Mercury Exposure of Dentists and Assistants
updated September 2007
In the fall of 2002 a group of Virginian DAMS activists met in Charlottsville, VA at the Vegifest festival in a downtown park. We set up tables and displayed materials concerning dangers of dental mercury. As usual most people did not know that their "silver" fillings were actually 50% mercury.
One young lady approached our tables and read the chart "Symptoms of Chronic Mercury Toxicity." She told us that her father had experienced many of those symptoms before he had died the previous year. She said he had been in good health but suddenly became paralyzed on one side. Doctors tested him but the only thing they could find was "lesions on the brain from unknown causes."
When we explained to her how some of us had become poisoned by breathing mercury vapor, she finally recognized the reason for her father's death. He had been a dentist for many years and had placed and unsafely removed mercury fillings. He was only 60 years old.
Dentists who believe the teaching they received in ADA run dental schools have a huge risk for health problems from mercury exposure for themselves and their dental assistants. If dentists would continue their education through an organization like IAOMT, the International Academy of Oral Medicine and Toxicology, they could learn safe ways of removing dental mercury so they could protect themselves, dental assistants and their patients.
Dentists can order a safe mask, the Comfo Classic® Respirator and the high volume "Clean Up" Aspirating System from the IAOMT Store. http://www.iaomt.org/cart/products.asp?cat=11
Biological dentist Dr. Wayne King from Marietta, Georgia was furious when he spoke before the FDA Advisory Panel about the dangers of mercury dental fillings September 2006. He explained he was not taught in dental school how to adequately protect himself, his staff and his patients from mercury vapor. Dr. King said, "My aortic aneurysm blew out in my doctor's face." While the surgeon was operating on him Dr. King had his aorta to explode! King said there was a paper published in '76 that showed a connection between mercury exposure and dissecting aneurysm.
Other dentists and dental assistants testified how they became poisoned from working around the mercury vapor. You can read their stories at http://www.mercurypoisoned.com/FDA_hearings/advisory_panel_rejects_amalgam_safety.html.
I recently talked with a lady in a local dental office who said her friend, who was a dentist, had just been diagnosed with pulmonary fibrosis. The lung specialist remarked that many of his patients who had pulmonary fibrosis were dentists. Wonder what all those dentists were breathing throught their inefficient little white paper masks? One cause for pulmonary fibrosis listed on the Pulmonary Fibrosis Foundation web site is "inhaled environmental and occupational pollutants," but I don't see them mentioning mercury in dentists' offices.
Bernard Windham, President and Scientific Coordinator for DAMS, Dental Amalgam Mercury Syndrome, has researched mercury's dangers to dental personnel and I will include his research here. This was taken from Mr. Windham's website at http://www.flcv.com/dental.html
Mr. Windham's website is located at www.flcv.com/dams.html.
Bernard Windham has press releases that he releases to news media throughout the US and other countries. If you would like to contact Bernard Windham about any of his research on Mercury toxicity, you you may call 850-878-9024 or email him at firstname.lastname@example.org
Health Effects from Dental Personnel Exposure to Mercury Vapor
by Bernard Windham, President of DAMS, Chemical Engineer
1. Dental offices are known to be one of the largest users of inorganic mercury (71b,26,etc.). It is well documented that dentists and dental personnel who work with amalgam are chronically exposed to mercury vapor, which accumulates in their bodies to much higher levels than for most non-occupationally exposed. Adverse health effects of this exposure including subtle neurological effects have also been well documented that affect most dentists and dental assistants, with measurable effects among those in the lowest levels of exposure. Mercury levels of dental personnel average at least 2 times that of controls for hair (397-401), urine (25d,57,64,69,99,123,124,138,171,173,222,249, 290,362,397-399) and for blood (124,195,253,249,397).
Sweden, which voted to ban use of mercury in fillings, is the country with the most exposure and health effects studies regarding amalgam, and urine levels in dental professionals from Swedish and European studies ranged from 0.8 to 30.1 ug/L with study averages from 3.7 to 6.2 ug/L (124,172,253,64,68). The Swedish safety guideline for mercury in urine is 5.6 nmol Hg/nmol(11.6 ug/L).
Study averages for other countries ranged from 3.3 to 36 microgram/liter (ug/L)(69,70,171,290,397). A large survey of dentists at the Norwegian Dental Assoc. meeting (171) found that the mean mercury level in 1986 was 7.8 ug/L with approx. 16% above 13.6ug/L, and for 1987 found an average of 8.6 ug/L with approx. 15% above 15.8 ug/L, with women having higher levels than men in general.
