Reply #32: I have more friends who are dentist than any other occupation

[philb]

if you are talking about me. I interact with them continuously. Dentists are one of the main groups that
DAMS interacts with and provides information to and gets support from.

Most dentist in most advanced countries don't use mercury in fillings. They know its well documented that
mercury is extremely toxic, commonly causes neurological, immune, autoimmune, hormonal, metabolic, and reproductive problems
http://www.home.earthlink.net/~berneiw1/indexa.html

Most advanced countries have at a minimum a warning about use of amalgam and some essentially have bans,
and several states require dentists to warn patients that amalgam contains mercury which is known to be extremely toxic
and to commonly cause adverse health effects. (Calif., Maine,etc.)

Do you dispute that people who have amalgam fillings get high mercury exposures?
http://www.home.earthlink.net/~berniew1/damspr1.html

Do you dispute that dental amalgam is the largest source of mercury in sewers and that mercury in sewers is a major source of mercury in rivers, lakes, bays, fish, etc. and also through sewer sludge a major source in the atmosphere since the mercury in sludge whether land filled or land spread is methylated to methyl mercury by soil bacteria and outgassed when the sun shines; if it makes it that far before being outgased? Oak Ridge National Laboratory studies
http://www.home.earthlink.net/~berniew1/damspr2f.html

Do you dispute that occupational exposure to dentists and dental staff commonly causes adverse health effects, and that patients in officies that use amalgam get significant exposures when they go to the dentist? see above and
http://www.home.earthlink.net/~berniew1/dental.html

If you disagree with any of the above, tell me which and why.

If you show me any thing I'm mistaken about, I can assure you I'll edit whatever is appropriate.
I engage in peer review regularly. Its very useful and the best way to determine what is factual and what not. I also participate in hearings and workshops and FDA dockets, etc. Part of my job has been to be an expert witness on some things. Plus providing documentation for other such.
I assume developing consensus is one of the functions of forums such as this.
But the papers I quote have also been peer-reviewed by scientists and used in hearings, etc. and much of my work has been translated into several languages, posted on Univ. websites, and some of it is used in medical school courses. Which I could document. I've also written many articles for medical newsletters. I think that the documentation is clear and credible for all of the above. Is the problem that its not being looked at? Is there a credible source that contradicts any of the statements above?