Jump to content

Talk:Dental amalgam controversy/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

Proposed infobox

Without prejudice to the issue itself, would it be useful for Wikipedia contributors to have a list of articles related to mercury and health? How about an infobox?

Add your links above. --Uncle Ed 22:24, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Seems like a very good idea to me. Mercury is notoriously volatile, and has so many forms, that an infobox as you suggested above would help readers navigate between the various related pages that have something to do with health and mercury in one of its many forms. Simon K 16:07, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
At first I thought this was a good idea but i'm wondering now whether it is. The info box doesn't seem to have much to do with amalgams, and probably would be as relevant as an info box about scientific bodies that have reached conclusions but still have strong opponents, say global warming etc. However I do like the idea of having a link to mercury which i think should have that info box on the mercury page.(Bouncingmolar 15:42, 13 February 2007 (UTC))

Which side of history are you on?

Oh yes...I have made another "update" to this webpage under ethics (I laugh every time I see that word associated with dental amalgam) ...see below (before it is removed by ADA lawyers).

Court orders, investment warnings, partial or total ban on amalgam, classification...see what a political dispute becomes? And for those of you who think this is finally coming to an end? This is just the beginning. We are talking about $5 Trillion in damages, and our side wants to collect. Scared yet? You should try putting dental amalgam in your own mouth and see how YOU feel...

Here is the change: The Food and Drug Administration, by court order, changed their website on dental amalgam safety. The FDA is now set to classify dental amalgam, instead of each separate component of dental amalgam. The American Dental Association is concerned that classification will lead to new warnings, and perhaps even a total ban. Bank of American and JP Morgan recently released investment advisories for those concerned about the financial fallout from a partial or total ban on dental amalgam. Because of public awareness and high-profile court cases, dental amalgam is finally going to be classifed after over 150 years of use. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.92.124.47 (talk) 11:38, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

ADA Seeks Clarification on FDA Dental Amalgam Statement

This is the end of the line for dental amalgam in our lifetime....please read the ADA's press release below from http://www.ada.org/public/media/releases/0806_release03.asp. Dental amalgam does not actually exist in FDA regulations, and now the ADA is "concerned" that it will be "regulated"...too bad, so sad...not for the ADA, but for all the people that have been harmed by non-regulation. Get your amalgam fillings removed.

http://www.ada.org/prof/resources/topics/materials/dental_fillings_facts_full.pdf

Return to Top —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.49.39.181 (talk) 21:18, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

FDA sets 2009 deadline to reclassify dental amalgam

Today, I finally get to say "I told you so". Here is the article which is proof (below), from the ADA's own website at http://www.ada.org/prof/resources/pubs/adanews/adanewsarticle.asp?articleid=3066 that "Dental Amalgam" does not exist.

Yes, we are finally talking about reclassifying "encapsulated amalgam", which is dental mercury floating around in a little capsule with 2 separate compartments (the other compartment contains the alloy metals) BEFORE it is mixed in the "amalgamator" into Dental Amalgam. The difference between "encapsulated amalgam" which is legal...and "dental amalgam" which does not legally exist....is called Class III safety testing.

Why reclassify it? To settle a lawsuit, which obviously raised this point with the judge, who thought about it a little bit and said "gee, dental amalgam is not classified, just the components...how do we know it is safe?".

I told you so, I told you so, I told you so...."dental amalgam" does not exist LEGALLY. Boy, is this going to cause trouble for the ADA.... Now all you people out there who were confused, take out your fillings as they are not even LEGAL.

www.ada.org/goto/fillings. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.49.39.181 (talk) 21:00, 28 August 2008 (UTC)


http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1469315

Estrogenicity of resin-based composites and sealants used in dentistry. N Olea, R Pulgar, P Pérez, F Olea-Serrano, A Rivas, A Novillo-Fertrell, V Pedraza, A M Soto, and C Sonnenschein —Preceding unsigned comment added by Uyuni7 (talk • contribs) 18:08, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Political Dispute

Dental amalgam is about politics, not dentistry. There is no "product" called dental amalgam in the FDA database, only components. So this is NOT a debate, it is a political dispute and politics is about how people make decisions... while a dispute is a serious disagreement.