A U.S. national sample of dentists provided by the American Dental Association had an average of 5.2 ug/L (70,290). In that large sample of dentists, 10% of dentists had urine mercury levels over 10.4 ug/L and 1% had levels over 33.4ug/L (290,25c), indicating daily exposure levels of over 100 ug/day. Mercury excretion levels were found to have a positive correlation with the number of amalgams placed or replaced per week, the number of amalgams polished each week, and with the number of fillings in the dentist (171,172,173). In one study, each filling was found to increase mercury in the urine approx. 3%, though the relationship was nonlinear and increased more with larger number of fillings (124).
Much higher accumulated body burden levels in dental personnel were found based on challenge tests than for controls (303), with excretion levels after a dose of a chelator as high as 10 times the corresponding levels for controls (57,69,290,303).
Autopsy studies have found similar high body accumulation in dental workers, with levels in pituitary gland and thyroid over 10 times controls and levels in renal cortex 7 times controls (99,363,38). Autopsies of former dental staff found levels of mercury in the pituitary gland averaged as high as 4,040 ppb. They also found much higher levels in the brain occipital cortex (as high as 300 ppb), renal cortex (as high as 2110 ppb) and thyroid (as high as 28,000 ppb. In general dental assistants and women dental workers showed higher levels of mercury than male dentists (171,172,173,253,303,362).
Mercury levels in blood of dental professionals ranged from 0.6 to 57 ug/L, with study averages ranging from 1.34 to 9.8 ug/L (124,195,253,249,531). A review of several studies of mercury level in hair or nails of dentists and dental workers found median levels were 50 to 300% more than those of controls (38, p287-288,& 10,16,178,531). Dentists have been found to have elevated skeletal mercury levels, which has been found to be a factor in osteoporosis, as well as mercury retention and kidney effects that tend to cause lower measured levels of mercury in urine tests (258). A group of dental students taking a course involving work with amalgam had their urine tested before and after the course was over. The average urine level increased by 500% during the course (63). Allergy tests given to another group of dental students found 44% of them were allergic to mercury (156). Studies have found that the longer time exposed, the more likely to be allergic and the more effects (6b,154c,156,503a) . One study found that over a 4 year period of dental school, the sensitivity rate increased 5 fold to over 10% (154c). Another group of dental students had similar results (362), while another group of dental student showed compromised immune systems compared to medical students. The total lymphocyte count, total T cell numbers (CD3), T helper/ inducer(CD4+CD8-), and T suppressor/cytotoxic(CD4-CD8+) numbers were significantly elevated in the dental students compared to the matched control group (408). Similar results have been seen in other studies as well (408).
Urinary porphyrin profiles were found to be an excellent biomarker of level of body mercury level and mercury damage neurological effects, with coproporphyrin significantly higher in those with higher mercury exposure and urine levels (70,260). Coproporphyrin levels have a higher correlation with symptoms and body mercury levels as tested by challenge test (69,303), but care should be taken regarding challenge tests as the high levels of mercury released can cause serious health effects in some, especially those who still have amalgam fillings or high accumulations of mercury. Screening test that are less burdensome and less expensive are now available as first morning void urine samples have been found to be highly correlations to 24 hour urine test for mercury level or porphyrins (73).
2. The average dental office exposure affects the body mercury level at least as much as the workers on fillings (57,64,69,123,138,171,173,303), with several studies finding levels approximately the same as having 19 amalgam fillings (123,124,173). Many surveys have been made of office exposure levels (1,6,7,10, etc.) The level of mercury at breathing point in offices measured ranged form 0.7 to over 300 micrograms per cubic meter (ug/M3) (120,172,253,249). The average levels in offices with reasonable controls ranged from 1.5 to 3.6 ug/M3, but even in Sweden which has had more office environmental controls than others spot levels of over 150 ug/M3 were found in 8 offices (172). Another study found spot readings as high as 200 ug/M3 in offices with few controls that only used saliva extractor (120). OSHA surveys find 6-16% of U.S. dental offices exceed the OSHA dental office standard of 50 ug/M3, and residual levels in equipment sterilizers often exceed this level (454).
The German workplace mercury standard of 1 ug/M3 is almost always exceeded (258).
The U.S. ATSDR mercury vapor exposure MRL for chronic exposure is much lower, 0.2 ug/M3 (217) (giving approx. 4 ug/day exposure), similar to U.S. EPA and Health Canada guidelines (2,209). Thus most office mercury levels were found to far exceed the U.S. guidelines for chronic mercury exposure.
