Articles

Tag Archive for: health

Carcinogenicity of Mercury and Mercury Compounds

Categories: Mercury Amalgam Fillings Research, Mercury Toxicity, ResearchAuthor:

Mercury and mercury compounds are widely used in modern society, but only sparse data are available on their carcinogenicity. Methylmercury chloride causes kidney tumors in male mice. Mercury chloride has shown some carcinogenic activity in male rats, but the evidence for female rats and male mice is equivocal. Other mercury compounds and metallic mercury have not been tested adequately in experimental animals. Epidemiologic data are available for chloralkali workers, dentists and dental nurses, and nuclear weapons workers, three groups occupationally exposed to low levels of mercury and its compounds, but those highly exposed in the past, such as miners, or populations which have suffered massive environmental exposure have not been adequately studied. However, the sparse epidemiologic data point toward the possibility of a risk of lung, kidney, and central nervous system tumors. Better data are needed on the carcinogenicity of mercury and mercury compounds in humans and experimental animals.

Boffetta P, Merler E, Vainio H. Scand J Work Environ Health. 1993 Feb; 19(1):1-7. 8465166 PubMed.

The World Alliance for Mercury-Free Dentistry Makes Progress at the Mercury Treaty Negotiations

Categories: Articles, Dr. Marvin's Blog, encinitas dentist, Hot Topics, Mercury Amalgam Fillings Research, Mercury Toxicity, News, ResearchAuthor:

Below is a recent email from World Alliance for Mercury-Free Dentistry, Charlie Brown and World Alliance for Mercury-Free Dentistry are making great strides and going to extreme lengths to help bring greater awareness to to mercury amalgam problem and the bring an end to it’s use in dentistry.

Please read the following article for information on their latest progress.


Round two of the mercury treaty negotiations, held in Chiba Japan, was a success. Our umbrella coalition, the World Alliance for Mercury-Free Dentistry – “the voice of dental patients worldwide” – effectively countered the pro-mercury World Dental Federation (known under its French initials FDI), a lobby group funded by amalgam manufacturers. You can view photos from the negotiations online.*

We could not have done it without our sensational team – a depth of talent from five continents, including Dominique Bally of Cote d’Ivoire, Dr. Lillian Lasaten-Ebuen of the Philippines, Dr. Naji Kodeih of Lebanon, Dr. Graeme Munro-Hall of Great Britain, Juliet Pratt of New Zealand, Dr. Dave Simone of the United States, Anita Vazquez Tibau of the United States, and yours truly. Each spoke publicly on your behalf during the negotiations; each educated delegates at our booth and at meetings; each worked with United Nations Environmental Programme officials to develop strategies for stopping mercury fillings. We reached out to government officials from around the world, armed with diverse backgrounds ranging from injured consumers to dentists to environmentalists and multilingual talents spanning from Spanish to Tagalog to Arabic to Portuguese to French (not counting my fractured French, which is amusing to all except those who really speak French). And we achieved several major milestones:

Our meeting kicked off with the announcement that the World Health Organization has withdrawn the biased paper that the American Dental Association so heavily cited as “reinforc[ing] dental amalgam as a safe and effective restorative material.”** The alleged WHO report had been passed off as the conclusions of the team of scientists, environmentalists, and dentists who met in November 2009 to discuss the future of amalgam. We exposed the paper as nothing more than a propaganda piece slapped together by a rogue dentist inside WHO who failed even to consult the other meeting participants before signing their names to his paper (needless to say they were furious; they did not remember ever declaring amalgam safe). Then, we organized the worldwide condemnation of this paper that led to its hurried retraction. You can learn how we accomplished this feat step-by-step by watching this video interview, courtesy of filmmaker Kelly Gallagher.***

Because of our work, the first draft of the treaty lists amalgam as one of only five mercury products to be phased out. While the war is not won, we did succeed in keeping it on the list for now.

Thanks to the efforts of our regional vice presidents Dr. Naji Kodeih and Dominique Bally, both the Arab League and the African region announced that they support the phase-out of amalgam and the promotion of alternatives.

