Reply #25: you mean, you should be telling us how it is?

[OnTheOtherHand]

Can you source your quotation? I found a somewhat similar statement -- that mercury was the most toxic non-radioactive heavy metal -- in a PowerPoint presentation posted on the EPA website (I don't think the author is affiliated with EPA). Implausible quotations vaguely attributed to institutional authorities don't really help the cause.

It's true that silver amalgam fillings create measurable mercury exposure levels. Whether those levels are dangerous is not clear, notwithstanding the 150 years of experience that you point to. As far as I can tell, in most cases they are well below the levels generally considered tolerable. I wouldn't pound the table that the risk from amalgams is zero; then again, I don't know of compelling evidence that alternative filling materials are safe, either. I don't see the evidence to justify advising people to have all their amalgam fillings removed and replaced.

Now, you say you "go to a dentist who removes Hg fillings and cleans out anaerobic bacteria." I suppose it's not surprising that the dentist who does this tells you how bad those fillings were, and how much damage the anaerobic bacteria were doing. And I'm willing to assume that the dentist believes it. But, again, I would want to see some solid evidence before advising anyone to undergo these procedures.