Use of high speed drill in removal or replacement has been found to create high volume of mercury vapor and respirable particles, and dental masks to only filter out about 40 % of such particles (219,247). Amalgam dust generated by high speed drilling is absorbed rapidly into the blood through the lungs and major organs such as the heart receive a high dose within minutes (219a,395c,503c). This produces high levels of exposure to patient and dental staff. Use of water spray, high velocity evacuation and rubber dam reduce exposure to patient and dental staff significantly, as seen in previous discussion. In addition to these measures researchers also advise all dental staff should wear face masks and patients be supplied with outside air (120,153). Some studies note that carpeting and rugs in dental offices should be avoided as it is a major repository of mercury (6,7,21d,71b,188,395c,503) For office's using an aspirator, at the dentist's breathing zone, mercury vapor concentrations of ten times the current occupational exposure limit of 25 microg/m3 were recorded after 20 minutes of continuous aspirator operation (219). A build up of amalgam contamination within the internal corrugated tubing of the aspirator was found to be the main source of mercury vapor emissions followed by particulate amalgam trapped within the vacuum motor. As the vacuum motor heated up with run time, mercury vapor emissions increased. It was found that the bacterial air exhaust filter (designed to clean the contaminated waste air entering the surgery) offered no protection to mercury vapor. Use of such measures along with a Clean-UpTM aspirator tip was found to reduce exposure to patient and staff approximately 90% (397).
3. Dentists were found to score significantly worse than a comparable control group on neurobehavioral tests of motor speed, visual scanning, and visuomotor coordination (69,70,123,249,290,395,531,1b), concentration, verbal memory, visual memory (68,69,70,249,290,395,531,1b), and emotional/mood tests (70,249,290,395,1b). Test performance was found to be proportional to exposure/body levels of mercury (68,70,249,290,395,1b). Significant adverse neurobehavioral effects were found even for dental personnel receiving low exposure levels (less than 4 ug/l Hg in urine)(290). This study was for dental personnel having mercury excretion levels below the 10th percentile of the overall dental population. Such levels are also common among the general population of non- dental personnel with several fillings. This study used a new methodology which used standard urine mercury levels as a measure of recent exposure, and urine levels after chelation with a chemical, DMPS, to measure body burden mercury levels. Thirty percent of dentists with more than average exposure were found to have neuropathies and visuographic dysfunction (395). Mercury exposure has been found to often cause disability in dental workers (230b,395c,503,504a, etc.)
Chelators like DMPS have been found after a fast to release mercury from cells in tissue to be available for excretion. This method was found to give enhanced precision and power to the results of the tests and correlations. Even at the low levels of exposure of the subjects of this study, there were clear demonstrated differences in test scores involving memory, mood, and motor skills related to the level of exposure pre and post chelation (290). Those with higher levels of mercury had deficits in both memory, mood, and motor function compared to those with lower exposure levels. And the plotted test results gave no indication of there existing a threshold below effects were not measurable. Mood scores including anger were found to correlate more strongly with pre chelation urine mercury levels; while toxicity symptoms, concentration, memory (vocabulary,word), and motor function correlated more strongly with post-chelation mercury levels. Another study using DMPS challenge test found over 20 times higher mercury excretion in dentists than in controls, indicating high body burden of mercury compared to controls (491).
Many dentists have been documented to suffer from mercury poisoning (6f,71,72,74,193,246,247,248,369,531) other than the documented neurological effects, such as chronic fatigue, muscle pains, stomach problems, tremors, motor effects, immune reactivity, etc. One of the common effects of chronic mercury exposure is chronic fatigue due to immune system overload and activation. Many studies have found this occurs frequently in dentists and dental staff along with other related symptoms- lack of ability to concentrate, chronic muscular pain, burnout, etc.(249,369,377,378,490,531,1b). In a group of dentists and dental workers suffering from extreme fatigue and tested by the immune test MELISA, 50% had autoimmune reaction to inorganic mercury and immune reactions to other metals used in dentistry were also common (369). Tests of controls did not find such immune reactions common. In another study nearly 50 % of dental staff in a group tested had positive autoimmune ANA titers compared to less than 1 % of the general population (35).
