You and Your Dentist… Is It A Healthy Relationship?

Episode 18 of Dangers in Dentistry originally aired on KPRZ in San Diego.

Do you know how often — and to what extent — you’re exposed to highly toxic elemental mercury? From fish to your teeth, the threat of mercury in your body is completely real, and relatively preventable… find out how to protect yourself in this week’s episode of Dangers in Dentistry.

Also in this episode, Dr. Marvin and guest expert Jared Young give you the inside knowledge you need on how the practice of dentistry can impact your overall well-being. They discuss the often confusing and sometimes frustrating relationship that exists between you and your dentist. Does your dentist listen to the requests you have about your health? And that doesn’t mean just your oral health, but your entire overall body health? Did you know that too many dentists and doctors may not spend enough time educating themselves on new techniques and new research available before they approach you?

Gain a new perspective on your health and relationship with your dentist in this week’s episode of Dangers in Dentistry, with America’s Holistic Dentist, Dr. Marvin.

Enjoy!
Dr. Marvin
San Diego, Encinitas Holistic and Natural Dentist

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).

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