Cent4dent Blog

The responses of Dr. Stephen J. Markus, who addressed the FDA in September of 2006 (link to: http://www.cent4dent.com/html/mercury_issues/fdaletter.htm) on the issues of mercury amalgam toxicity are included, after the >> symbol, below:

For the agency’s future analysis of benefits and costs of the regulatory options for dental amalgams, FDA also requests comments, including available data, on the following questions:
(1) How many annual procedures use mercury amalgams? What are the trends?
>>The figures I’ve heard is that there are still at least half of the dentists in the US who believe mercury fillings are the best and safest. The trend is that those numbers are decreasing.
(2) What are the differences in cost between amalgams and alternative materials (e.g., composite, other metals, ceramics, etc.)?
>> Composites take more time, are more technique sensitive and are a superior service, therefore they cost more by about 50%. Of course, as I told the FDA, the costs of treating patients who have symptoms of mercury toxicity but physicians who don’t recognize it may well result in an overall saving of health care dollars.
Are there differences in replacement lives?
>> Yes. Foremost is the technique sensitivity part. At the FDA hearings you heard me tell the panel that the statement by the representative of dental school faculty, who contended that it would be impossible to train the dental students to perform these procedures was a fallacy. Dental students are there to learn and gain dexterity. The problem would be in re-training the dinosaurs and ostriches on the dental school faculties.
Dental mercury fillings, because of the coefficient of thermal expansion tends to crack teeth. Composite restorations do not. I have been placing only composite restorations in my practice for almost 20 years. When done properly, they have the same or better longevity than mercury.

(3) What are reimbursement rates for dental amalgam and the alternative materials?
>> I suspect that the insurance lobby has been behind the promotion of the use of mercury fillings because they are far less expensive. Our practice was forced to eliminate the acceptance of any dental insurance because the carriers were attempting to drive a wedge between my patients and my practice.
In actuality it means more out-of-pocket for those with insurance because the insurance industry has truly controlled dentistry. When I first started practicing, in the late 70’s the maximum reimbursement from dental insurance was between $750 and 1000 a year. Thirty years later, things haven’t moved much, although dental technology has. Actuaries have stated that benefits today, to have kept pace with medical benefits, and with inflation, and with the changed practice environment should be about 10X higher than it was back then. The insurance industry (for the most part) has also refused to pay for composites because a less expensive option was available (amalgam). In this manner they have held the profession in check, because most patients think with their wallets instead of their heads. And so, my profession has not been able to evolve away from this toxic material because insurance companies don’t want to part with their dollars. Even though their losses are delimited by the policy annual maximum, the widespread use of amalgam alternatives would only cut into their profits.

(4) How would labeling describing the risks of amalgam for certain subpopulations (e.g., children under age 6>>the issue here is eradicating decay by getting children on better diets and educating mothers. Where did you come up with the age of 6? At the age of 6 the permanent teeth start coming into the mouth. So is what you’re saying: “We want to make sure that baby teeth that fall out don’t have any mercury in them, but those teeth that are going to stay in an American’s head the rest of their life will be fine with mercury fillings in them. Your panel already heard, in September of 2006 that the effects sometimes do not manifest themselves for over three decades.
, pregnant >> how many fillings are place in the mouths of women who don’t even know they’re pregnant (and not educated about the material either)? Shouldn’t this be for all women until they’re post-menopausal? Doesn’t this once again speak to the need for a ban, since it is sexually discriminating?
and lactating women, hypersensitive >> As your panelists in 2006 explained, this is not a hypersensitivity reaction – it is a reaction to the most toxic naturally-occurring substance on the planet surface. This is poisoning, and as Dr. Boyd Hailey discussed, those who have an aberrant allele, the APO E-4 rather than APO E-2 do not have the transport mechanism in place to remove mercury in nerve tissue, which it rapidly destroys, thus the neuro-toxicty issue. Please be sure to Google Boyd Haley (Chairman of the Department of Chemistry at University of Kentucky) and Amalgam. The research is out there, you just have to read it.
Don’t miss:  www.chem.unep.ch/mercury/2001-ngo-sub/sub11ngo-att1.pdf

or immunocompromised individuals) affect the demand for, and use of, mercury amalgam?
>>Certainly labels and public service announcements that stated the facts fairly would lead to decreasing numbers of patients accepting them. A Zogby survey recently showed that 80% of Americans had no idea their “silver” fillings were in actuality 50% mercury. The majority of those surveyed would therefore refuse mercury fillings.