One dentist with severe symptoms similar to ALS improved after treatment for mercury poisoning (246), and another with Parkinson's disease recovered after reduction of exposure and chelation (248). Similar cases among those with other occupational exposure have been seen. A survey of over 60,000 U.S. dentists and dental assistants with chronic exposure to mercury vapor and anesthetics found increased health problems compared to controls, including significantly higher liver, kidney, and neurological diseases (99,193). A recent study in Scotland found similar results (531). Other studies reviewed found increased rates of brain cancer and allergies (99,193). Swedish male dentists were found to have an elevated standardized mortality ratio compared to other male academic groups (284). Dental workers and other workers exposed to mercury vapor were found to have a shortening of visual evoked potential latency and a decrease in amplitude, with magnitudes correlated with urine excretion levels (190). Dentists were also found to have a high incidence of radicular muscular neuralgia and peripheral sensory degradation (190,395,490). In one study of dentists and dental assistants, 50% reported significant irritability, 46% arthritic pains, and 45% headaches (490a), while another study found selective atrophy of muscle fibre in women dental workers (490b). In a study in Brazil(492), 62% of dental workers had urine mercury levels over 10 mg/L, and indications of mild to moderate mercury poisoning in 62% of workers. The most common problems were related to the central nervous system.
4. Both dental hygienists and patients get high doses of mercury vapor when dental hygienists polish or use ultrasonic scalers on amalgam surfaces (240,400,503c). Pregnant women or pregnant hygienist especially should avoid these practices during pregnancy or while nursing since maternal mercury exposure has been shown to affect the fetus and to be related to birth defects, SIDS, etc.(10,23,31c,37,38,110,142,146,401,19,31,50). Amalgam has been shown to be the main source of mercury in most infants and breast milk, which often contain higher mercury levels than in the mother's blood (20,61,112,186,287). Because of high documented exposure levels when amalgam fillings are brushed (182,222,348) dental hygienist are advised not to polish dental amalgams when cleaning teeth. Face masks worn by dental workers filter out only about 40% of small dislodged amalgam particles from drilling or polishing, and very little mercury vapor (247). Dental staff have been found to have significantly higher prevalence of eye problems, conjunctivitis, atopic dermatitis, and contact urticaria (247,156,74).
An epidemiological survey conducted in Lithuania on women working in dental offices (where Hg concentrations were < 80 ug/M3) had increased incidence of spontaneous abortions and breast pathologies that were directly related to the length of time on the job (277a). A large U.S. survey also found higher spontaneous abortion rate among dental assistants and wives of dentists (193), and another study found an increased risk of spontaneous abortions and other pregnancy complications among women working in dental surgeries (277b). A study of dentist and dental assistants in the Netherlands found 50% higher rates of spontaneous abortions, stillbirths, and congenital defects than for the control group (394), with unusually high occurrence of spina bifida. A study in Poland also found a significant positive association between mercury levels and occurrence of reproductive failures and menstrual cycle disorders, and concluded dental work to be an occupational hazard with respect to reproductive processes (401).
5. Body burden increases with time and older dentists have median mercury urine levels about 4 times those of controls, as well as higher brain and body burdens (1,34, 68-74,99), and poor performance on memory tests (68, 69,70,249,290) Some older dentists have mercury levels in some parts of the brain as much as 80 times higher than normal levels (14,34,99). Dentists and dental personnel experience significantly higher levels of neurological, memory, musculoskeletal, visiomotor, mood, and behavioral problems, which increase with years of exposure (1,34,68-73,88,123,188,246,247,248,249,290,395). Even dental personnel with relatively low exposure (urine Hg<4 ug/l) were found to have significant neurological effects (290) and was found to be correlated with body burden of mercury. Most studies find dentists have increased levels of irritability and tension (1,490,504b), high rates of drug dependancy and disability due to psychological problems (15,1b), and higher suicide rates than the general white population (284,493,1b), but one study found rates in same range as doctors.
6. Female dental technicians who work with amalgam tend to have increased menstrual disturbances (275,401,10,38), significantly reduced fertility and lowered probability of conception (10,24,38,121), increased spontaneous abortions (10,31,38,277,433), and their children have significantly lower average IQ compared to the general population (1,279,541,38,110). Populations with only slightly increased levels of mercury in hair had decreases in academic ability (3). Effects are directly related to length of time on the job (277). The level of mercury excreted in urine is significantly higher for female dental assistants than dentists due to biological factors (171,172,173,247,124a). Several dental assistants have been diagnosed with mercury toxicity and some have died of related health effects (32,245,246,247,248). From the medical register of births since 1967 in Norway, it can be seen that dental nurse/assistants have a clearly increased risk of having a deformed child or spontaneous abortion (433). Female dentists have increased rates of spontaneous abortion and perinatal mortality (193,38,10,433)),compared to controls. A study in Poland found a much higher incidence of birth defects among female dentist and dental assistants than normal (10). A chronically ill dental nurse diagnosed with mercury sensitivity recovered after replacement of fillings and changing jobs (60), and a female dentist recovered from Parkinson's after mercury detox (248). Some studies have found increased risk of lung, kidney, brain, and CNS system cancers among dental workers (14,34,99,143,283).
