Article View: sci.med.dentistry
Article #110Re: BEWARE ULF'S MERCURY FIGS. (Was: Re: (no subject))
From: Dagfinn Reiersol
Date: Mon, 01 Jan 1996 00:00
Date: Mon, 01 Jan 1996 00:00
55 lines
2917 bytes
2917 bytes
bsandle@southern.co.nz (Brian Sandle) wrote: >Dagfinn Reiersol (reiersol@telepost.no) wrote: >: The more I read your postings, the less I understand what you are >: getting at. You keep changing the subject and the content of your >: claims. A while ago, you said: >: >: >Giving an average level for mercury uptake from food has not much >: >significance, I think. It is rather like giving an average level for >: >sound exposure. Everyone is supposed to be able to cope with average level. >: >: Now, in your last posting, you're triumphantly giving us average >: levels again: >: >: > >: > Daily dietary intake: 0.004 - 0.02 mg >: > >: >: Which is it? Are average levels significant or aren't they? >As I said, that was responding to your 31 Dec article in which you quote >Skare as saying: I didn't quote Skare. Ulf did. I happen to believe Skare is right about fecal mercury excretion from amalgam, but I don't feel like spending time defending that point of view right now. >>He also says: " In a recent paper by Becker and Kumpulainen (38), it was >>reported that the average daily intake of total mercury from a normal >>Swedish diet might be 1,8 microg Hg." >I presume that means under 2 microgram. I don't know why he says 'might'. >It seems rather low compared to the figure I have found on the Web. I'll grant you this: your fish data may well be an indication that mercury intake from fish is higher in New Zealand. >: You haven't disputed the WHO figures about mercury uptake from >: amalgam, yet now you say: >: >: >And with amalgam fillings the mercury is no longer the risk since it is >: >locked pretty well to the silver and copper. >Because you are telling us about the horrors of mercury and I want to >make it quite clear that having an amount of mercury in the mouth >equivalent to the amount in tooth fillings is not the same as having >it in amalgam form. Of course not. Absolutely. I agree completely. We would all be dead if that were the case. >: You don't seem able to distinguish between toxicity and allergy: You still don't.
Technical Details
Message-ID:
<4c98g3$6uh@nms.telepost.no>Path:
arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!unknown!not-for-mailReferences:
<4bob98$5n3@newsy.ifm.liu.se> <4bqb6d$lab@orm.southern.co.nz> <4brkpa$7le@nms.telepost.no> <4buk1q$pt@orm.southern.co.nz> <4c0c08$il6@nms.telepost.no> <4c2emu$54o@orm.southern.co.nz> <4c3kaj$rf8@nms.telepost.no> <4c678i$89g@orm.southern.co.nz> <4c8j15$10c@orm.southern.co.nz>Show Full Headers
Complete Article Headers
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103efd,4dd33f6957519032 X-Google-Attributes: gid103efd,public X-Google-Thread: fd459,67a30652e41fe100 X-Google-Attributes: gidfd459,public From: reiersol@telepost.no (Dagfinn Reiersol) Subject: Re: BEWARE ULF'S MERCURY FIGS. (Was: Re: (no subject)) Date: 1996/01/01 Message-ID: <4c98g3$6uh@nms.telepost.no> X-Deja-AN: 133593040 references: <4bob98$5n3@newsy.ifm.liu.se> <4bqb6d$lab@orm.southern.co.nz> <4brkpa$7le@nms.telepost.no> <4buk1q$pt@orm.southern.co.nz> <4c0c08$il6@nms.telepost.no> <4c2emu$54o@orm.southern.co.nz> <4c3kaj$rf8@nms.telepost.no> <4c678i$89g@orm.southern.co.nz> <4c8j15$10c@orm.southern.co.nz> organization: TelePost Public Access newsgroups: sci.med.dentistry,bionet.toxicology