It is so wrong to call this a debate. That is weasel words by ADA lawyers. This is a political dispute, plain and simple, and political disputes that are unresolved for long periods of time lead to war. As the ADA has kept up its side of the dispute for a century and a half, it is important to understand what the results of unresolved political disputes end up doing to societies as a whole.

Every paid ADA hack who reads this, THINK. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.231.9.96 (talk) 17:12, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

The Scientific Case Against Amalgam

A summary of 97 scientific studies:
http://iaomt.org/articles/files/files210/The%20Case%20Against%20Amalgam.pdf
Drichw 22:35, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for posting that. I could not read it all the way through due to my dental mercury related emotional instability. (It made me angry as hell.) Rumiton (talk) 13:26, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

How about citing FDA panel ('06) and new FDA statement ('08) in intro, as they deserve?

I proposed this 9 months ago (back in Feb), and received positive responses from others, but so far I'm still awaiting a consensus/conclusion on whether we can go ahead and add this statement to the intro or not? Is there anything about this statement which anyone would object to?

If not, would anyone like to add it to the article or should I (I don't want to add it not knowing if the consensus is in agreement)? Or, if it isn't ready yet, how would you propose it be altered? It has been written to (i) increase the article's readability; (ii) clearly, concisely and accurately summarise the most up-to-date concrete examples of both sides as discussed in the rest of the article; (ii) reflect primarily the current mainstream status on this controversy, and summarise this in one single introductory paragraph with 8 citations. With NPOV, space is given to both sides of the controversy, including several prominent dental and health organisations, plus the most credible and recent opposing view (conclusion of the recent FDA hearings). However, more space is devoted to the mainstream accepted views and practices in order to reflect that they currently represent the majority view, which is also made clear:

  • "The majority view in the dental amalgam controversy is that dental amalgams are safe, a belief generally accepted by many dental associations such as the American Dental Association [citation #1], British Dental Association [citation #2] and Irish Dental Association [citation #3], as well as governmental institutions such as the Food and Drug Administration [citation #4] in the USA, and by most national governments in most countries. In opposition, the minority view in the dental amalgam controversy is that dental amalgams are unsafe, a concern notably raised in 2006 by the Food and Drug Administration in the USA at a review panel [citation #5] which sought to demonstrate their safety, but at which 13 out of 20 independent scientists voted it was "unreasonable" to conclude dental amalgams are safe [citations #6,#7,#8]."
  • Citation #2: “To date no epidemiological links have been established anywhere in the world between amalgam use and general ill-health. It is never possible to say categorically that anything is safe in all circumstances. With amalgam, as with all bio-materials, there are risks and benefits to be balanced. Whether amalgam can be called ‘safe’ is a matter for manufacturers of amalgam and for the Department of Health, and for the toxicologists and other scientists who advise them.” Dental Amalgam Safety, British Dental Association Fact File. British Dental Association, UK. November, 1996. http://www.bda.org
  • Citation #4: "Since the 1990s, FDA and other government agencies (CDC, NIH) have reviewed the scientific literature looking for links between dental amalgams and health problems. To date, the agencies have found no scientific studies that demonstrate dental amalgams harm children or adults. But we continue to review the literature and ask experts their opinions on the safety of dental amalgam.” CDRH Consumer Information. Food and Drug Administration, USA. Updated October 31, 2006. http://www.fda.gov/cdrh/consumer/amalgams.html
  • Citation #6: “The draft FDA White Paper argued that mercury fillings are safe. By two votes of 13 to 7, this panel rejected the FDA staff position. It is highly unusual for a panel to disagree with staff. The questions presented: Q1. “Does the draft FDA White Paper objectively and clearly present the current state of knowledge about the exposure and health effects related to dental amalgam?” Yes 7, No 13. Q2. “Given the amount and quality of Information available for the draft FDA White Paper, are the conclusions reasonable?” Yes 7, No 13.” Joint Meeting of the Dental Products Panel (CDRH) and the Peripheral and Central Nervous System Drugs Advisory Committee (CDER) - September 6-7, 2006 (Summary). Food and Drug Administration, USA. Updated September 8, 2006. http://www.fda.gov/cdrh/meetings/090606-summary.html