7. Many homes of dentists have been found to have high levels of mercury contamination used by dentists bringing mercury home on shoes and clothes(188).
8. Nationwide the dental industry is the third largest user of mercury, using over 45 tons of mercury per year (26), and most of this mercury eventually ends up in the environment. Amalgam from dental offices is by far the largest contributor of mercury into sewers and sewer plants (84,13b,19,26), with mercury from replaced amalgam fillings and crown bases the largest source. As much as 10% of prepared new amalgam becomes waste. This mercury also accumulates in building sewer pipes and septic tanks or drain fields where used, creating toxic liabilities. Unlike most European countries and Canada which have much more stringent regulation of mercury that requires amalgam separators in dental offices (26,28,42), the U.S. does not and most dental offices do not have them. The discharge into sewers at a dental office per dentist using amalgam without amalgam separators is between 270 and 570 milligrams per day (84,26). For the U.S. with approximately 170,000 dentists working with amalgam (26), this would be approximately 16,000 kg/yr (or slightly over 16 tons/year of mercury into sewers and thus into streams, lakes, bays, and sewer sludge. In Canada the annual amount discharged is about 2 tons per year (28), with portions ending up in waters/fish, some in landfills and cropland, and in air emissions. The recently enacted regulations on dental office waste are expected to reduce emissions by at least 63% by 2005, compared to 2000 (28).
A study in Michigan estimated that dental mercury is responsible for approximately 14 % of mercury discharged to streams (85). An EPA study (13) found that dental office waste were responsible for similar levels of mercury in lakes, bays, and streams in other areas throughout the U.S. A Canadian study found similar levels of mercury contribution from dental offices into lakes and streams, and surveys of dental office disposal practices found the majority violated disposal regulations, and dangerous levels of mercury are accumulating in pipes and septic tanks from many offices(19,41,26).
The total discharge into sewers from dental amalgam at individual homes and businesses is almost as large as that from dental offices, since the average person with amalgam fillings excretes in body waste approx. 100 micrograms per day of mercury (86,87,89,520). This has also been confirmed by medical labs (13c), such as Doctors Data Lab in Chicago and Biospectron in Sweden, which do thousands of stool tests per year and is consistent with studies measuring levels in residental sewers by municipalities (13b). In the U.S. this would amount to approximately 7300 kilograms per year into sewers or over 8 tons per year. Thus the amount of mercury being excreted from dental amalgam is more than enough to cause dangerous levels of mercury in fish in most U.S. streams into which sewers empty. Studies by Oak Ridge National Laboratory (U.S. Dept. of Energy) and other studies have confirmed high levels of mercury in sewers and sewer sludge (42,43). According to an EPA study the majority of U.S. sewerage plants cannot meet the new EPA guideline for mercury discharge into waterways that was designed to prevent bioaccumulation in fish and wildlife due to household sewer mercury levels (15,13). Over 3 tons of mercury flows into the Chesapeake Bay annually from sewer plants, with numerous resulting fish consumption advisories for that area and similar for other areas (17). The EPA discharge rule had been reduced due to a National Academy of Sciences report of July 2000 that found that even small levels of mercury in fish result in unacceptable risks of birth defects and developmental effects in infants (18).
(1) Sandra Denton MD; & J.Butler; Proceedings of the First International Conference on Biocompatability, Life Sciences Press, Oct 1990, p133-145.
(2) U.S. Environmental Protection Agency(EPA), 1996, "Integrated Risk Information System, National Center for Invironmental Assessment, Cincinnati, Ohio(& web).
(6) T.M.Schulein et al,"Survey of Des Moines area dental offices for Mercury vapor",Iowa Dent. J. 70(1):35-36 1984; & D.W. Jones et al, "Survey of Mercury vapor in dental offices in Atlantic Canada", Can. Dent. Assoc. J. 4906:378-395, 1983; & R.W. Miller et al,"Report on Independent survey taken of Austin dental offices for mercury contamination", Texas Dent. J. 100(1): 6-9, 1983; & A.Skuba, "Survey for Mercury vapor in Manitoba dental offices", J Can. Dent. Assoc. 50(7):517-522, 1984; & R.H. Roydhouse et al, "Mercury in dental offices" J Can Dent Assoc., 51(2):156-158, 1985; & RT McNerney et al, "Mercury Contamination in the Dental Office: A Review", NYS Dental Journal, Nov 1979, p457-458; Button, Mercury poisoning, Virginia Dental J, 1980, 57(2):19-21; & Mercury in the Office, ADA News, Nov 21, 1983.
