CureZone   Log On   Join
Video Embedded Re: test for mercury vapor

Free Remineralizing Tooth Powder!
Best Teeth Remineralization, Strengthening, and Clea...

Google Advertisement
Google Advertisement
Google Advertisement
AHARLEYGYRL Views: 6,898
Published: 14 years ago
This is a reply to # 778,748

Re: test for mercury vapor

For polarity and amperage, hal huggins invented the RITA machine and you can buy it for around $700.  As far as vapor, the ADA/FDA has manipultaed tests to show very little vapor coming off fillings.  The video that shows the true story is the Smoking Teeth video.  I had found that Dr. Laidler of Oregon disputed that video.  But, I knew he was wrong.  So, I contacted Dr. Kennedy and asked him to write a rebuttal to Laidler.  He got together with collegues and the following is what they wrote.





(dr kennedy filmed, produced and directed the smoking teeth video in association w/ the FIAOMT, funded by a grant from The Preventive Dental Health Association of San Diego, California. he contacted dr. boyd haley (one of america's top leading mercury scientists and chemists; for his very lengthy list of credentials, see, Dr. Murray Vimy, DDS, a dentist and professor of endocrinology and metabolism at the University of Calgary, Alberta, Canada. (author of Tooth Traitors), Dr. Roger Eichman, DDS (the dr who demonstated the mercury vapor release in the smoking teeth video at the IAOMT Symposium 2000 in Oxford England). dr kennedy cooberated w/ them to write a rebuttle to dr laidler's misinformation).


Quackbuster's Analysis Fails Scientific Scrutiny:

Opinions of: Vimy, M.J., Haley, B.E., Eichman, R. and Kennedy, D.C. (2006)

Dr. Laidler’s criticism, Response to: "Smoking Teeth" - the truth gets "smoked out", reduces to the following propositions. First, he contends that what is actually being seen is water vapor; and second, since mercury is a heavier molecule than the other constituents of air (i.e. oxygen, nitrogen, carbon dioxide, etc) the mercury vapor could not rise, but would fall toward the floor. This analysis is not consistent with the Laws of Physics and Chemistry for the following reasons. First, atomic absorption spectrophotometry (AAS) is a well substantiated scientific analytical technique used to measure a wide range of elements in various materials such as metals, pottery and glass. It is based on the simple fact that some elements in the Periodic Table absorb specific wavelengths of light. This constitutes that materials fingerprint. In the case of mercury vapor the absorbance wavelength is 253.7nm.

Thus, when a pure material is vaporized by the application of heat, while specific wavelengths are sequentially shone at it, the wavelength absorbed tells one the element making up the sample. In it simplest form, gold miners employ this principle when mining for gold. In the natural state, gold has a very high attraction for mercury; the miner scratches his ore sample in a dark container, while shining an ultraviolet light. If a vaporizing shadow is cast, then mercury is present and the sample is likely gold. The amount of light absorbed is proportional to the concentration of the mercury.

The video “Smoking Teeth = Poison Gas” is simply an application of this Miner’s Test, using an amalgam filling, containing approximately 50% mercury, as the sample. Water vapor will not absorb the wavelength from the Miner’s light; and, it will not cast a shadow. Therefore, for Dr. Laidler to suggest it will is unfounded. In the video, the vaporizing shadow is caused by mercury atoms absorbing the spectrum from the Miner’s light. A light, scientifically designed to identify the presence of mercury, not water. Water vapor cannot be visualized with a 254 mm light.

Secondly, Dr. Laidler is correct when he states, “When molecules vaporize, the volume they fill depends on the number of molecules and their temperature”. This is called the partial pressure and the partial pressure for mercury in air is 0.00185 mm at 250 C. However, Dr. Laidler fails to report that the vapor pressure of mercury doubles for every 100 C increase in temperature. Employing dubious calculations, Dr. Laidler concludes that because mercury is heavier than the other components of air, if what we saw was actually mercury vapor coming off those teeth, and not just water vapor, it should have been SINKING rather than rising - even at 370 degrees C.” This of course is false, since the mercury in the amalgam is being is heated, causing the mercury molecules to become more active and vaporize. Thus, the mercury vapor rises from the amalgam and spreads into the environment in accordance with Boyles Law of Gases, the Guy-Lussac Law, and Avogadro’s Law and the Law of Entropy. These laws indicate that gas molecules by natural law move away from each other. Therefore, concentrated mercury atoms near the tooth naturally move to a location where less mercury atoms reside. These laws of the behavior of gas have nothing to do with gravity as Dr. Laidler improperly assumes.

