Amalgam Potentials Measured in Absence of Saliva - In 1952!
Keith P Walsh
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:
I'll Always Be Here
4fa7-9b91-a...@a23g2000hsc.googlegroups.com:
That's one experiment. The proof is of course if it is repeatable.
Paul O
> <snip>
>
>
> 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).
>
>
> Or are you still too arrogant to even recognise it?
>
> Keith P Walsh
>
>
Yawn.... Do the experiment and make your own measurements...
--
Paul D Oosterhout
I work for SAIC (but I don't speak for SAIC)
Keith P Walsh
wrote:
>
> That's one experiment. The proof is of course if it is repeatable.- Hide quoted text -
>
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.
Keith P Walsh
wrote:
>
> That's one experiment. The proof is of course if it is repeatable.- Hide quoted text -
>
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.
Keith P Walsh
>
> Yawn.... Do the experiment and make your own measurements...
>
"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
Paul O
> <snip>
> 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
>
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...
Steven Bornfeld
> Keith P Walsh wrote:
>> <snip>
>> 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...
>
Stay away from the bone fluid; it is past its prime.
Steve
Keith P Walsh
wrote:
>
> Stay away from the bone fluid; it is past its prime.
>
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
Mark & Steven Bornfeld
>>
>
> Steven,
>
> Do you think that the "bone fluid" theory deduced by Schriever and
> Diamond is correct?
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"?
>
> 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, who told you that? ;-)
Steve
>
> Keith P Walsh
--
Mark & Steven Bornfeld DDS
http://www.dentaltwins.com
Brooklyn, NY
718-258-5001
Keith P Walsh
<bornfeldm...@dentaltwins.com> wrote:
>
> 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"?
>
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 electrical potentials even when their exposed surface are not
in contact with any saliva, I suppose you might be too late.
At the time of publication of their paper "ELECTROMOTIVE FORCES AND
ELECTRIC CURRENTS CAUSED BY METALLIC DENTAL FILLINGS", in 1952,
William Schriever was a member of the Department of Physics at the
University of Oklahoma, and Louis E Diamond likewise in the Department
of Biochemistry at the University School of Medicine, Oklahoma City.
And it was the Journal of Dental Research that published it.
These facts of course doesn't necessarily prove that the "bone fluid"
theory is correct.
Here again is what they actually said:
"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 strongly suspect that this assertion is really only a presumption
which is based on the premise that in order for metal fillings to
generate electrical potentials they must be in contact with an
electrolyte of some kind. And I (we) now know for a fact that this
premise is simply not true.
So if your reply was intended to convey the note of scepticism which I
inferred when reading it, then I can only say that I too would share
your scepticism, unless anyone knows of any experiment which has
positively demonstrated that the electrolytic action of "bone fluid"
on the surfaces of metal dental fillings does actually take place in
sufficient degree as to produce the sizes of electrical potentials
measured by Schriever and Diamond.
Otherwise, if we igore the "bone fluid" theory, then the question
arises as to what other physical process could have been producing
these electrical potentials if it wasn't the elecrolytic action of
either saliva or bone fluid?
Any suggestions?
Or are you going to go with bone fluid now?
Keith P Walsh
Autymn D. C.
Keith P Walsh
> unexposed = deexposed
Thank you for your contribution.
My copy of the Concise Oxford English Dictionary (ninth edition,
published in 1995 by Oxford University press and printed in the United
States on acid-free paper) lists "unexposed" as a single word and
defines its meaning simply as "not exposed".
This is precisely the meaning I intended when I used it in my previous
post.
(For the record, the word "deexposed" isn't in there - perhaps it's in
the "unconcise" edition.)
Dentists sometimes tell us (leastways a couple of them have told me)
that new amalgam fillings quickly form a layer of metal oxide on their
surfaces due to the electrolytic action of contacting fluids, and that
on being formed this layer adheres to the surface of the amalgam with
a degree of permanence such that it has the effect, after a finite
period, of preventing the amalgam from taking place in any further
electrolysis.
I am not aware of any scientific argument for suggesting that this is
false.
However, whenever the results of any scientific studies are published
reporting measurements of amalgam potentials with magnitudes in the
hundreds of millivolts, in my experience the stock response of the
dental profession is to say something like , "Ah yes we understand all
about this, it's called "Galvanic activity" (or electrolysis), and it
happens as a result of the electrochemical action of saliva on the
metal fillings in the mouth."
But most of the reports I've read of experiments which have measured
the electrical potentials in amalgams do not describe measurements
taken from "new" fillings at all.