Simon K 16:17, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Simon, I appreciate the fact that you're willing to wait so patiently for consensus. The problem with your citations is that they appeal to authority; when possible, we should actually cite facts rather than opinions. No matter what the ADA, FDA, or panel scientists say, there are objective facts associated with dental amalgam. We can say how much, in micrograms, is put into the mouth, and we can look at the same benchmarks that scientists look at. Sometimes we may cite scientists, but in those cases we try to cite actual researchers than biased organizations such as the ADA. I have filled in those facts; many of them were present in the article but just needed to be brought to prominence. OptimistBen (talk) 04:51, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Ben, that's not the way Wikipedia works. We cite V & RS for facts and opinions. You can't leave out such a source because you (in contrast to others) believe it's biased. So what if it's biased. We use biased sources all the time. We document POV here, all significant POV, and they are by definition biased. Read WP:NPOV again. -- Fyslee / talk 06:04, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
We add what's appropriate. I think you're misreading me, anyway. When writing an introduction, you want it to be clean, succinct, and if possible enlightening as to the actual truth. Appeals to authority are the weakest information you can use in an argument, and they really aren't that informative. That's why we should cite science rather than opinions -- because opinions can be misleading. The fact that the ADA believes amalgam is safe is in the introduction to the article. It doesn't need to be repeated; Simon has 3 citations from different dental organizations saying the same exact thing. OptimistBen (talk) 07:37, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
As an example, I've been contributing to organic farming quite a bit. There's a supposed expert, Alex Avery, who believes that organic yields are terribly low. When writing my section on organic yields, I can report his opinion, although he's never cited scientific data to back it up, or I can note consistent results from the numerous empirical studies of organic fields vrs conventional fields. Given that I don't want to waste my reader's time, I opted for the latter. I'm not going to note every scientist who claims that organic yields suck contrary to evidence. I believe that we're faced with this dilemma often, and we can go straight to the science rather than report the opinions. When the science is presented well, opinions may supplement it, but they shouldn't be the core of your article's claims unless you really can't find data. And I would argue that you can always find data; if you haven't found it, you're not looking hard enough. It's unfortunate that most Wikipedians are not truly interested in creating quality articles, however, so they don't dig for the data. Further, I would argue that you can always make data intelligible to a lay audience. OptimistBen (talk) 07:48, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your input, Ben, and sorry for my delayed response. What happened - and why I was so "patient" as you pointed out - was that I had previously tried making small amendments to the intro in many possible ways, and every attempt was reverted, and without any dialogue despite my repeated offers to engage in dialogue about it. So I just got tired of it. After all, we've all got better things to do than waste time with trollish behaviour of the type I was encountering... As a result, I ended up posting my suggestions here, for others to take up or ignore, and that's how it's been left now for several years!
My primary intention wasn't so radical but for some reason was consistently rejected: Basically, since the astounding results of the FDA panel in Sep 2006, I've been suggesting this be mentioned in the intro to this article. Their conclusions were - and are - of primary scientific interest, since they were based on an independent scientific review panel of 21 scientists who, based on multiple presentations from world-class scientists over several days, basically rejected the ADA claims that amalgams were evidenced as safe by a clear vote of 14 to 7. Now two years have passed, and still no mention!! These are covered in my citations #5-#8 above. (I later also added citations #1-#4 merely for balance, and in hopes that whoever was trolling wouldn't shoot from the hip again - but I take your point that scientific references would be better than only quoting dental associations - well said). I still find it incredible that there is no mention of this panel in the intro, and no significant coverage elsewhere. The results of that panel were basically so explosive that apparently they're not even mentionable, or so it seems.
As a result of that panel, the FDA have since changed their statement online. Yet they are still quoted in the article saying in a 2002 statement that:
"no valid scientific evidence has shown that amalgams cause harm to patients with dental restorations, except in the rare case of allergy."
This is referenced from a DEAD LINK (http://www.fda.gov/cdrh/consumer/amalgams2002.html) which now relocates to a new FDA statement (http://www.fda.gov/cdrh/consumer/amalgams.html), post-Sep 2006 panel, that now states the following - linking to the same information from my citations above - that for two years keeps getting edited out of the article for mysterious reasons, while I keep suggesting someone add all this in a prominent part of the article - including both the new stance AND the scientific reasons why it has so recently changed:
3. What are the safety concerns about dental amalgam?
Dental amalgams contain mercury, which may have neurotoxic effects on the nervous systems of developing children and fetuses. When amalgam fillings are placed in teeth or removed from teeth, they release mercury vapor. Mercury vapor is also released during chewing. FDA’s rulemaking (described in question 7) will examine evidence concerning whether release of mercury vapor can cause health problems, including neurological disorders, in children and fetuses.
Since the 1990s, FDA and other government agencies (CDC, NIH) have reviewed the scientific literature looking for links between dental amalgams and health problems. In September 2006, an advisory panel to the FDA reviewed FDA’s research and heard presentations from the public about the benefits and risks of mercury and amalgam.
You can read the summary of the panel meeting at: http://www.fda.gov/cdrh/meetings/090606-summary.html
In addition, a complete transcript is available at: http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/ac/cdrh06.html#dentalproductspanel
Simon K 01:22, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Regulation and governmental involvement