How would the risks included in the labeling be communicated to those subpopulations? >>Why just subpopulations? Doesn’t that constitute a reverse gag order, of sorts? We wouldn’t have to inform those who haven’t yet developed symptoms of mercury toxicity? There must be informed consent to place mercury in the heads of these subpopulations but not others? Here is my question to you: How is it that the ADA tells dentists that it’s totally safe to place mercury in the heads of Americans, because it becomes inert. Then, out of the other side of their “mouth”, the ADA tells dentists that scrap left behind after a mercury filling should be stored in a sealed glass container, under a high-specific-gravity liquid to prevent the vapor from escaping. LET ME SEE IF I HAVE THIS STRAIGHT ~ THERE ARE TWO SAFE PLACES TO STORE MERCURY FILLINGS, IN THE JAR, AND IN AN AMERICAN’S HEAD. This is why I call my co-professionals “ostriches”. They’ve got their brains in the sand.

(5) What is the current exposure to mercury for patients?
>> High since most dentists follow the ADA diatribe. It will continue until the product is either banned, or dentists are required to hand out a very specific form apprising patients of the risks. Asking dentists to do this voluntarily would be a joke.
For professionals?
>>Higher than they realize
What would be the reduction in exposure associated with the use of alternative materials?
>> Depends on how cautious the dentist is in removing the mercury. We use the IAOMT protocol to maintain our safety. Most dentists, who do not believe in mercury toxicity, are indeed sloppy with technique.
You see, when mercury is removed from a tooth, a slurry is created in the mouth, and mercury vapors are released both there, and from the aerosol created. A rubber dam must be used to prevent uptake of mercury via the sublingual route. Both the patient and the operating staff need to be properly protected.
Our building is equipped with a mercury separator to control the bioburden on waste treatment facilities.

Labeling Controls. For example, how should labeling controls, if any, address the disclosure of composition, including mercury content, and precautions regarding use of the device in sensitive subpopulations>> you don’t want to consider a total ban? This subpopulation idea to me is offensive. composed of individuals who respond biologically at lower levels of exposure to mercury than the general population?
>> This is already in place in California, copy them
If so, which subpopulations should be included (e.g., children under age 6, pregnant and lactating women, hypersensitive or immunocompromised individuals)?
>> How about everyone except those who’ve already lost their minds? Seriously, how do you communicate to everyone that there are serious issues involved in this matter. Until there are tests that are totally inclusive, you put at risk the entire subpopulation of adults who will develop Hg toxicity-related problems later in life.

>>As I stated in my address to the FDA, there was a paradigm shift in the eighties (with AIDS) in dentistry when we started having to sterilize handpieces and prevent blood borne cross infection. All patients had to be treated as if they were infected. So, now, we must treat ALL patients as if they were susceptible to mercury poisoning, because there is currently no known solitary predictor for that.
Should the labeling controls require more specific patient labeling (e.g., informing patients of identified sensitive subpopulations of the mercury content, the alternatives to the device and their relative costs, and health risks associated with the failure to obtain dental care)?
FDA requests comment on whether the two types of special controls proposed by FDA in 2002 (materials and labeling) provide reasonable assurance of the safety and effectiveness of these devices and on whether the special controls FDA described in 2002 should be revised in light of the recommendations and with respect to the discussions by the 2006 joint committee.
>> Certainly the FDA’s reversal of its own white paper points to the need to discard 2002 and re-write the book on Hg once and for all.
>> A massive public awareness campaign needs to be mounted. I have never had a patient ask me to read the label on any of the materials I use. Dental spokespeople on the news all are still afraid to speak-out, and deny the dangers of mercury. But based on what? ADA policy not to open one’s mouth still has a lot of my colleagues afraid to speak out as I have.