Scriever and Diamond's report "ELECTROMOTIVE FORCES AND ELECTRIC
CURRENTS CAUSED BY METALLIC DENTAL FILLINGS" doesn't either.
Isn't there some inconsistency here?
Materials scientists may recognise that metal oxides do not make
particularly good electrical insulators, so although a layer of oxide
adhering to the surface of an amalgam filling may prevent any further
electrolysis from taking place, it wouldn't necessarily be very good
at preventing the flow of electrical current driven by electrical
potentials arising from physical phenomena other than electrolysis.
(I'll be happy to point a couple of them out again if anyone wants me
to.)
Isn't it possible that the electrical potentials generated by amalgam
fillings and measured by Schriever and Diamond as long ago as 1952
(and repeatedly measured by others ever since) do not in fact depend
primarily on the natural phenomenon known as "electrolysis" for their
existence?
(Remember that Schriever and Diamond proved that these electrical
potentials could be measured even when there was no saliva in contact
with the fillings.)
Keith P Walsh
Autymn D. C.
wrote:
> On 5 May, 14:33, "Autymn D. C." <lysde...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> > unexposed = deexposed
>
> Thank you for your contribution.
>
> My copy of the Concise Oxford English Dictionary (ninth edition,
> published in 1995 by Oxford University press and printed in the United
> States on acid-free paper) lists "unexposed" as a single word and
> defines its meaning simply as "not exposed".
A huge strawman, as -expos- isn't even English, which has been dead
for 1000 years, but Latin, so whatever any such dictionary says is
descriptive of the world's illiterate muttish bullshit.
un- != not-
Keith P Walsh
>
> A huge strawman, as -expos- isn't even English, which has been dead
> for 1000 years, but Latin, so whatever any such dictionary says is
> descriptive of the world's illiterate muttish bullshit.
>
Hey - whatever you say Buddy!
Next time I'm in Oxford I'll pass on the message.
When a quantity of metal amalgam is used to fill a cavity in a tooth
and is then allowed to set hard, part of the surface of the resulting
solid filling is exposed to the environment of the oral cavity
(mouth), and part of it is not.
If for the purposes of this discussion I can distinguish between these
two parts by defining the former as the "outward" surface, and the
latter as the "inward" surface, then I would expect that anyone with
even the most rudimentary experience of these matters is unlikely to
be confused by the following:
In their paper "ELECTROMOTIVE FORCES AND ELECTRIC CURRENTS CAUSED BY
METALLIC DENTAL FILLINGS", William Schriever and Louis E. Diamond
reported having measured electrical potentials in amalgam dental
fillings when the outward surfaces of the fillings were not in contact
with any saliva.
They also deduced that the measured potentials must therefore have
been due to the "action" of "bone fluid" on the inward surfaces of
those fillings.
I believe that this "deduction" may have been based on a false
perception that in order for metal fillings to generate electrical
potentials they must be in contact with an electrolyte of some sort,
and that they may also have assumed without seeking any experimental
confirmation that "bone fluid" is indeed able to act as such.
I would therefore suggest that the "bone fluid" explanation, put
forward by Schriever and Diamond as a requirenment for the generation
of electrical potentials by amalgam dental fillings in the absence of
any contact with saliva, is not necessarily correct.
Would you agree?
(Dang it if I've misused a word somewhere! - I bet I have haven't I?
You know, I'd love to see you let loose on Steven Bornfield. He thinks
that the term "mercury amalgam" is a "pleonasm".)
Keith P Walsh
Paul O
> <snip>
>
> I would therefore suggest that the "bone fluid" explanation, put
> forward by Schriever and Diamond as a requirenment for the generation
> of electrical potentials by amalgam dental fillings in the absence of
> any contact with saliva, is not necessarily correct.
>
> Would you agree?
>
>
>
Its hard to say. Why don't you run a few tests and find out...
Keith P Walsh
>
> Its hard to say. Why don't you run a few tests and find out...
>
Back in 1992, in a master's degree thesis which appears to be
attributed to Peter Sheridan, who was then a part-time Lecturer in the
faculty of dentistry at Sydney university, the author makes the
following declaration:
"Electrical Reading of restorations is particularly
worthless....firstly there is no consensus as to what these devices
are actually measuring and secondly, electric potentials or corrosion
rate have not been established as significant factors in the body
burden of mercury."
(For the complete article search newsgroup alt.support.mult-sclerosis
for "Peter Sheridan")
Two things strike me about this statement. Firstly, the author appears
to be suggesting that because scientists can't agree on the
explanation for the measurements of electrical potentials taken from
amalgams (remember that they can be measured in the complete absence
of any contact with saliva), then we should just forget about them!