I updated the description pertaining to the regulations in Norway and used links directly to the goverment agency effecting the decicion. (And removed Norway from the "maybe list".) I moved the paragraph describing Nations with regulations closer to the headline "Regulation and governmental involvement". A beneficial sideeffect is that the paragraph about the mandated notice in some offices (> 9 employees) and the could have been notice and later regulation, follows naturally. Both characterize USA at the beginning of the millennium.

Another of the mentioned Nations on the "maybe list", Sweeden, have not yet banned amalgam. They claim they will do so, soon, and no later than during 2008, according to SVT (Sweedish national television). Both Norway and Sweeden is in Scandinavia (North Europa). I have _not_ updated this information as it is about to change. PolarNight (talk) 02:20, 12 January 2008 (UTC)


SCENIHR

The acronym stands for the Scientific Committee on Emerging and Newly Identified Health Risks, which is an independent scientific committee managed by the Directorate-General of Health and Consumer Protection of the European Commission. The committee released a preliminary report that may serve as a good reference. - Dozenist talk 19:50, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Globalization tag

I have removed the globalization tag because it is unexplained. If you think that it's deserved, then please explain your concerns in detail right here on the talk page. This will help other editors figure out how to address your concerns. Thanks, WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:32, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Some Unanswered Issues of Importance

The article does not *seem* to address the following issues which may be relevant :

1)Whether the exposure to elemental (and possible organic) mercury increases or varies dependent upon pH alterations within the mouth (for example, do very acidic environments within the mouth cause greater degradation of amalgam – or is it very chemically inert?).

2)The temperature range over which amalgam is stable.

3)Some information concerning how alloying of mercury affects its various mechanical properties would seem wise (this does not seem to appear on the alloys index of wikipedia, nor on the amalgam wikipedia link – the mechanical properties of interest would include : density, reactivity, Young's modulus, and electrical and thermal conductivity, tensile strength and shear strength. These would provide an indication of the types of pressure under which amalgam starts to mechanically decompose, etc...). An important item of information would include the alloying procedure (how many dentists alloy in-house when making amalgam?), together with homogeneity information (inhomogeneous alloying processes might make less mechanically tough amalgam). Also, knowing HOW amalgam breaks would be interesting (if the amalgam has to fit arbitrary geometries, then it will break in arbitrary ways – but can it ever fracture in a friably/glass-like way?).

4)In one of the references, the following is stated : “The true exposure measure is the level of mercury at critical brain sites but cannot be determined at this time.”

Would it be feasible modify MRI scanners to detect the exact location of mercury within the body? What significance might it be that the concentration of mercury within the brain is not necessarily a constant, but variable (so that it may be substantially higher in some parts of the brain than in others). What do regulations state about allowable concentrations of mercury WITHIN the brain rather than just the body as a whole?

P.S - Point (3) relates to the "Alloy vs. Mixture" remark above - how homogeneous does a mix have to be before being an alloy, etc...?