In conclusion, Dr. Laidler reports that “ever since (he) saw the video, (he) felt that there was something wrong with it.” Indeed, he is absolutely correct! It is wrong to place materials containing 50% poisonous elemental mercury into humans, while calling them “silver” fillings. It is wrong to promote such materials as safe, when there is no level of mercury exposure considered to be “safe”. Dr. Laidler has tried to “Manufacture Uncertainty” where none actually exists.


The Patient Asks,
"Does the mercury come out of my fillings
when I eat or chew gum?"
The ADA Answers:

"Recent advances in both equipment and measurement techniques have allowed researchers to detect extremely low levels of mercury vapor in patients' breath after they have chewed vigorously. Very small quantities of this mercury vapor are absorbed by the body instead of being exhaled. But no evidence exists that associate this minute amount of mercury vapor with any toxic effects."


IAOMT Response:

The ADA answer is false.

IAOMT Position:

Published experimental evidence as early as 1926 has demonstrated that mercury is not locked in, but is released from fillings.16 More recent research has shown that both chewing and tooth brushing release mercury vapor into the human oral cavity.17 18 19

Recent advances in both equipment and measurement technique have allowed researchers to find intra-oral mercury levels thirty to one hundred times higher that the United States Environmental Protection Agency's (USEPA) maximum allowable concentration for air quality. (0.3 part per million)20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Toxicology authorities maintain that there is no threshold level of mercury exposure which can be considered totally harmless.27 28

Dental fillings release mercury. The mercury release dramatically increases with pressure or heat stimulation to the fillings and does not return to baseline for more than 90 minutes.29 30 This continual release of mercury will inevitably result in measurable exposure from the 17,000 breaths that a person inhales daily. Once this mercury is inhaled 74% to 100% of the mercury is absorbed from the lung into the blood stream and distributed throughout the body.31 Personal habits such as chewing gum, grinding teeth and mouth breathing will greatly increase an individuals daily dose exposure to dental amalgam mercury. The 1/2 life for mercury in humans is approximately 70 days. Thus, small multiple daily doses of mercury will result in a significant accumulation over time. The critical issues are the potential for exposure to the developing fetus and mercury accumulation in children because of their low body weight.

To study these possibilities Vimy et al. (1990) designed an elegant animal experiment utilizing sheep and radioactively tagged mercury203. Twelve occlusal amalgams were placed in the molars of pregnant sheep. The mothers femoral vein, the placental sack and the femoral vein of the fetus were cannulated.32 33 Radioactivity measurements determined the presence and quantity of mercury from the dental amalgam fillings in the various body tissues of both the mother and fetuses. The experiment is specific for mercury from fillings, since radioactive mercury is not a naturally occuring substance in the environment. The design of this experiment eliminates the issue of mercury source.

1) Within 3 days after amalgam placement mercury was found in the maternal blood, amniotic fluid, fetal blood, and maternal urine and feces.

2) By 16 days after amalgam placement the maternal mercury levels were highest in the kidney, liver, G.I. tract, and thyroid. The mercury levels in the fetus were highest in the pituitary, liver, kidney, and placental cotyledon.

3) At 33 days after amalgam placement (birthtime), most fetal tissues had higher levels of mercury than the maternal tissues. Specifically, the fetal liver, epiphysial bone, bile, bone marrow, blood, and brain.

4) During lactation there was 8 times more mercury in the milk than maternal blood serum. This resulted in an increase in mercury exposure to the neonate.

5) Seventy-three days after amalgam placement, mercury levels in the maternal kidneys, liver, parotid glands, pancreas, pituitary glands, urine, bile, brain, and thyroid were still rising slowly.

The researchers concluded that mercury vapor released from dental amalgam fillings is readily absorbed in lung, gastrointestinal tract and jaw bone and progressively accumulates in maternal and fetal tissues with exposure duration. Neonatal mercury exposure from this dental material occurs via milk. They stated in their conclusions that, "our laboratory findings in this investigation are at variance with the anecdotal opinion of the dental profession, which claims that amalgam tooth fillings are safe."



Printer-friendly version of this page Email this message to a friend
Alert Moderators
Report Spam or bad message  Alert Moderators on This GOOD Message

This Forum message belongs to a larger discussion thread. See the complete thread below. You can reply to this message!


Donate to CureZone

CureZone Newsletter is distributed in partnership with

Contact Us - Advertise - Stats

Copyright 1999 - 2020

0.486 sec, (6)