Phone Masts & Mercury tooth Fillings posted by Christine Ellis on 19
Mar 2006 at 9:58 am
I have been working for a local District Council for 18 yrs and
approximately 3 years ago a mast was erected outside our office
window. Since then I have had problems with my teeth, pain in my mouth
quite regularly over these years.
I have requested information from my Health & Safety Officer and twice
got back the latest information on the dangers of these masts, which
is saying there is no proven risks. In the last 6 months, we have had
5 new ladies employed in our office, all working in the same vicinity
of this mast. 2 of the five have had severe problems with their teeth
in these 6 months, one has very back teeth anyway, I have had one
wisdom tooth losen and had to have out and another break in half, we
were discussing this on Friday, and another lady has started having
strange sensations in her mouth, she said like a magnet going over her
teeth. The only lady who hasn't had any problems has got all white
fillings in her teeth. I asked all the others whether they have got
all Mercury fillings and they have, as I have. QUESTION: Could the
mast be having an effect on Mercury fillings. ?????????? We would like
to know please. !!!!!!!
Well-documented events posted by Andy Davidson on 02 Apr 2006 at 11:51
pm The issue of metallic taste and head sensations is widely
documented and reported among people living near mobile communications
masts. Metal chelation is obviously at issue here, so this is
potentially more than just an inconvenience.
As you have witnessed, there can be strong correlation between
reported symptoms such as these and the installation and operation of
masts. Unfortunately, truly interdisciplinary scientists are rare and
biophysicists almost unknown in the UK, so rather than persist in
finding the elusive reasons why this is happening, you will be advised
that even these symptoms are probably psychosomatically induced. A
powerful thing, is placebo, and its counterpart nocebo. In fact so
powerful, whilst we understand it no better than bio-response to EM
radiation, it is preferable because everyone accepts the mystery.
There is a serious difficulty in separating this preference for the
self-induced mental origin, and the objective bio-physical reasons.
How should it be done in such a way as to provide "definitive
scientific proof"? As soon as "pure" or idealised forms of mobile
phone radiation are placed in idealised laboratory conditions, whilst
neglecting natural magnetic fields, mixed, reflected and interfering
paths, issues of mixed signal control channels, normal physical
activity, etc., subjects are abstracted from the real conditions that
they say are causing the problems. Failure to replicate their symptoms
in short duration experiments is then deemed to disprove their
association of symptoms and supposed causes.
Further, those unfortunate enough to be so sensitive that the
laboratory conditions (despite all shortcomings) debilitate them, risk
having to withdraw (hurt) from the studies, which then lose this
relevant data, leaving the unhurt, balanced by the controls (the
It is a sad commentary that with so many people suffering from mobile
transmitters, they will not be taken seriously, let alone tested in
situ with all temporal and spatial parameters mapped. Clearly if we do
not know what is causing the teeth problems (for example), we cannot
isolate it in a laboratory, and if we think we do, and get it slightly
wrong, we are handed conclusions that the association does not exist.
Common sense reading of existing research suggests that the dielectric
conditions of a mouth containing mixed-ph aqueous solutions and mixed
metals, will create normal electro-chemical responses and forces.
Further, there is strong research evidence of how specific
biochemistry is affected by chronic low-level radiation. This is not a
linear response (compare the Petkau effect) and therefore power-
ratcheting in lab studies is not the answer or proof either: indeed it
will produce contrary results.
There is a simple test: remove the source for sufficient duration.
Supposing you could persuade your operator to do so (pigs might fly).
First, done in a "blind test" way this would be considered to be a
live-subject experiment with potential harmful effects, so the ethics
committee would have to be involved and all those in proximity advised
and their permission sought. (Ironic, given the circumstances.) But
only removal-without-knowing would provide the results needed -- and
then it would still not be "proof".
If you can, the alternative is to attenuate the signals by shielding
and see if that makes a difference. If it does, forget the proof and
enjoy the relief, because no-one is ever going to want to believe you
Those who suffer from mast radiation experience intense frustration by
not being believed. Those who don't, can't understand why what people
say is more important than lab study results, despite the poor
understanding of what is going on. Above all of them is a political
and corporate need to perpetuate the myth that there are no biological
responses leading to adverse health effects. Can you imagine masts
being removed because they hurt people? That would be an admission too
far with wide-reaching consequences.
Metalic Taste posted by C GAMBA on 09 May 2006 at 7:12 am Metalic
taste in the mouth is also found with MMR scans. Low frequency has
also been noted to cause this.
"Phone Masts & Mercury Tooth Fillings" - Publications posted by Olle
Johansson on 10 Nov 2008 at 12:44 am Please, see e.g.
Ortendahl TW, Hogstedt P, Holland RP, "Mercury vapor release from
dental amalgam in vitro caused by magnetic fields generated by CRT's
and electrical cutting procedures", Swed Dent J 1991, p 31, abstract
Mortazavi SM, Daiee E, Yazdi A, Khiabani K, Kavousi A, Vazirinejad R,
Behnejad B, Ghasemi M, Mood MB, ³Mercury release from dental amalgam
restorations after magnetic resonance imaging and following mobile
phone use², Pak J Biol Sci 2008; 11: 1142-1146
With my very best regards
Yours sincerely Olle Johansson
(Olle Johansson, assoc. prof. The Experimental Dermatology Unit
Department of Neuroscience Karolinska Institute
171 77 Stockholm Sweden
Professor The Royal Institute of Technology
100 44 Stockholm Sweden)
From Mast Sanity/Mast Network