That's not scientific reasoning!
Amalgam dental fillings are placed in children's teeth! If it is
possible to detect that they generate electrical potentials then these
potentials should be measured again and again and again!, until there
IS consensus as to what these measurements are telling us!
That is the scientific response!
And secondly, aside from the "body burden of mercury", it has not been
established either whether or not electrical potentials in amalgams
are a factor in increasing the body burden of ELECTRICAL CURRENT.
That's because it appears that the experimental investigations which
would be necessary in order to do so have never been carried out.
It is the natural function of the human neurological system to
transmit signals in the form of tiny electrical currents. However, it
is NOT the natural function of the human neurological system to be
constantly dissipating the electrical potentials generated by amalgam
dental fillings.
(Remember that the widespread adoption of metal amalgam as a material
for use in restorative dentistry was quickly followed by a rise to
prominence of psychiatric "medicine" in our societies.)
In recent years technologists have developed extremely sensitive
instruments which are able to measure neurological activity in the
human body.
However, it appears that no attempt has yet been made to detect any
difference between the neurological activity in the vicinity of teeth
with amalgam fillings and the neurological activity in the vicinity of
teeth without.
So when it comes to making up our minds whether or not to believe that
amalgam fillings are "safe", we can only judge from a position of
ignorance.
Keith P Walsh
PS, I suspect that the University of Sydney did award Peter Sheridan
his master's degree.
Paul O
>
> <snip>
>
> So when it comes to making up our minds whether or not to believe that
> amalgam fillings are "safe", we can only judge from a position of
> ignorance.
>
And that is exactly why we need Keith Walsh to run the appropriate tests
and take the required measurements. We simply can not trust this vital
research to any other person.
Does anyone out their concur with my opinion?
M.A. Sonjariv
wrote:
>Keith P Walsh wrote, On 5/11/2008 4:21 PM:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>> So when it comes to making up our minds whether or not to believe that
>> amalgam fillings are "safe", we can only judge from a position of
>> ignorance.
>>
>> <snip>
>And that is exactly why we need Keith Walsh to run the appropriate tests
>and take the required measurements. We simply can not trust this vital
>research to any other person.
>
>Does anyone out their concur with my opinion?
Oh gosh yes!
No doubt ONLY Keith P Walsh can make these measurements and determine
once and for all whatever it is Keith P Walsh has been posting about
the past 3-4 years.
Now watch, Keith P Walsh will post reams of detail on his myriad of
posts from the past.
MA Sonjariv
Keith P Walsh
>
> And that is exactly why we need Keith Walsh to run the appropriate tests
> and take the required measurements. We simply can not trust this vital
> research to any other person.
>
In my experience members of so-called "professional" bodies such as,
for example, the American Dental Association like to presume that they
are in a position to declare that metal amalgam dental fillings are
"safe".
However, it is a simple matter to demonstrate that they are not in any
such position at all.
Whether or not anyone agrees on exactly how they are generateded, it
has been demonstrated experimentally that amalgam dental fillings
generate electrical potentials with magnitudes of up to 350
millivolts. See:
http://book.boot.users.btopenworld.com/dutch.htm
However, in spite of the fact that the resting potential of the human
neurological synapse is only 70 millivolts, and in spite of the fact
that in recent years technologists have developed extremely sensitive
instruments which are able to measure neurological activity in the
human body very accurately, it appears that experimental procedures to
demonstrate whether or not it is possible to detect any difference
between neurological activity in the vicinity of teeth with amalgam
fillings and neurological activity in the vicinity of teeth without
them have not been carried out.
Therefore from the scientific point of view the American Dental
association is in no position to declare that, as far as it is
possible to know, the electrical potentials generated by metal amalgam
dental fillings do not dissipate electrical energy through the nerves
in people's heads.
And for organisations like the American Dental Association (and the
British Dental Association, and the Canadian Dental Association, and
every other dental association under the sun which continues to
endorse the use of amalgams) to justify their stance on amalgam THEY
THEMSELVES bear the responsibility for demonstrating the results of
these experiments.
The continued use of amalgam fillings is not scientifically justified
otherwise.
Keith P Walsh
PS, remember that it isn't enough simply to say that "we've been
getting away with it for nearly two hundred years now". That doesn't
constitute a scientific argument. The widespread adoption of metal
amalgams for use in restorative dentistry was quickly followed by the
rise to prominence of psychiatric "medicine" in our societies. And as
far as I am aware scientific investigations to establish the extent to
which these two facts are linked by the relationship of cause and
effect have not been carried out either. Do you know of any? Or are
you just as ignorant as the rest of us?