MrASMafmo (talk) 00:39, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Messy Page

This page is rather disorganized and redundant. I'm going to do some real cutting here sometime soon. Background and history are largely redundant; regulation and government involvement could probably go under the broad background/history section as well.

Anyone have any preferences on how they want it organized? If nobody speaks, I'm just gonna go in there and start cutting and pasting so that this thing is halfway intelligible. The points of contention stuff is better organized, but the content inside of it is way too wordy. OptimistBen (talk) 03:21, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I've done my work. I'd like to archive much of this Talk page. Anyone have objections? I will keep things which I find to be substantive. Also, I will probably use the permanent method. OptimistBen (talk) 04:44, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Please don't use that method. The normal method is already in use and is easy to do. I'll make the link and you can just move content to it. Give me a couple minutes. -- Fyslee / talk 04:57, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Go for it. It's probably safe to archive stuff before this year. -- Fyslee / talk 05:11, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Safe Concentrations in Air

This article is messy, but there is a lot of contention and all needs to be based on science. So i think people see things missing and want to add it. But who's to decide what gets deleted in a complex and contentious topic? As an former air toxicologist (by profession, but not by degree), I can say the WHO 2003 article [1] contains the most useful information, but makes terrible conclusions. They state 20 ug/m^3 was observed in several studies to have an effect in workers after "several" years. They then conclude (using a terrible method) that 0.2 ug/m^3 for the general population is safe. What they don't take into account is that a 40 hour work week is 4.2 times less than a 168 hour week of living with amalgams. Also, people live with amalgams for 20 times longer than "several years" of work. Standard U.S. toxicology work would conclude that 4.2 * 10 safety for constant exposure * 10 weak individuals = 420 times less is probably "OK" (but not "safe"). This results in 0.05 ug/m^3 for "probably OK". Everyone seems to agree that amalgams cause about 10 times more. Calculation: 0.417 ug/m^3 is the average breathed in from amalgams calculated from 5 ug/day at 15 m^3/day breathed in and 80% absorbed and small amount absorbed from swallowing. That's for the average amalgam person. This kind of standard approach is far more useful than the rest of the wiki article. OSHA and EPA regulations would never allow this kind of exposure for a toxic. The problem is that they can't regulate our mouths and FDA is well known to be in the pocket of industry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.214.120.227 (talk) 13:07, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

FDA concedes that mercury fillings may cause harm to some

Here is a new RS reference that should be integrated in the article: Reuters: 'Mercury teeth fillings may harm some: U.S. FDA' [1] MaxPont (talk) 08:04, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Avoid referencing the mass media, they're not really reliable on science. Cite the FDA if they put up a statement. Jefffire (talk) 08:22, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
This is not a scientific issue but a statement about policy. Reuters is a perfectly RS here. MaxPont (talk) 08:33, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Agreed with MaxPont. This isn't an issue of understanding science. It's an issue of quoting the FDA. Reuters works fine. Although I would like to see the statement online, it seems to have been made mainly orally so far; hard to find on the website. ImpIn | (t - c) 08:54, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
FDA faq here, which is preferable to citing the news story. Jefffire (talk) 09:40, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Could be the beginning of a major breakthrough in this subject (my own, highly POV opinion.) While we await the results of the July 28, 2008 survey, the preliminary statements made by the FDA above should surely go in the article. Rumiton (talk) 14:33, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
The reason why the source from Yahoo News is problematic on scientific matters is because the American Dental Association, a respected source for dental research and information, also has a response to the FDA settlement which says, "Contrary to some assertions, the FDA’s current reclassification proposal does not call for restrictions on the use of amalgam in any particular population group." Since the reclassification of amalgam will not change everyday dental treatment, most dentists and patients will not even notice a change. If the FDA really believes that mercury fillings can cause harm, then we should get an FDA statement. The FDA link provided above would be a good reference for citing a possible but not proven concern of amalgam in pregnant women and young children. - Dozenist talk 16:01, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Both the FDA and the American Dental Association are policy and interest group organizations. If they make statements about scientific facts we should take into consideration that these statements most likely are influenced by various economic and professional interests. You can't claim that the FDA is unscientifc at the same time as you accept the American Dental Association as scientific. MaxPont (talk) 06:58, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Nobody claimed that the FDA wasn't scientific, just that the ADA's statement clarifies the FDA's faq. Jefffire (talk) 08:09, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Absolutely, if anything, I think the FDA is a very strong reliable source for comments on science and especially for its own policy. I would take statements on science by the FDA, the American Medical Association, and American Dental Association over mass media, such as Yahoo News, any day. - Dozenist talk 13:11, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
On the other hand, secondary sources provide context and establish notability. IMO the Reuter reference should be used in addition to the primary sources. MaxPont (talk) 07:35, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
I am not disputing the usefulness of secondary sources in some cases, but in this case the response of Yahoo News is quite different from that of the American Dental Association. (I realize the two are quite different: Yahoo News/Reuters being mass media and the ADA a reliable source for dental science.) As a result, the best way to reference the FDA's view of amalgam would be the FDA itself. - Dozenist talk 12:19, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Lists of citations