>> Most dentists have never even had a lecture in dental school about mercury. It was never considered on its own. It was always, as alloyed in amalgam. The re-education of dentists should also be mandated when the FDA does the right thing for Americans and bans mercury fillings, and mandates appropriate hazardous waste guidelines for its removal and disposal.

Finally, after over 18 months of waiting, the FDA has taken the first step to eliminate the use of mercury in dental fillings (at least from pregnant women, and children). This is the story in the Philadelphia Inquirer, which was syndicated to a lot of other parts of the country, that featured Dr. Markus as an expert: click here

For a more complete list, visit the FDA and Mercury section of my website.

By KEVIN FREKING, Associated Press Writer
Mon May 12, 12:43 AM ET

Families claiming that a mercury-based preservative in vaccines triggers autism will challenge mainstream medicine Monday as they take their case to a federal court.

They seek vindication and financial redress from a government fund that helps people injured by shots.

Two 10-year-old boys from Portland, Ore., will serve as test cases that determine whether the children and their families in similar situations should be compensated. Attorneys for the boys will attempt to show the boys were happy, healthy and developing normally. But, after being exposed to vaccines with thimerosal, they began to regress and show symptoms of autism.

Thimerosal has been removed in recent years from standard childhood vaccines, except flu vaccines that are not packaged in single-doses. The CDC says single-dose flu shots currently are available only in limited quantities. In 2004, a committee with the Institute of Medicine concluded there was no credible evidence that vaccines containing thimerosal caused autism.

Overall, nearly 4,900 families have filed claims with the U.S. Court of Claims alleging that vaccines caused autism and other neurological problems in their children. Lawyers for the families will present three different theories of how vaccines caused autism.

The Office of Special Masters of the claims court has instructed the plaintiffs to designate three test cases for each of the three theories — nine cases in all — and has assigned three special masters to handle the cases. Three cases in the first category were heard last year, but no decisions have been reached.

The two cases beginning Monday are among the three that focus on the second theory of causation: that thimerosal-containing vaccines alone cause autism. The plaintiff in the third case originally scheduled for hearing this month has withdrawn and lawyers and court officials are working to agree on substitute case.

Hearings in the test cases for the third theory of causation are scheduled in mid-September.

Lawyers for the petitioning families in the cases being heard this month say they will present evidence that injections with thimerosal deposit a form of mercury in the brain. That mercury excites certain brain cells that stay chronically activated trying to get rid of the intrusion.

“In some kids, there’s enough of it that it sets off this chronic neuroinflammatory pattern that can lead to regressive autism,” said attorney Mike Williams.

In the end, the families’ attorneys hope to convince the special master hearing their case that thimerosal belongs on the list of causes for the inflammation that leads to regressive autism.

To win, the attorneys for the two boys, William Mead and Jordan King, will have to show that it”s more likely than not that the vaccine actually caused the injury.

Many members of the medical community are skeptical of the families’ claims. They worry that the claims about the dangers of vaccines could cause some people to forgo vaccines that prevent illness.

“I think that what’s so endearing to me about the anti-vaccine people is they’re perfectly willing to go from one hypothesis to the next without a backward glance,” said Dr. Paul Offit, director of the Vaccine Education Center at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia.

Autism is a developmental disability that typically appears during the first three years of life and affects a person’s ability to communicate and interact with others. Dr. Andrew Gerber, a psychiatrist, said that medical experts don’t have a comprehensive understanding of what causes autism, but they do know there is a strong hereditary component.

Toxins from the environment could play a role, but currently, data does not support that they do, Gerber said.

Arguments are scheduled to go on throughout the month. A final decision could take several more months. Claims that are successful would result in compensation taking into account lost earnings after age 18 and up to $250,000 for pain and suffering.

The families or the federal government can also appeal the decision of the special master to the Court of Federal Claims or to a federal appeals court.

The court Web site says more than 12,500 claims have been filed since creation of the program in 1987, including more than 5,300 autism cases, and that more than $1.7 billion has been paid in claims. It says there is now more than $2.7 billion a trust fund supported by an excise tax on each dose of vaccine covered by the program.