(7) L.Kantor et al,"Mercury vapor in the dental office-does carpeting make a difference?", JADA 103(9):402-407,1981; & G.F.Chop et al, "Mercury vapor related to manipulation of amalgam and to floor surfaces" .Oper. Dent. 8(1):23-27,1983; & G.C.Battistone et al, "Mercury as Occupational Hazard in Dentistry", Clinical Chemistry and Chemical Toxicity of Metals, 1977, 219:205-8; & Recommendations in dental mercury hygine, JADA, 1984, Oct, p617; & National Inst of Dental Research, Workshop: Biocompatibility of metals in dentistry, JADA Sept 1984.
(8) Editorial, J California Dental Assoc., 1984, 12:37.
(9) Dentist the Menace: The Uncontrolled Release of Dental Mercury in the Environment, Mercury Policy Project and Healthcare Without Harm, June 2002, www.mercurypolicy.org/new/documents/DentistTheMenace.pdf
(10) Proceedings of Intl Conference on Mercury Hazards in Dental Practice, Sept 2-4,1981 , Glasgow Scot, Dept. Of Clinical Physics and Bio-Engineering,(Gordon - Pregnancy in Female Dentists- a Mercury Hazard) & (several survey studies comparing level of mercury in hair of dental staff vs controls).
(11) Lamm O et al, "Subclinical effects of exposure to inorganic mercury revealed by somatosensory-evoked potentials. Eur Neurol, 1985, 24:237-243;
(13) U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Mercury Sourcebook: a Guide to Help Your Community Identify and Reduce Releases of Elemental Mercury. Section III, Mercury Use: Dentists, p249-292.
www.epa.gov/grtlakes/bnsdocs/hgsbook/index.html & http://home.xnet.com/~aadr/thetest.htm ; & (b) Association of Metropolitan Sewerage Agencies(AMSA), Evaluation of Domestic Sources of Mercury , Aug 2000, www.amsa-cleanwater.org/pubs/mercury/mercury.cfm; & (c) Doctors Data Lab, Chicago, Il, Fecal Elements test, www.doctorsdata.com
(14) Magnus Nylander, "Mercury Concentrations in the human brain and kidneys in relaiton to exposure from dental amalgam fillings",Proceedings, ICBM 1988; & M.Nylander et al, "Mercury concentrations in the human brain and kidneys and exposure from amalgam fillings", Swed Dent J 11:179-187, 1987; & Prosth Dent 1987, 58:704-707.
(15) Household mercury complicates EPA Rule, A. Huslin, Washingtoo Post, Aug 26,2000, pg B2.
(16) K. Ott et. al. Mercury burden due to amalgam fillings Dtsch. Zahnarztl Z 39(9):199-205, 1984
(17)United States Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Novermber 2000, The National Listing of Fish and Wildlife Advisories: Summary of 1999 Data, EPA-823-F-00-20, http://www.epa.gov/ost/fish/advisories/general.html; & New England Governors and Eastern Canadian Premiers Environment Committe Mercury Action Plan, June 1998.
