Talk:Dental amalgam controversy

More sources for the regulatory controversy in the US

• FDA Issues Final Regulation on Dental Amalgam —Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.76.90.106 (talk) 04:59, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Added link to article gioto (talk) 01:24, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

The Mercury Mischief: As Obama Warns of Hazards, The FDA Approves Mercury Dental Fillings MaxPont (talk) 08:29, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

broken links

This link is broken:

 ^ US FDA/CDRH: Consumer Information - Questions and Answers on Dental Amalgam  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Talgalili (talk • contribs) 22:01, 30 September 2009 (UTC) 

Re-edited the article

I reorganized the paragraphs and added much needed citations.

I also added a yet to be clinical trial. I hope someone (maybe me) will update the text when the results will come in.

I wish to explain why I gave so much room for the header "clinical trial" in this article. The reason is because clinical trials are THE golden standard in evidence based medicine. In such cases as this article - this is the number one thing to look at.

Talgalili (talk) 08:07, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Does anyone know the effect of putting caps on teeth with large amalgam fillings. Does this push the outgassing of mercury into the tooth root and gums. Recently I had Birketts lymphoma above the teeth — Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.70.59.102 (talk) 00:34, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Banning Mercury Amalgam in the United States

Banning Mercury Amalgam in the United States, fda.gov — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.237.156.57 (talk) 09:17, 13 October 2011 (UTC) FDA agrees to amalgam announcement this year. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.237.156.57 (talk) 09:44, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Inaccurate representation of sources

Checked one source, see Talk:Amalgam_(dentistry)#Controversy_section WHO figures are presented as related to worldwide emissions, contrary to the source.

"The WHO reports that mercury from amalgam and laboratory devices accounts for 53% of total mercury emissions" refers to the UK emissions.

"the release of mercury into the public sewer system, where dental amalgams contribute one-third of the mercury waste" an estimate from Environment Canada, I assume about Canada's sewer system. DS Belgium (talk) 02:33, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

It's technically ambiguous without looking at the underlying sources. The WHO article is not clearly written. It could be that the regional organizations are talking about global emissions. For example, the 53% statistic comes from the following sentence: "Together, mercury contained in dental amalgam and in laboratory and medical devices, account for about 53% of the total mercury emissions". With that said, I agree with you that these are likely to be regionally-specific estimates and therefore it would be better to revise the text - which you are free to do. It would be nice to have a global estimate but the regional estimates give an approximate idea for developed nations. II | (t - c) 03:28, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

The numbers don't add up globally, with 84% of emissions coming from power plants, gold mines and metal production. Mercury (element)

Representation of other sources may be problematic as well: the ban on amalgam in Sweden, Norway and Denmark for example: based on a jan 3 2008 press release. This part is not mentioned in the article: Exceptions to use amalgam may be granted for a certain period after the ban, if dentists apply for it.

Press releases about bans in the future are not hard evidence since dates can be postponed, see these three about a Swedish ban:

• The use of amalgam will be totally banned for children and adolescents up to the age of 19 by 1 July 1995 at the latest and for adults by 1997. source
• The Government today decided to introduce a blanket ban on mercury. The ban means that the use of dental amalgam in fillings will cease and that it will no longer be permitted to place products containing mercury on the Swedish market. The new regulations enter into force on 1 June 2009. source
• As from 1 June 2009, its use in children and teenagers has been entirely banned, but amalgam can still be used in adult patients within hospital dental care until 2012, on condition that the Swedish National Board of Health and Welfare be notified before treatment. source

If it's still allowed, it's not banned. 94 references left to check... DS Belgium (talk) 05:05, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't surprise me that there a lot of weaknesses in the article - it's received a minimal amount of attention and I just hurriedly reorganized what was already in the article a while back. I look forward to your improvements. According to Pirrone's Global mercury emissions to the atmosphere from anthropogenic and natural sources (2010), amalgam is about 8% of the demand. Atmospheric emissions such as those focused on by Pirrone are probably low while emissions directly to the water are probably relatively high, especially in regions like the U.S. where there aren't (as far as I know) federal statutes regulating its release. Hylander et al's High mercury emissions from dental clinics despite amalgam separators (2006) is a potential source, but not openly-accessible. The environmental effects of dental amalgam (2000) is also an interesting start, although since it is written by undergrads supervised by a dentist it is really not an ideal env science source. II | (t - c) 06:01, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Tell you the truth, I'm much better at finding faults than I am at correcting them. A few hours writing, searching, changing and finally not posting is how it usually turns out. Anyone expecting major (or minor) contributions to articles on my part will likely be disappointed. Criticise and move on is more my style, I'm afraid. ...  :-( DS Belgium (talk) 16:52, 20 October 2011 (UTC)