May 5, 2008
Judge James P. Jones
Chief U.S. District Judge
180 West Main Street
Room 104
Abingdon, VA 24210

Dear Judge Jones:

I read with great interest the information regarding Dr. Shelburne on the website http://www.medicaidruinsgooddentist.com/ and have a number of questions and comments about it.

Foremost in my mind is the fact that the system that provides dental care to the poor in this country is a travesty, and that is why it is so difficult for people working under these government stipends to find a dentist who accepts it. In my own practice, rather than participate with this penurious program, I prefer to select deserving individuals, and render pro bono care to them. Why then, did the prosecutor choose to go after such small potatoes? Aren’t there larger fish to fry?

In 2000, C. Everett Koop, MD, the Surgeon General released a report talking about the deplorable state of dental health in the underserved population. I would never elect to participate in this government run program for many reasons:
• The patients miss a lot of appointments
• The patients have a lot of needs because their diets are improper
• The patients have horrendous home care because parents don’t emphasize the importance thereof
• The payment is typically about ten cents on the dollar for treatment we would deliver in our office.
• The children tend to be very difficult to work on because they are not being treated in a preventive (as opposed to emergency) situation.

So, I would ask you Judge, if the judicial system told you that any case where there is going to be a public defender, and a defendant who really needs to be shackled to behave was going to cause your per diem salary to be decimated, how would you handle it? Would you round your hours up to the next highest number? Would you take sick days, which would be paid at the normal rate? Would you rush through the trial trying to end it as quickly as possible? Would you allow attorneys to produce inflammatory remarks that would cause the jury confusion? Or would you run it as efficiently as possible?

What if several times, the defendant or the PD didn’t show up for court? Could you throw the case out? Remember, you’re not being paid for the time you sit waiting or on no-show days.

I have always read, with interest stories about professionals whose undoing was the participation in the welfare system. I know, in fact, a family whose estates were built using the welfare system. Abuses are rife. What I read on the website about abuses of Dr. Shelburne, unless I’ve been misled are tantamount to padding the bill slightly to extract his pound of sweat, but in my mind a white collar crime of this small amount (I recall $8000 over 5 years) did not build an estate, purchase high-end vehicles or vacation homes, did it?

I also read where the claims reviewer was not working with loupes or illumination to determine whether treatment had been billed, but not performed. I have personally gone through something akin to this with an insurance company that was refusing to authorize needed fillings. You see, there are two ways to diagnose the need for decay:
Visual examination
Tactile examination (today we use a laser, not a hooked explorer to find decay)

Insurance companies don’t want to hear this. They are in business to hold onto their money, and so claims are denied without cause, and the populace is faced with the decision of trusting their doctor, or believing the insurance company is right. Most of our patients understand the adversaries in this, and take the dentists’ side.

I believe that the Constitution calls for a jury of peers to adjudicate a case. My understanding from reading the website was that these were poorly educated jurors, hardly peers. Might I suggest that this case deserves some judicial review, and perhaps a panel of dentists from around the nation (I know many who would volunteer) could come in a review what went on and make recommendations to you so that you might perhaps set aside this verdict. It certainly seems to me that the punishment should fit the crime.

The crime here was what? $8,000 in disputed charges. I think that Big Brother has certainly overstepped. What was the sentence for the toilet manufacturer that was selling parts to the Air Force for ridiculous sums of money? How much money does our government waste on pork barrel projects? I would love to see what the government alleges as their loss in this case. I can certainly tell you that once this letter is widely disseminated the loss will be more intolerable. The welfare recipients will find fewer caring practitioners willing to participate in a program that carries with it a significant disincentive to continue to do so.

I await your reply, and would like your permission to disseminate it to my peers, who are aghast at this travesty (as presented by the friends and family of Dr. Shelburne).

Respectfully,

Steve Markus, DMD FACE

There is much pressure on parents and pre-teens for additional vaccinations today. Listen to a fair podcast about these issues by clicking here.