(18) Toxicological Effects of Methylmercury (2000), pp. 304-332: Risk Characterization and Public Health Implications, Nat'l Academy Press 2000. www.nap.edu
(19) International DAMS Newsletter, Volume XIII, Spring/Summer 2000, & AMSA, Mercury Pollution Prevention Program, Larry Walker Associates, 2001 (20) M.J.Vimy,Takahashi,Y, Lorscheider,FL Maternal -Fetal Distribution of Mercury Released From Dental Amalgam Fillings. Dept of Medicine and Medical Physiology , faculty of Medicine, Univ of Calgary, Calgary Alberta Canada, 1990 & Amer.J.Physiol.,1990, 258:R939-945; & N.D. Boyd, J.Vimy, et al," Mercury from dental "Silver tooth fillings impairs sheep kidney function", Am.J. Physiol. 261 (Regulatory Integrative Comp Physiol. 30):R1010-R1014, 1991.- & L.Hahn et al, Distribution of mercury released from amalgam fillings into monkey tissues", FASEB J.,1990, 4:5536
(21) R.A.Goyer,"Toxic effects of metals"in: Caserett and Doull's Toxicology- TheBasic Science of Poisons, McGraw-Hill Inc., N.Y., 1993; & Goodman, Gillman, The Pharmacological Basis of Therapeutics, Mac Millan Publishing Company, N.Y. 1985; & Encyclopedia of Occumpational Health and Safety, International Labour Office, Geneva, Vol 2, 3rd Edition.; Arena, Drew, Poisoning. Fifth Edition. Toxicology-Symptoms-Treatment, Charles C. Thomas-Publisher, Springfield, Il 1986;
(23) W.D.Kuntz "Maternal and chord blood mercury background levels; Longitudinal surveilance". Am J Obstet and Gynecol. 143(4): 440-443., 1982
(24) J.B. Brodsky, "Occupational exposure to Mercury in dentistry and pregnancy outcome", JADA111(11):779-780., 1985
(26) Dentist the Menace: The Uncontrolled Release of Dental Mercury in the Environment, Mercury Policy Project and Healthcare Without Harm, June 2002, www.mercurypolicy.org/new/documents/DentistTheMenace.pdf & S.M. Jasindki, U.S. Bureau of Mines, The Materials Flow of Mercury in the U.S. , Information Circular 9412, 1994; & United Nations Environment Program, "Global Mercury Assessment-Appendix:Overview of Existing and Future National Actions, April 25 2002 Draft.
(28) Canada-wide Standards: A Pollution Prevention Program for Dental Amalgam Waste, J Can Dent Assoc 2001; 67:270-3 www.cda-adc.ca/jcda/vol-67/issue-5/270.html
(32) T.A.Cook et al, "Fatal mercury intoxication in a dental surguery assistant", British Dent Journal, 1969, 127:533-555.
(34) PatrickStöörtebecker,Associate Professor of Neurology, Karolinska Institute, Stockholm. Mercury Poisoning from Dental amalgam-A Hazard to the Human Brains, ISBN: 0-941011001-1 & Dental Caries as a Cause of Nervous Disorders, Bioprobe.Inc.,http://www.bioprobe.com; & Neurology for Barefoot Doctors, Stortebecker Foundation for Research, 1988: & J Canadian Dental Assoc, 33(6): 300-
(37) A. Anttila et al, Finnish Inst. Of Occupational Health, "Effects of paternal occupation exposureon spontaneous abortion", J of Occup & Environ Med, 1995, 37(8):915-21.
(38) S.Ziff and M.Ziff, Infertility and Birth Defects: Is Mercury from Dental Fillings a Hidden Cause?, Bio-Probe, Inc. ISBN: 0-941011-03-8.1987
(41) News Release, April 7, 2000, MONTREAL URBAN COMMUNITY TO LEGISLATE RECYCLING OF MERCURY BY DENTAL CLINICS; APPROVED BY QUEBEC ENVIRONMENT MINISTER, contact: Dr. Pierre Larose (514) 747-4949 (b) City of Toronto, by-law No. 457-2000, To regulate the discharge of sewage and land drainage, enacted by Council, July 6, 2000;
(42) Lindberg, S.G., et al. 2001. Methylated mercury species in municipal waste landfill gas sampled in Florida, USA. Atmospheric Environment 35(Aug):4011-15.; & Lindberg, S.G. et al, Airborne Emissions of mercury from municipal solid waste: measurements from 3 Florida landfills, JAWMA, 2002 ; & Janet Raloff, Landfill gas found to have high levels of highly toxic dimethyl form of mercury. Science News July 7, 2001; Vol. 160, No.1; & Study Says Landfill Bacteria Worsen Mercury Pollution, Solid Waste Report, Vol. 32 No. 28 July 12, 2001 Page 217; & U.S. EPA, Air Emissions of landfill gas pollutants at Fresh Kills Landfill, Staten Island, NJ, December 1995, NTIS Order number PB97-500508INC 04/20/2001 [www.ntis.gov/fcpc/cpn7634.htm];
(43) Methyl Mercury Contamination and Emission to the Atmosphere from Soil Amended with Municipal Sewage Sludge, Anthony Carpi, toxicology, Journal Environ. Quality 26:1650-1655 (1997) Genetic Analysis of Drinking Water www.toxicsaction.org/tacsludgereport10_30_01.pdf; & Department of Energy (DOE) Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL), Press Release: ORNL finds green plants fertilized by sewer sludge emit organic and inorganic mercury, http://www.ornl.gov/Press_Releases/archive/mr19960117-01.html; & Maine Toxics Action Center, Toxic sludge: threatening farm lands and public health, Oct 2001. www.toxicsaction.org/tacsludgereport10_30_01.pdf; & National Research Council, NAS, Biosolids Applied to Land: Advancing Standards and Practices , www.nap.edu.
