Pioneer: Dr. Alfred Stock

The exposure to mercury from dental amalgam was first documented in the scientific literature by Dr. Alfred Stock in 1926. (Stock A: Die Gefahrlichkeit des quecksilberdampfes. Zeitschrift Angewandte Chemie 1926, 39: 461-466.)

How The Doctors Spin Doctor

In 1931, the ADA convened a panel of "ethical" experts who decided that Dr. Stock's work was seriously flawed. They (the ADA and NIDR) continued to deny that any mercury was released until by 1984 they were utterly overwhelmed with the proven facts. The new spin is that the amount was not enough to hurt you and that no specific disease has been proven to be caused by mercury. Every dentist concerned about their personal liability should pay very close attention to the issue of causation. Although mercury has been linked to numerous disorders, absolute proof of causation has not been produced.

Duty To Warn

There is no artificial legal standard that a material must first be proven to cause a specific disease before a manufacturer has a duty to warn. Since mercury is released from amalgam, the dentist who manufactures the filling has the duty to warn the patient of this fact.

The WHO document further states that "A specific no-observed--effect level (NOEL) cannot be established." That is, any amount causes some damage.

Loaded committees and pseudo expert panels are the tools of spin doctors not ethical research scientists. A scientist who disagrees with the work of another scientist is morally bound to attempt to repeat the experiment and publish divergent results, if any are found. In the case of Dr. Stock, his classic experiment still stands on its own despite sixty years of dentist denial.

Stock's Classic Mercury Breath Experiment

Dr. Stock blew his own breath into an empty leather bag. He then distilled it through newly blown glasswear and produced a tiny droplet of mercury. This drop he measured with a calibrated microscope. Used calculus to calculate the concentration in the bag and performed chemical analysis to make certain that the shimmering silver droplet was in fact mercury. He showed that his breath contained 10 micrograms of mercury per cubic meter (ug/m3).

What was wrong with that experiment? Nothing!

Stock's Experiment Is Replicated

Dr. Stocks work was replicated in 1981 by the late Dr. Carl Svare. (Svare CW, Peterson LC, Reinhardt JW, Frank CW, Boyer DB: Dental Amalgam: a potential source of mercury vapor exposure. J Dent Res 59(special issue A):34l, Abstract #293, 1980)

It has since been replicated over 10 times by other investigators and has even been used as a subject for student science fairs. This is a perfect example of a widely taught anecdotal opinion's triumph over published science. The dentists who served on the ADA panel in 1931 apparently never even attempted to replicate Dr. Stocks experiments. They just canonized their agust opinions into dental dogma and spread the word that Dr. Stock was a flawed researcher.

Now that his research has been thoroughly vindicated, who was this Dr. Stock? He was the director of the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute in Germany and one of the leading scientists of his time. So you see, even great scientists can be denigrated by the spin doctors.

Danger To Dental Workers

Many dentists have claimed that dental amalgam is safe because the amount released into ones breath does not exceed the OSHA Maximum Allowable Concentration (MAC) of 100 micrograms/per cubic meter (ug/m3) and most people do not continuously exceed the Time Weighted Average (TWA) of 50 ug/m3. What they fail to explain to their patients is that workers exposed to any portion of the OSHA TWA and MAC are subject to medical monitoring for mercury poisoning and written informed consent from their employer. The medical records must remain on file for thirty years after termination of exposure. (Do any dental schools in the world comply with this regulation?) These standards are based upon adult physiology and we know that some adults will become highly poisoned at these levels.

Dental students are not employees. Their health is protected by the EPA. Later Dental Educator remarks on the high level of mercury a patient is exposed to during removal. All dental students working in closed tiny laboratories without the benefits of respirators and vacuum hoods are illegally exposed to high levels of mercury vapor.

Children, Infants, the general public and especially pregnant women are specifically excluded from the OSHA standard. Their health is protected by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The EPA has documented an infant poisoned at 2 ug/m3 and has a current standard of 0.3 ug/m3. Few if any people who have occlusal amalgam fillings breath is below this standard, but wait there is more.

Studies of dentists have found memory loss and hand dexterity problems from occupational exposure. This is predictable considering the blatant attitude toward personnel exposure and carless handling of mercury compounds demonstrated by dental educators.

On the other hand the US Public Health Service Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) has just recommended new standards for the acute exposure to mercury that make it impossible to even mix the components of the filling together much less pack and carve. They determined in November of 1994 that a transient exposure to .020 (ug/m3) was an acute exposure. That means that this level was immediately hazardous to health.

We do not yet have the technology to measure this exposure level easily. It is 500 times lower than Dr. Stock measured in 1926 in his own exhaled breath. I suppose the dental educators will claim that the ATSDR is engaged in an alarmist conspiracy to dispute the long held and often touted anecdotal opinion of dentists.

Dentists Who Pass The Buck

When I asked the Dean of my dental school why I was not informed of the scientific facts regarding mercury the Dean told me that our education was ADA approved and they, not he, were responsible for the content. The ADA was recently dismissed from a lawsuit in California. They filed their request for dismissal based upon the fact that they are in no way responsible for the toxicity of any materials they approve. They are a trade organization and their approval of materials is not for safety but for purity and packaging.

Education of future scientists is not dictated by a trade organization. Research and science are suppose to be the foundation of the University system. The educators are suppose to keep abreast of developments and teach students to think with the tools of science not just memorize spin doctors anecdotal dogma.

Practicing dentists are ostensibly the responsible parties here not some government agency or trade organization. In California it is against the professional code of ethics to make false statements to the public. The legislature felt that the burden of knowledge rested upon the professional with greater training and expertise in the field. They require the professional to be absolutely certain that our statement are the truth. If your state has adopted similar regulations, scientifically unfounded claims of safety may be a violation of that ethical standard. It is no wonder that patients seeking to have more biocompatible restorations placed have difficulty in finding competent dentists.
http://emporium.turnpike.net/P/PDHA/mercury/truth.htm

http://biological-dentistry.com/custom3.html