The issue of pharmaceuticals in drinking water has hit the mass media in the past couple of months. In response to numbers showing many drug residues in Philadelphia’s drinking water and water sources, Philadelphia City Council held a hearing on the issue. Of the four groups lined up to speak, I was invited one so that ActionPA would be one of two environmental groups to testify. With permission from the organizer, I used the opportunity to talk about water fluoridation at the hearing this past Monday.

My testimony is below and attached. Amazingly, it was well-received and when the city council turned around to ask the Philadelphia Water Department to verify if it was true that the fluoridation chemicals aren’t pharmaceutical grade, but are from the phosphate industry, the Water Department confirmed it (and some of my other statements). The affirmed that it’s not necessary or mandatory and that they do it because a city ordinance requires it. Of course, they contradicted me by claiming that they think it’s safe. However, they admitted that they weren’t on top of the recent science on the issue.

I was delighted to see the council president’s special counsel and the mayor’s legislative and government affairs coordinator express interest in it, asking for a copy of my testimony (which I put together after I delivered it). Maybe this is the first crack in the 54-year old fluoridation practice in this city.

Anyway… feel free to use any of this. Most of the info is the same as what we already have on our website, but repackaged for Philadelphia City Council.

Mike
—–

Testimony of Mike Ewall
Director of ActionPA
before
City Council Committee on Public Health & Human Services
Public Hearing Concerning the Safety of the City’s Drinking Water
Resolution #080288

April 14th, 2008

Hi, my name is Mike Ewall and I’m the Founder and Director of ActionPA, a statewide environmental group based here in Philadelphia.

I’m here to speak to the issue of the single most dangerous “drug” in the water – one that is the most preventable.

Others are here to talk about pharmaceutical drugs that are present in waters in parts per trillion (ppt), which is a real concern. The debate is about whether there are health effects at that level and the science is still being developed as more studies are done on the matter.

Philadelphia pays around $1,000,000 per year to put fluoridation chemicals in the water at one part per million (ppm) – a level one million times higher than what we’re talking about with the other drugs. This 1 ppm level is a level at which health effects are intended and expected.

Fluoridation chemicals not pharmaceutical grade, but industry waste products

However, the “fluoride” that is put in the drinking water isn’t pharmaceutical grade, even though it’s put in the water with a pharmaceutical intention. They’re not squirting toothpaste into the water. The chemical purchased by the Philadelphia Water Department (and 92% of U.S. drinking water systems that fluoridate) is hydrofluosilicic acid, a hazardous waste byproduct of the phosphate industry. Literally, if the same chemicals were dumped into a river or lake, it would be regulated as hazardous waste. However, injecting the same chemicals into drinking water supplies at 1 ppm is considered medication. Legally, upon being sold (unrefined) to municipalities as fluoridating agents, these same substances are then considered a “product”, allowing them to be dispensed through fluoridated municipal water systems to the very same ecosystems to which they could not be released directly. Over 99% of fluoridated water is released directly into the environment at around 1 ppm and is not even used for drinking or cooking.

These chemicals are not FDA approved for safety or effectiveness and the delivered chemicals are not batch tested for contaminants, even though these chemicals are known to be contaminated with arsenic, lead, mercury, radioactive particles and more. The arsenic levels in particular are enough to be at levels that should concern a water system, since they’re high enough to potentially push a water system over the safe drinking water act limit for arsenic (a limit that was lowered in 2001). [See: http://www.fluoridealert.org/f-arsenic.htm]

Fluoridation not effective at reducing tooth decay
The intended effect of putting hydrofluosilicic acid in the drinking water is to reduce tooth decay. However, data from our own state Department of Health [Oral Health Needs Assessment, 2000] shows that the worst tooth decay in the state is in Pittsburgh, with Philadelphia in second place. [See http://www.actionpa.org/fluoride/ej.html#reason3] Both cities have been fluoridated since the 1950s. National and international data backs this up. Looking at the tooth decay trends in the few countries where fluoridation is common compared to comparable first world countries where fluoridation isn’t used, you can see that tooth decay is falling overall, regardless of fluoridation status. [See 2nd chart at http://www.fluoridealert.org/health/teeth/caries/who-dmft.html] On the national level, a state-by-state review of data from the CDC and U.S. Department of Health and Human Services shows that the percentage of U.S. residents with ‘very good’ or ‘excellent’ teeth is related directly to income levels and is totally unaffected by the percentage of the state’s population that is receiving fluoridated water. [See http://www.actionpa.org/fluoride/50states.pdf] Populations with more tooth decay are those who are poor and can’t afford dental care.