We gained a valuable new ally dedicated to ending dental mercury: Health Care Without Harm. We congratulate Health Care Without Harm for convincing the Mexico City Health Secretariat to deauthorize the purchase of amalgam in the city’s hospitals and obtaining a discussion paper from Argentina calling for a phase down of amalgam and use of alternatives.

The World Alliance for Mercury-Free Dentistry welcomes Dr. Lillian Lasaten-Ebuen as our new Vice President for East Asia. She joins Anita, Dominique, Juliet, Naji, and Marie Grosman of France as a regional leader at the treaty negotiations. Servando Perez of Spain remains our First Vice President, Elisabet Carlsson of Sweden is our senior advisor, and Francesca Romana Orlando of Italy is our director of development.
But the bottom line: The delegates made no major decisions in this early round, not on amalgam, not on anything. Thus how amalgam will ultimately be addressed in this treaty will not be determined until the third negotiating session, to be held in an African city in October. Until all the nations re-convene for negotiations, our World Alliance for Mercury-Free Dentistry will be active in each region of the world. I will provide details as they emerge.

– Charlie

Charles G. Brown
President, World Alliance for Mercury-Free Dentistry
National Counsel, Consumers for Dental Choice
15 February 2011

* links also available at http://toxicteeth.org/World-Mercury-Treaty-Gallery-2/

** link also available at http://www.ada.org/news/5082.aspx

*** link also available at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OGwHUSap5tg

Why the HHS and EPA Decision on Fluoride is Bad

Categories: Articles, Dr. Marvin's Blog, encinitas dentist, FAQ, Fluoride Toxicity, Hot Topics, NewsAuthor:

Today’s news from The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regarding fluoride is making national news. In essence, they will be recommending a lower “safe” level of fluoride consumption. Great news, right? Not really.

This decision is an In an obvious attempt to placate those who rightfully stand behind the research that denounces the benefits of fluoride by “changing” what they deem to be safe levels. In actuality, they aren’t changing anything. The previous recommendation was for 0.7-1.2 milligrams per liter.  Now, to “reduce the likelihood of dental fluorosis,” they are recommending a strict 0.7 milligrams per liter.  This bears no resemblance to normal margin-of-safety practice, in the light of the 2006 National Research Council report that cast doubt on the EPA’s maximum safe limit of 4.0 milligrams per liter.

This is yet another attempt to “hang on to the myth that water fluoridation is safe and effective” (The IAOMT || http://www.IAOMT.org).

You can read the press release for yourself, below.

Whether you believe that fluoride is good or not, most Americans exceed the recommended limit of fluoride through their daily intake of food… without ever drinking fluoridated water. On top of that, fluoride is a prescription drug. Putting it into the water (something San Diego has now opted to do) is forced medication of the masses. Add that to the fact that removing fluoride is very difficult and very expensive (this is a topic we will be getting into shortly, but your options are limited in both availability and effectiveness. In short order, you can try a whole-house fluoride filter — most of which use activated alumina as a medium — or a reverse osmosis system if you prefer point of use), and what you have is a government that has imposed it’s (lobbied) will on the masses with no form of backing out… and in this case it affects our health.

This decision will be posted shortly in the Federal Register to allow the public to comment for 30 days. As it is not yet available to comment on, you may do so my sending your thoughts directly to CWFcomments@cdc.gov.

Here is the press release from the HHS:


News Release

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Friday, January 7, 2011
Contact: OASH ashmedia@hhs.gov 202-205-0143
EPA isa.jalil@epa.gov or 202-564-3226

HHS and EPA announce new scientific assessments and actions on fluoride

Agencies working together to maintain benefits of preventing tooth decay
while preventing excessive exposure

WASHINGTON – The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) today are announcing important steps to ensure that standards and guidelines on fluoride in drinking water continue to provide the maximum protection to the American people to support good dental health, especially in children. HHS is proposing that the recommended level of fluoride in drinking water can be set at the lowest end of the current optimal range to prevent tooth decay, and EPA is initiating review of the maximum amount of fluoride allowed in drinking water.