Paul O
> On 12 May, 18:12, Paul O <first.d.l...@company.com> wrote:
>
>
>> And that is exactly why we need Keith Walsh to run the appropriate tests
>> and take the required measurements. We simply can not trust this vital
>> research to any other person.
>>
>>
>
> And as
> far as I am aware scientific investigations to establish the extent to
> which these two facts are linked by the relationship of cause and
> effect have not been carried out either. Do you know of any? Or are
> you just as ignorant as the rest of us?
>
I guess I'm just as ignorant as the rest of us. Why don't you do the
appropriate scientific investigation and then you can enlighten the rest
of us...
Keith P Walsh
>
> Now watch, Keith P Walsh will post reams of detail on his myriad of
> posts from the past.
>
Well of course, back in 2002 I read the following statement on the
website of the Canadian Dental Association:
"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, such as braces.""
It's still there. You can find it at:
http://www.cda-adc.ca/en/oral_health/faqs_resources/faqs/dental_amalgam_faqs.asp#2
The CDA goes on to say:
"Health Canada's concern is related to galvanic effect, which occurs
when two different metals are in close proximity and create the
potential for electric current to be generated."
When I first read this six years ago I immediately wrote to Dr Philip
Neufeld of Health Canada asking the question:
"Is this recommendation intended to apply to metal alloy retaining
pins screwed into the root sockets of a patient's tooth?"
- and in his reply he "explained" the following:
"... 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, ..."
But now we find that as long ago as 1952 it was discovered that
amalgam dental fillings are still able to generate electrical
potentials even when their outer surfaces (i.e those which are exposed
to the environment of the oral cavity) are not in contact with saliva
or any other electrolyte.
It's all in the Schriever and Diamond report entitled "ELECTROMOTIVE
FORCES AND ELECTRIC CURRENTS CAUSED BY METALLIC DENTAL FILLINGS"
And in order to explain what they found, Schriever and Diamond said:
"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 think that there is an obvious contradiction here.
Can you offer any resolution for it?
Or do your "abilities" in scientific reasoning only allow you the
option of ridiculing me again for pointing this contradiction out to
you?
Keith P Walsh
Keith P Walsh
>
> It isn't the material, it's how they are placed.
>
> Steve
>
An excellent point Steve!
Do you think that the fact that the millions of people around the
world now have resin fillings in their teeth without reporting any
discomfort from them might indicate that our friend Robert had some of
his resin fillings placed incorrectly?
You know, the quality of and confidence in composite resin ("white")
fillings are now so far advanced that some countries (e.g. Sweden,
Norway and now Denmark) have banned the use of mercury amalgams
completely!
See "Amalgam ban causes a stir" at:
http://www.dentistry.co.uk/news/news_detail.php?id=992
Now, I appreciate that some of you Americans prefer to imagine that
your own institutions are smarter than everyone else's. However, and
with all due respect Steve, I think that this may have more to do with
a greater propensity for arrogance than with any superior abilities in
understanding, especially when it comes to explaining the electrical
behavior of metal dental fillings.
Which brings me back to the topic of our thread. In recent years
technologists have developed extremely sensitive instruments which are
able to measure neurological activity in the human body very
accurately. Do you know if experimental investigations have ever been
carried out in order to detect whether or not there is any difference
between neurological activity in the vicinity of teeth with amalgam
fillings and neurological activity in the vicinity of teeth with resin
composite fillings.
If not, then perhaps we would need to work fast to get them done
before amalgam fillings are banned everywhere!
And wouldn't our friend Robert feel silly if it turned out he's having
the electric batteries put back in his teeth?!
Keith P Walsh
PS, remeber that it has been demonstrated experimentally that amalgam
dental fillings generate electrical potentials with magnitudes of up
to 350 millivolts. See:
http://book.boot.users.btopenworld.com/dutch.htm
And the resting potential of the human neurological synapse is only 70
millivolts.
(And of course, according to messrs Schriever and Diamond, amalgam
fillings are able to generate electrical potentials even when they are
not in contact with any saliva.)
Paul O
> <snip>
>
> I think that there is an obvious contradiction here.
>
> Can you offer any resolution for it?
>
> Or do your "abilities" in scientific reasoning only allow you the
> option of ridiculing me again for pointing this contradiction out to
> you?
>
> Keith P Walsh
>
a series of experiments and making the appropriate measurements...