It appears that some people still believe that in order for metal
amalgam dental fillings to generate electrical potentials in the mouth
the fillings must be involved in an electrolytic reaction with saliva.

However, experimental research studies reported by William Schriever
of the University of Oklahoma and Louis E. Diamond of the University
School of Medicine, Oklahoma City, and published in the Journal of
Dental Research as long ago as 1952 proved that this is not true.

see:

http://jdr.iadrjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/31/2/205

These studies demonstrated that readings of electrical potentials from
amalgam fillings which had been dried and separated from all contact
with saliva in the mouths of the subjects were just as prominent as
those those taken when the fillings were wet.

Quote:

"Next one oral pack (or two if necessary) was put in place, the two
teeth were carefully swabbed with 95 per cent ethyl alcohol, and air
was blown on both teeth. The potential difference of the dry fillings
in the dry teeth was measured as described above. This potential
difference is designated V1 (Fig. 3)."

The authors went on to "deduce" from this fact that the measured
potentials "must" have been produced by the action on the fillings of
"bone fluid " contacting against the concealed surfaces of the
fillings inside/under the teeth.

Quote:

"Since the teeth were dry the potential difference V1 (Fig. 3) was the
e.m.f. (e) caused by the action of the bone fluid on the two fillings,
i.e., e = V1."

I wonder whether this "deduction" (presumtion?) made by Schriever and
Diamond that bone fluid must act as an electrolyte was based on the
false belief that the only way that metals, mixtures of metals and
dissimilar metals in contact with each other are able to generate
electrical potentials is by becoming involved in electrolytic
reactions.

Of course, those of us who understand thermoelectric and
electromagnetic phenomena (and particularly those who recognise the
way in which these two must interact in inhomogeneous mixtures of
metals) realise that this is simply not true.

But perhaps the explanation for the fact that Schriever and Diamond's
paper appears to have gone largely ignored for nearly sixty years is
because some of their peers maybe didn't quite believe the "bone
fluid" theory, and Schriever and Diamond were not able to verify it
positively. As a result, having proved that it is not necessary for
there to be any saliva in contact with the fillings to produce the
electrical potentials, the principal effect of the publication of this
paper was to confuse those involved as to just exactly how the amalgam
potentials are generated.

I have a suggestion.

Perhaps it is a combination of thermoelectric and electromagnetic
phenomena which has been the principal reason for amalgam fillings
generating electrical potentials all along (at least there's no strong
scientific evidence to indicate otherwise), and the contribution made
be electrolytic effects is either negligible or zero. And furthermore
the continued confusion over where these potentials come from is due
largely to the fact that the electromagnetic and thermoelectric
behaviors of dental amalgams have never been investigated
experimentally (or at least if they have then the results have not
been made public).

People keep telling me that the thermoelectric and/or electromagnetic
behaviors of typical dental amalgams should be easy to measure.

One of the first to do so was Professor D M Rowe of Cardiff University
in October 1988.

However, nearly 10 years later, and in spite of the continued lack of
any satisfactory explanation for the electrical potentials generated
by dental amalgams, it appers that the thermoelectric and/or
electromagnetic properties of amalgam fillings have not been measured
(or at least if they have then the results have not been made public).

Anyway one thing's for sure, we now know that it is not necessary for
metal amalgam dental fillings to be in contact with any saliva for
them to genetrate electrical potentials in people's mouths.

William Schriever and Louis E. Diamond's paper proved that.

So come on all you unscientific ridiculers at sci.med.dentistry and
sci.materials who were misled into believing otherwise, isn't it about
time you acknowledged your own ignorance?

Or are you still too arrogant to even recognise it?

Keith P Walsh

PS,

This message has been posted to google groups at:

sci.med.dentistry
sci.materials
misc.health.alternative

and to the Internetional Thermoelectric Society forum at:

http://www.its.org/ztforum

Keith P Walsh <keith.p.wa...@btinternet.com> wrote in news:9d905b53-1400-
4fa7-9b91-a2e525898...@a23g2000hsc.googlegroups.com:

That's one experiment. The proof is of course if it is repeatable.

Yawn.... Do the experiment and make your own measurements...

--
Paul D Oosterhout
I work for SAIC (but I don't speak for SAIC)

On 28 Apr, 09:19, "I'll Always Be Here" <aussiess...@invalid.invalid>
wrote:

Thank you for your reply.

You are of course perfectly correct.

When a potentially controversial result such as this crops up there
are generally three ways to react:

1) Dismiss it out of hand and refuse to believe it because you don't
like the sound of it.

2) Accept it without question.

3) Accurately reconstruct the experiment in order that the results can
be confirmed or not.

I believe that only one of these responses is a scientific one, and I
also think that you have identified which one it is.

I had meant to quote the title of Schriever and Diamond's report in my
initial message, but I forgot, so here it is:

"ELECTROMOTIVE FORCES AND ELECTRIC CURRENTS CAUSED BY METALLIC DENTAL
FILLINGS "

The thing to note about this report is that it was published in 1952,
and some dentists STILL insist that amalgam dental fillings must be in
contact with saliva in order to generate electrical potentials, almost
60 years after these studies appear to have demonstrated
experimentally that this is not true.