These actions will maximize the health benefits of water fluoridation, an important tool in the prevention of tooth decay while reducing the possibility of children receiving too much fluoride. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention named the fluoridation of drinking water one of the ten great public health achievements of the 20th century.

“One of water fluoridation’s biggest advantages is that it benefits all residents of a community—at home, work, school, or play,” said HHS Assistant Secretary for Health Howard K. Koh, MD, MPH. “Today’s announcement is part of our ongoing support of appropriate fluoridation for community water systems, and its effectiveness in preventing tooth decay throughout one’s lifetime.”

“Today both HHS and EPA are making announcements on fluoride based on the most up to date scientific data,” said EPA Assistant Administrator for the Office of Water, Peter Silva. “EPA’s new analysis will help us make sure that people benefit from tooth decay prevention while at the same time avoiding the unwanted health effects from too much fluoride.”

HHS and EPA reached an understanding of the latest science on fluoride and its effect on tooth decay prevention and the development of dental fluorosis that may occur with excess fluoride consumption during the tooth forming years, age 8 and younger. Dental fluorosis in the United States appears mostly in the very mild or mild form – as barely visible lacy white markings or spots on the enamel. The severe form of dental fluorosis, with staining and pitting of the tooth surface, is rare in the United States.

There are several reasons for the changes seen over time, including that Americans have access to more sources of fluoride than they did when water fluoridation was first introduced in the United States in the 1940s. Water is now one of several sources of fluoride. Other common sources include dental products such as toothpaste and mouth rinses, prescription fluoride supplements, and fluoride applied by dental professionals. Water fluoridation and fluoride toothpaste are largely responsible for the significant decline in tooth decay in the U.S. over the past several decades.

HHS’ proposed recommendation of 0.7 milligrams of fluoride per liter of water replaces the current recommended range of 0.7 to 1.2 milligrams. This updated recommendation is based on recent EPA and HHS scientific assessments to balance the benefits of preventing tooth decay while limiting any unwanted health effects. These scientific assessments will also guide EPA in making a determination of whether to lower the maximum amount of fluoride allowed in drinking water, which is set to prevent adverse health effects.

The new EPA assessments of fluoride were undertaken in response to findings of the National Academies of Science (NAS).  At EPA’s request, in 2006 NAS reviewed new data on fluoride and issued a report recommending that EPA update its health and exposure assessments to take into account bone and dental effects and to consider all sources of fluoride. In addition to EPA’s new assessments and the NAS report, HHS also considered current levels of tooth decay and dental fluorosis and fluid consumption across the United States.

The notice of the proposed recommendation will be published in the Federal Register soon and HHS will accept comments from the public and stakeholders on the proposed recommendation for 30 days at CWFcomments@cdc.gov.  HHS is expecting to publish final guidance for community water fluoridation by spring 2011. You may view a prepublication version of the proposed recommendation at ­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­ http://www.hhs.gov/news/press/2011pres/01/pre_pub_frn_fluoride.html.  Comments regarding the EPA documents, Fluoride: Dose-Response Analysis For Non-cancer Effects and Fluoride: Exposure and Relative Source Contribution Analysis should be sent to EPA at FluorideScience@epa.gov.  The documents can be found at http://water.epa.gov/action/advisories/drinking/fluoride_index.cfm

For more information about community water fluoridation, as well as information for health care providers and individuals on how to prevent tooth decay and reduce the chance of children developing dental fluorosis, visit http://www.cdc.gov/fluoridation. For information about the national drinking water regulations for fluoride, visit: http://water.epa.gov/drink/contaminants/basicinformation/fluoride.cfm

###

The Alternatives to Root Canals

Categories: Articles, Dr. Marvin's Blog, encinitas dentist, FAQ, Hot Topics, News, Root Canal ControversyAuthor:

Root Canal TherapyWe talk a lot about the alternatives to root canals typically the only alternative mentioned is extraction of the tooth. But is that really the only alternative? Surely there must be other options, right? This was the question posed by Sean after listening to recent podcasts (Root Canals, Infections, Formaldehyde, Oh My!).