Fluoridation causes discoloration of teeth (fluorosis)

Philadelphia and Pittsburgh also have the state’s highest rates of dental fluorosis. Fluorosis is the white, brown or yellow spotting (or ‘mottling’) of tooth enamel. It’s a disease named after the fluoride chemicals that cause it. The PA Department of Health data from the aforementioned Oral Health Needs Assessment shows that Philadelphia’s rate of children with dental fluorosis is the highest in the state (25.6%) compared to a state-wide average of 14.9% and a rate in the (largely unfluoridated) Philadelphia suburbs of 9.9%. [ http://www.actionpa.org/fluoride/ej.html#reason3]

Agencies warn not to mix infant formula with fluoridated tap water
In late 2006, two of the largest organizational promoters of fluoridation – the American Dental Association and the Centers for Disease Control – both issued a press release warning that parents shouldn’t use fluoridated water to mix infant formula for infants in their first year of age. No warnings have gone to fluoridated water customers, however, to let parents of young children know that they’re not supposed to mix infant formula with Philadelphia tap water. [See links to the press releases here: http://www.actionpa.org/fluoride/reasons.html#reason6]

Scientific studies in recent years show many health problems with fluoride exposure

Various other health problems have been linked to fluoride exposure, as documented many times in recent years. A recent Scientific American article [ http://www.actionpa.org/fluoride/sciam.pdf] brought some of this to popular attention. The landmark study of the issue is the National Research Council’s March 2006 extensive review of over 1,000 scientific studies. [ http://www.actionpa.org/fluoride/nrc/NRC-2006.pdf] The National Research Council (NRC) is part of the prestigious National Academy of Sciences, which does research for the federal government, in this case, for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. The report concluded that the level determined to be “safe” by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is unsafe and needs to be lowered to protect public health. EPA’s “no longer considered safe” level of 4 ppm is already dangerously close to the 1 ppm level put in drinking water. Since the dose can’t be controlled, there are some populations that drink more water and are at higher risk, including diabetics and athletes. Health Departments and other fluoridation promoters will argue that the report isn’t relevant to water fluoridation due to the difference between the 4 ppm level studied and the 1 ppm level used. This position has been refuted by one of the NRC report’s authors and others. [See http://www.fluorideaction.net/health/epa/nrc/fluoridation.html] Additional links on the topic are here: http://www.actionpa.org/fluoride/reasons.html#reason1

EPA scientists call for national ban on fluoridation

The NRC report affirmed the long-standing position of EPA’s own scientists, who have long objected to the determination that 4 ppm was a “safe” level. In August 2005, eleven EPA unions representing over 7,000 environmental and public health professionals at the federal agency wrote to Congress and called for a national moratorium on drinking water fluoridation programs. The unions acted following revelations of an apparent cover-up of evidence from Harvard School of Dental Medicine linking fluoridation with elevated risk of a fatal bone cancer in young males. The union representing scientists at the EPA Region III office in Philadelphia, which covers Pennsylvania is one of the unions signed onto this statement. [See http://www.actionpa.org/fluoride/reasons.html#reason9]

Fluoride-lead connection implicates fluoridation with violence, drugs and learning problems

Another major concern is the fluoride-lead connection. Some studies have shown that hydrofluosilicic acid leaches lead from pipes. [For the most recent study, see: Neurotoxicology. Sept. 28, 2007, "Effects of fluoridation and disinfection agent combinations on lead leaching from leaded-brass parts." RP Maas, SC Patch, AM Christian, MJ Coplan] Other studies have shown that exposure to hydrofluosilicic acid increases the brain’s absorption of lead – especially in African-Americans and Latinos. [ http://www.actionpa.org/fluoride/ej.html#reason2] The increased exposure to (and absorption of) lead is well known to affect learning ability and IQ. Because it affects the dopamine levels in the brain, the fluoride-enhanced lead exposure has also been implicated with increased affinity for violence and cocaine addiction. That such pressing urban problems could be made worse by fluoridation is cause enough to take precaution and stop adding fluoride acids to the water system.