Do you know of any subsequent experimental investigations whose
results may have contradicted the results reported by Schriever and
Diamond?

Keith P Walsh

PS, in my initial post I wrote that Professor D M Rowe of Cardiff
University in Wales had first suggested that the thermoelectric and/or
electromagnetic behaviors of typical dental amalgams should be easy to
measure in October of 1988. This was a typing error. It was in fact in
October 1998.

On 28 Apr, 09:19, "I'll Always Be Here" <aussiess...@invalid.invalid>
wrote:

Thank you for your reply.

You are of course perfectly correct.

When a potentially controversial result such as this crops up there
are generally three ways to react:

1) Dismiss it out of hand because you don't like the sound of it.

2) Accept it without question.

3) Accurately reconstruct the experiment in order that the reported
results can be either confirmed or not.

I believe that only one of these responses is a scientific one, and I
also think that you have correctly identified which one it is.

I had meant to quote the title of Schriever and Diamond's report in my
initial message, but I forgot, so here it is:

"ELECTROMOTIVE FORCES AND ELECTRIC CURRENTS CAUSED BY METALLIC DENTAL
FILLINGS"

The thing to note about this report is that it was published in 1952,
and some dentists STILL insist that amalgam dental fillings must be in
contact with saliva in order to generate electrical potentials, almost
60 years after these results appear to have demonstrated
experimentally that this is not true.

Do you know of any subsequent investigations whose results have
contradicted those reported in 1952 by Schriever and Diamond?

Keith P Walsh

PS, In my initial message I wrote that Professor D M Rowe of Cardiff
University in Wales first told me that the thermoelectric behaviors of
typical dental amalgams should be easy to measure in October 1988.
This was a typing error. It was in fact in 1998.

On 28 Apr, 14:45, Paul O <first.d.l...@company.com> wrote:

"Yawn"?

A few years ago the organisation "Health Canada" issued the following
statement via the website of the Canadian Dental Association with
regard to the placement of metal amalgam dental fillings:

"It should be noted that Health Canada has taken the position that new
amalgam fillings should not be placed in contact with existing metal
devices in the mouth"

I wrote to the Canadian Dental Association regarding this statement
with the following query:

"Is this recommendation intended to apply to metal alloy retaining
pins screwed into the root sockets of a patient's tooth?"

And I received the following reply from Dr Philip Neufeld of Health
Canada:

"Dear Mr. Walsh:

...  it is unlikely that a metal retaining pin implanted into the
tooth or the jaw bone would cause galvanic currents. In order for
galvanic currents to be created, the pin would have to be in contact
with an electrolyte such as saliva or extracellular fluids, and such
retaining pins are usually not exposed. ...

Yours sincerely,

Philip Neufeld, Ph.D."

(you can read the complete reply at: http://www.its.org/node/5212)

That was in 2002.

But now it appears that as long ago as 1952 in their paper
"ELECTROMOTIVE FORCES AND ELECTRIC CURRENTS CAUSED BY METALLIC DENTAL
FILLINGS", Schriever and Diamond "deduced" that electrical potentials
can be generated by the action of  "bone fluid" on the UNEXPOSED
surfaces of metallic dental restorations, and that this may occur in
the complete absence of contact with saliva or any other fluid on the
exposed surfaces.

Do you know if any subsequent scientific investigation has ever
disproved the "bone fluid" theory?

Or do you think that Philip Neufeld is just not very well read in his
subject?

Feel free to wake up and attempt an intelligent reply.

Keith P Walsh

Keith,
Do the required experiments yourself, and then you will know of at least
one scientific investigation that has (or has not) disproved the "bone
fluid" theory.

I think its time for breakfast...

--

Paul D Oosterhout
I work for SAIC (but I don't speak for SAIC)

        Stay away from the bone fluid; it is past its prime.

Steve

On 29 Apr, 22:47, Steven Bornfeld <dentaltwinm...@earthlink.net>
wrote:

Steven,

Do you think that the "bone fluid" theory deduced by Schriever and
Diamond is correct?

And if so, would you say that Dr Philip Neufeld's suggestion that it
is only necessary to avoid the placement of amalgams in contact with
other metals when the surfaces of the contacting metals are exposed
might therefore be inaccurate?

Or would you say that the "bone fluid" theory is wrong? In which case,
is there any established scientific explanation for the fact that
amalgam fillings are able to generate electrical potentials when they
are free from contact with saliva?

Feel free to attempt a reply which demonstrates your ability to be
honest and intelligent, rather than the dismal combination of
indolence and cynicism implied by your previous contribition.

Remember you're supposed to be a bright guy.

Keith P Walsh

        Sorry--I am unfamiliar with the term "bone fluid".  Not a term I
believe we ever used in physiology.  Can you define precisely what
Schriever and Diamond mean by "bone fluid"?

        Keith, who told you that?  ;-)

Steve

--
Mark & Steven Bornfeld DDS
http://www.dentaltwins.com
Brooklyn, NY
718-258-5001

On 30 Apr, 20:45, Mark & Steven Bornfeld

No I can't.

I can only presume that they meant "fluid from bones".

If you want a more precise definition you might try asking either
Schriever or Diamond themselves, although it's so long ago now since
they reported their finding that amalgam dental fillings are able to
generate electric