The truth is, there are other alternatives depending on the situation. We’ll try to explain it all in detail, here.

First off, if you really need a root canal, then that means the damage has gone too far and you are having serious symptoms (toothache or swelling). At that point, the healthiest option is to extract the tooth and replace it.

Root canals, however, are often recommended for the wrong reasons (such as when a dentist has exhausted or ruled out other sources or causes for tooth pain). A common incident is when the bite is off and the problem tooth is sore and causing pain. Another common example is when the gums have receded and the tooth is painful because of exposed dentin. Of course, taking out the nerve will cut sensation or feeling to the tooth, but it by no means is the source of the problem is cured.

The reason root canals are so often recommended is because many dentists don’t spend enough time diagnosing the root cause of the problem. Diagnosis is time-consuming and inefficient. For every minute a dentist spends diagnosing the source of your dental pain, he or she loses money (because that time could have been spent seeing more patients). While many dentists will dedicate the time to properly diagnose problems, far too many take the easy route and make assumptions in order to quickly provide a solution. Root canals will most often remove the cause of the pain (again, because you’ve removed the nerve), therefore, root canal therapy is often recommended.

Now, if the dentist has properly diagnosed the cause of your problems and if you really have a true need for a root canal (infection or deep cavity), then the damage is too great to reverse. The healthiest alternative to a root canal is simply to take out the infection by removing the tooth.

Does this sound barbaric when you can “save” the tooth with root canal therapy? Probably at first. But what dentists are unaware of are the links between leaving an infected tooth in the body and other systemic illnesses (such as breast cancer). It’s called the focal infection theory. A better question would be, “Would you jeopardize your health to ‘save’ a tooth?”

If you have an infection or severe decay that has caused a deep cavity and a root canal is recommended, your only two options are extraction or root canal therapy. That’s why knowledge and prevention is of utmost importance: learn how to prevent decay and the spread of tooth decay and you’ll never have to deal with a root canal.

If a root canal is recommended to you, you should definitely get a second or third opinion to confirm the true need for the procedure. Unfortunately, too many dentists do root canals for the wrong reasons and you may have other, less “barbaric” solutions if you were misdiagnosed and don’t need to undergo the procedure.

If you already have a root canal and are wondering if there’s a link with that tooth and the rest of the body, view a tooth meridian chart (we have an interactive meridian chart here: Tooth Meridian Chart) or visit a natural or holistic dentist. A lot of times, extracting the problem tooth can help alleviate or eliminate problems (not always, so again, get a second or third opinion before taking action).

The short answer to the alternatives to a root canal question is… If you really, truly need a root canal, you have only two options: root canal therapy or extraction. However, there is always the chance that you have been misdiagnosed and have many, safer, more appealing options available to you.

Root Canals, Formaldehyde, Infections — Oh My!

Categories: Hot Topics, Podcasts, Root Canal ControversyAuthor:

Episode 15 of Dangers in Dentistry, originally aired on KPRZ in San Diego.

No one wants a root canal. But are there medical reasons to avoid the painful root canal therapy that so many people undergo?

The bacteria left in the tooth after a root canal can infect the mouth, the jaw, the blood stream, and the entire body. The chemicals used to sterilize your canal during the procedure (including formaldehyde) can also cause serious damage to your overall health.

So why are root canals performed? Do they really “save the tooth,” as endodontists and dentists like to say?

Discover the truth about the dangers — and benefits — of root canals 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

Subscribe to RSS Feed Subscribe RSS Feed to iTunes

© Copyright 2008-2011 - The Center For Natural Dentistry - All Rights Reserved || Website and Internet Marketing Provided by Big Diastema -- Websites and Internet Marketing for Dentists
The contents of this site are for informational purposes only. Always seek the advice of a qualified health provider with any questions you may have regarding a medical condition.
Reliance on any information provided by The Center for Natural Dentistry Site is solely at your own risk. Privacy Policy
Live Chat