Philadelphia’s hydrofluosilicic acid purchases; rising chemical costs

Since hydrofluosilicic acid is a waste product of the phosphate industry, its availability is subject to the trend of falling phosphate production. In late 2007, the American Water Works Association and the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection issued warnings of fluoridation chemical shortages. [See links to these warnings at the bottom section of: http://www.actionpa.org/fluoride/chemicals/shortagesandrisingcosts.html ] As phosphate production has been dropping, the costs of purchasing the chemicals has been rising dramatically, nation-wide. Since at least 1999, Philadelphia’s supplier has been Solvay Fluoride. In 1999, the city paid $447/ton, spending nearly $200,000 on the chemicals that year. In 2007, the city bought the same chemicals for $1,194/ton and the costs are expected to double again in the city’s current purchasing for the coming year. If this expected doubling takes place, the city will now be paying about $1 million a year just for the chemicals, not to mention the cost of handling and administering the chemicals.

State mandate would take away local control and further increase costs
The state legislature is considering House Bill 1649 [ http://www.actionpa.org/fluoride/bills/], which would mandate fluoridation statewide, taking away the rights of local governments to choose whether to fluoridate their water systems. Currently, about 9% of the state’s water systems are fluoridated, affecting 52% of the state’s water customers (it’s mostly the urban systems that are fluoridating). [ http://www.actionpa.org/fluoride/map/] If HB 1649 passes, it’ll nearly double the demand for fluoridation chemicals in the state, making the current chemical shortages even more dire and dramatically pushing the chemical costs even higher. Even if Philadelphia wanted to keep fluoridating forever, it’s in the city’s financial interest not to see HB 1649 pass, since the mandate would further drive up the cost to the city.

City Council can take precaution, repeal the 1951 ordinance and save money
In the medical profession, there is the principle “first, do no harm.” This precautionary principle should be applied in this case – where there is mounting evidence of harm, very questionable benefit and no requirement that the practice continue. The only requirement currently in place is a 1951 city ordinance that caused the city’s water to start being fluoridated in 1954. [The ordinance and related documents provided by the Philadelphia Water Department can be found here: http://www.actionpa.org/fluoride/philly/]

In light of the mounting costs and rising awareness of health and social problems relating to fluoridation, City Council is encouraged to repeal the 1951 ordinance and instruct the Philadelphia Water Department to cease water fluoridation – which would also save the city around $1 million or more a year. Ending water fluoridation can be done through a simple DEP permit process. [See http://www.actionpa.org/fluoride/383-2125-001.pdf]

There are many credentialed scientific experts who are familiar with the newest science on water fluoridation and fluoride exposure. I’d encourage this committee to invite some of these experts to the hearings on this important topic – and I’d be glad to provide access to these experts.

If the city wanted to effectively address the tooth decay problem, the savings from ending water fluoridation could be used to hire dentists that could treat eligible low-income city residents who can’t afford dental care.

Thank you.

Mike Ewall
Founder & Director
ActionPA
1434 Elbridge St.
Philadelphia, PA 19149
215-743-4884
catalyst@actionpa.org
http://www.actionpa.org

Mon Apr 14, 2008 8:36pm NEW YORK (Reuters Health) - Dental practices may be a source of a dangerous form of mercury contamination in the water supply, a small study suggests.

In tests of wastewater from two dental practices, researchers at the University of Illinois found high levels of methylated mercury — a chemically altered form of the metal that is toxic to the brain and nervous system.

Mercury is part of the silver dental fillings that have long been used to treat cavities; in this form, mercury is believed to be safe.

However, when dentists use drills to remove these fillings, the tiny mercury particles that end up in dental wastewater are exposed to sulfate-reducing bacteria that convert the particles into methyl mercury.