Although not citable, http://www.flcv.com/olp.html is still a good list of citations. Feel free to place similar resources here as well. ImpIn | (t - c) 09:56, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Low selenium blood levels

I don't agree with this recent reversion (diff). The sample size is fairly standard as far as studies like these go. It's interesting information. There's no reason that I can see that it should be excluded; people can judge the sample size easily enough for themselves. Rooney, the second citation, noted it in his review as "intriguing", but I doubt that it has been replicated. II | (t - c) 14:40, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

If it hasn't been replicated then it's just a single piece of primary work, exactly the sort of this which should generally be avoided in wikipedia articles. If it's accurate and notable, then there will multiple independent replications of the work with larger sample sizes. Jefffire (talk) 16:39, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
There's nothing in policy which says that a single primary piece of work can't be cited. I don't think it needs to be avoided on Wikipedia. It will be replicated in due course, hopefully, but science is notoriously slow in replicating studies. Putting it up here will help spread the information and encourage it to be replicated. II | (t - c) 17:36, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
Us scientists don't get our info from Wikipedia, and as Wikipedians it is not our purview to encourage replications. If the study is repeated then that goes some way to demonstrating a)Notability and b)Reliability. Till then it's a single small unreplicated study, not notable and not reliable. Jefffire (talk) 19:22, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
As far as notability, ccording to Google Scholar is has been cited by 18 papers. As far as reliability, its reliability speaks for itself: it is a small sample, as any reader can see. But there's no question that it is reliable as to whether the study happened as the author said it did. II | (t - c) 09:06, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Just as a point of information, this same debate, or something very close to it, is also going on at Talk:Mercury poisoning #Selenium and mercury poisoning and at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine/Reliable sources #Are "primary studies" not secondary sources for information on prior studies?. Eubulides (talk) 20:16, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Entirely agree with Eubulides comments on these other pages. Wikipedia has to be highly conservative in what is considered inclusionable. What might warrant a comment in a reliable review article won't necessarily warrant inclusion in a Wikipedia article. Jefffire (talk) 12:53, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
Note that Eubulides didn't take a position either way. There are thousands, if not millions of entirely uncited statements in Wikipedia. They are being phased out, but Wikipedia is not conservative. The guidelines on primary research over at WP:RS are helpful here. They say that primary research may be included so long as it is easily understandable, which this is. It is appropriate to cite primary articles when reviews of a topic cannot be found. II | (t - c) 09:06, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Role of genetics

Here is an interesting, highly cited paper (according to GScholar, 102 citations) commenting that certain genes may determine whether dental amalgam causes health problems in people. II | (t - c) 02:07, 28 July 2008 (UTC)


Mercury amalgam fillings????

Why are amalgams referred to as mercury amalgams in this article. I think it is pretty clear that amalgam fillings contain mercury to everyone who reads this page. The amalgam link also describes this, but the correct name for the material is dental amalgam. if you want to list metals contained in the amalgam why don't you refer to it as mercury copper zinc silver amalgam...????

I suggest we can correctly rename mercury amalgam to 'amalgam' and still retain links to the mercury page. Bouncingmolar (talk) 12:23, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

  1. ^ http://www.who.int/ipcs/publications/cicad/en/cicad50.pdf
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Dental_amalgam_controversy/Archive_4&oldid=1049846601"