’ disease
Other dementias
Hypothyroidism/Cold Extremities
Infertility
Poor libido
Impotency
Underactive thyroid
Other Endocrine problems
Rheumatoid arthritis
Juvenile arthritis
Lupus erythromatosus
Other autoimmune diseases
Multiple chemical sensitivities
Diabetes
Hypertension
Fibromyalgia
Sciatica
Gastritis and Colitis
Irritable bowel syndrome
Crohn’s disease
Sleep disorders
Yeast syndrome

Psychological/Mental Symptoms of Mercury
“Brain fog” or poor focus/concentration
Rage or being quick to anger
Mood Swings
Indecisiveness
Panic attacks
Attention deficit (ADHD)
Hyperactivity
Learning disabilities
Depression
Unexplainable sadness
Joylessness
Fearfulness
Obsessive-compulsive disorder
Manic-depressive disorder
Anorexia nervosa
Bulimia

(1) Ely JT, Fundenberg HH, Muirhead RJ, LaMArche MG, Krone CA, Buscher D, Stern EA; Urine Mercury in Micromercurialism: Bimodal Distribution and Diagnostic Implications. Bull. Envirion. Toxicol. 63 (1999) 553-9.
(2) World Health Organisation: Environmental Health Criteria 118 (1991), 74.
(3) Ely JT, Risk Factor for Parenteral Intoxication by Mercury from Dental Amalgam. Bull. Envirion. Toxicol. 67 (2001), 309-316.
(4) Weiner JA, Nylander M (1995); An Estimation of the Uptake of Mercury From Amalgam Fillings Based on Urinary Excretion of Mercury in Swedish Subjects. The Science of the Total Environment, 168:255-265.
(5) Drasch G, Wanghofer G and Roider G; Are Blood, Urine, Hair and Muscle Valid Biomonitors for the Internal Burden of Men With the Heavy Metals Mercury, Lead and Cadmium? TraceElements Electrolytes 14 (1997), 116-123.
(6) Aposhian HV, Maiorino RM, Gonzales-Ramirez D, Zuniga-Charles M, Xu Z, et al.; Mobilization of Heavy Metals by Newer, Therapeutically Useful Chelating Agents, Toxicology 97 (1995), 23-38.
(7) Gonzalez-Ramirez D, Zuniga-Charles M, Narro-Juarez A, Molina-Recio Y, Hurlbut KM, Dart RC, Aposhian HV; DMPS (2,3-dimercaptopropane-1-sulfonate, Dimaval) Decreases the Body Burden of Mercury in Humans Exposed to Mercurous Chloride; J Pharmacol Exp Ther. Oct; 287(1) (1998) 8-12.
(8) Dooley BR, Wojcik D, Godfrey M; The Detection and Reduction of Mercury in Humans using Oral DMPS (2,3-dimercaptopropane-1-sulfonate) with Support Nutritionals [Pre-publication].

Case Study: Health Problems Caused by Mercury Amalgam Dental Fillings?

A few days ago I received an email from a friend who had read our article on Orange Juice (Orange Juice — The Silent Tooth Killer?). The letter is a poignant reminder of how our diet affects our dental health.

Mike had been drinking orange juice his entire life, and has considerable erosion because of the acid in the juice. More to the point, he was very concerned with the effects of the acid on his amalgam fillings. For the past few years his overall health has been declining and he’s concerned that the old amalgam fillings he has may be the root cause.

While there’s no evidence we’ve seen that would indicate the acid in the juice could release higher levels of mercury from the fillings, the temperature of the juice CAN release more mercury vapor (temperature fluctuations can stimulate the mercury in the filling and release higher quantities of vapor).

Check out Mike’s email and my response, below. It’s a good reminder of how what goes into our mouths affects our overall well-being.

Hi DR Marvin, Thanks for your email and website.

I already sadly know the perils of drinking to much orange juice. From a kid I never ever had tea or coffee. I hated the taste of both, so from there on I have been drinking fresh juices for nearly 37 years. My teeth are eroded quite badly now. My concern though is what’s this done to my amalgam filling over the years? Have they also been effected by the juice like my teeth, are the fillings eroding away to? I have hardly had an illness in my life until the last few years. Over the last few years my immune system has been getting weaker and weaker. Any sign of a cold or illness would bring me down. I have been experiencing extreme tiredness events lasting a few weeks at a time, my vision has been effected also during these events. Been getting chest pains, brain fog, not able to concentrate and now CFS for past year or so. I have had all the blood tests done and all came back OK. Heart has been checked on ECG treadmill test here in the UK, nothing found other than the heart will beat to fast. Over 100 bpm resting is the norm for me. Endoscope camera down the throat found nothing either. Reading your website I discovered the amalgam fillings information which I believe could be my problem. I am going to have them removed and see if this makes any difference. I only have 6 amalgams, some of them small, but I guess that’s enough to cause issues.

Once again thanks for your website and for informing others.
Mike

My response to Mike:

Hi Mike,

Even small mercury fillings can cause problems.  Low level chronic mercury exposure is dangerous and could certainly cause many of the problems you’ve been experiencing. I’d highly recommend you have your mercury levels tested before and after you have the fillings removed to see if there was a link in your particular case. We can do testing here (just give us a call) or you can find many mail-in tests online. In fact, Green Peace is offering a $25 testing kit by mail (https://secureusa.greenpeace.org/mercury/). It’s not quite as extensive and conclusive as what we can do here, but it would certainly give you a good idea of how your mercury levels have changed after removal of your fillings.

Good luck when you have your fillings removed. If you have any questions about what to look for in a doctor or what questions to ask, just let us know.

If you’ve had problems similar to Mike’s, I recommend the same thing I told him: have your mercury levels tested before and after you have the fillings removed. Not long after the fillings are removed your mercury levels should drop substantially.

As always, we welcome your questions and we always do everything we can to provide a complete answer, so if there’s anything you need, just let us know.

Dr. Marvin

PS: Thanks to Mike for allowing us to reprint his email. We wish you the best of luck with your health Mike… stay in touch and let us know how it goes!