The new findings, published in the journal Environmental Science & Technology, raise the concern that dental offices may be an important source of methyl mercury in the public water supply.

“We found the highest levels of methyl mercury ever reported in any environmental water sample,” researcher Dr. Karl J. Rockne, of the University of Illinois at Chicago, said in a statement.

He and his colleagues estimate that up to 11 pounds of methyl mercury from dental wastewater may enter the U.S. public water supply each year. The amount sounds small, but they note that minute amounts of this form of mercury can be toxic.

The findings are, however, based on tests from only two dental practices — one “single-chair” office and one 12-chair clinic.

More research is still needed to confirm the results, Rockne said.

In the U.S., public drinking water supplies are monitored for mercury, and if a system’s levels are consistently above a certain threshold, steps must be taken to reduce them to acceptable levels.

Mercury that gets into the water can also be consumed by fish and work its way into the food supply.

Dental offices are far from the most significant source of environmental mercury pollution in the U.S. Coal-fired power plants emit about 50 tons of mercury into the air each year.

However, the problem of mercury in dental wastewater can be fixed. Devices called amalgam separators can help remove mercury particles from wastewater, and are a “good first step,” Rockne said.

But additional measures may be necessary, he added.

“We have to take more steps to prevent the problem from occurring in the first place,” Rockne said. “We’re dealing with a pipe — a control point. As an engineer, I see this as a problem that is tractable — something we can definitely do something about.”

SOURCE: Environmental Science & Technology, online March 12.

Michael,

Do you have a source for some of those studies which have ruled out mercury as a contributing factor for autism?

As each vaccine was accepted by the FDA, I heard no one at the FDA was considering the total dosage of chemicals from the vaccines.

Total exposure is a serious concern for many chemicals. Few are looking at that aspect.

Bill

Parents of autistic children I know are certain vaccinations are either a cause or contributing factor. Symptoms show up so soon after vaccinations.

I was looking for the lethal LD 50 dose of elemental mercury today and came on this EPA site.

Would thymerasol be considered “inorganic” mercury???

Mercury http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/hlthef/mercury.html

EPA site Sources and Potential Exposure

Elemental Mercury

A major source of exposure for elemental mercury is through inhalation in occupational settings. (1,3,4)
Another source of exposure to low levels of elemental mercury in the general population is elemental mercury released in the mouth from dental amalgam fillings. (3,4,5)

3. http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/hlthef/mercury.html#ref3#ref3
4. http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/hlthef/mercury.html#ref4#ref4
5. http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/hlthef/mercury.html#ref5#ref5

At issue is the thimerosal (derived from Hg) used as a preservative in multi-dose vials and the fact that some individuals have an defective allele, APOE4 instead of APOE2. With a sulphydryl end group on the E4, there is an affinity for mercury uptake. There’s a whole lot of information about it on my website. http://www.cent4dent.com/html/mercury_issues/vaccines.html Nothing is definitive, but we are, as a nation, the most vaccinated in the world. Add to that the multiple vaccinations that pedes sometimes put youngsters through and you’ve got a potential problem. I’ve heard that by FDA standards of mercury exposure, by the time a child is 5 he would have to weigh 180 lbs to have that much Hg in his tissues.

There was never a pictogram for autism in Chinese until vaccination was introduced to their culture. Supposedly there’s a much lower rate of autism in Mennonites because they shun modern medicine. Try following some of the links on that page to other websites as well.

Steve Markus
The Centre for Dentistry at Haddon
209 White Horse Pike
Haddon Heights, NJ 08035
856 546 0665
www.cent4dent.com
—– Original Message —–
From: rcarterdds
To: ACEsthetics@GoogleGroups.com
Sent: Sunday, April 13, 2008 6:15 PM
Subject: [ACEsthetics] vaccines and autism

What has changed in vaccines since I was a kid that makes them cause more autism now. Is it really that they now have mercury so that they can be preserved to allow use overseas and they weren’t preserved that way before? My kids tutor said she has been researching the subject and wouldn’t do vaccines till the kid is older.