(49) Amalgam Hazards - an assesment of research By Irwin Mandel DDS Assoc. Dean for Research School of Dental and Oral Surgery Columbia University New York Published JADA Vol. 122 August 1991
(57) N.Campbell & M.Godfrey,"Confirmation of Mercury Retention and Toxicity using DMPS provocation" ,J of Advancement in Medicine, 7(1) 1994;(80 cases);
(59) Dahhan, Orfaly, Electrocardiogrphic Changes in Mercury Poisoning, Amer J of Cardiology, Aug, 1964.
(60) V.D.M.Stejskal,Dept. Of Clinical Chemistry, Karolinska Institute, Stockholm, Sweden "MEMORY LYMPHOCYTE IMMUNO-STIMULATION ASSAY -MELISA" & VDM Stejskal et al, "MELISA: tool for the study of metal allergy", Toxicology in Vitro, 8(5):991-1000, 1994.
(61) E.Lutz et al, " "Concentrations of mercury in brain and kidney of fetuses and infants", Journal of Trace Elements in Medicine and Biology, 1996,10:61-; & G.Drasch et al, "Mercury Burden of Human Fetal and Infant Tissues", Eur J Pediatr 153:607-610,1994
(63) K.Peiper et al, "Study of mercury uptake in dental students",Dtsch Zahnarzt Z 1989, 44(9):714-
(64) D.Steinberg et al, Dept. Of Oral Biology, Hebrew Univ.,Med Sci,1995, 31(7):428-32.
(68) K.A.Ritchie et al,Univ. Of Glasgow,"Psychomotor testing of dentists with chronic low level mercury exposure", J Dent Res 74:420, IADR Abstract 160(1995): & Occup Environ Med, 1995, 52(12): 813-7 (69) D Gonzalez-Ramirez et al; "Uninary mercury, porphyrins, and neurobehavioral changes of dental workers in Monterrey, Mexico", J Pharmocology and Experimental Therapeutics,, 272(1): 264-274,1995 (70) D.Echeverria et al, Batelle Center for Public Health Reseach, Seattle, "Behavioral Effects of Low Level Exposure to HgO Among Dentists", Neurotoxicology & Teratology; 17(2):161-168(1995);
(71) S.C.Foo et al, "Neurobehavioral effects in Occupational Chemical Exposure", Environmental Research, 60(2): 267-273, 1993;& (b) D.G. Mantyla et al, "Mercury toxicity in the dental office: a neglected problem", JADA, 92:1189-1194, 1976; &(c) A case of mercury contamination of a dental suite, JADA, 1976, Vol 92; & (d) Symington D, Mercury poisoning in dentists, J Soc Occup Med, 1980, 30:37-39.
(72) D.L.Smith,"Mental effects of mercury poisoning",South Med J 71:904-5,1978.
(73) M.E.Cianciola et al, "Epidemiologic assessment of measures used to indicate exposure to mercury vapor", Toxicol Eniviron Health, 1997, 52(1):19-33.
(74) A.C.Bittner et al, "Behavior effects of low level mercury exposure among dental professionals", Neurotoxicology & Teratology, 1998, 20(4):429-39. (84)Arenholt-Bindslev, D.; Larsen, A.H. "Mercury Levels and Discharge in Waste Water from Dental Clinics" Water Air Soil Pollution, 86(1-4):93-9, (1996); & Assoc. of Metropolitan Sewerage Agencies(AMSA),
(85)Rowe NH; Sidhu KS; Chadzynski L; Babcock RF. School of Dentistry, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, USA. J Mich Dent Assoc 1996 Feb;78(2):32-6
(86)Skare I; Engqvist A. National Istitute of Occupational Health, Human exposure to mercury and silver released from dental amalgam restorations. Arch Environ Health 1994 Sep-Oct;49(5):384-9.
(87)Bjorkman L; Sandborgh-Englund G; Ekstrand J. Mercury in saliva and feces after removal of amalgam fillings. Toxicol Appl Pharmacol 1997 May;144(1):156-62
(89) Ekstrand J; Bjorkman L; Edlund C; Sandborgh-Englund G. Toxicological aspects on the release and systemic uptake of mercury from dental amalgam. Eur J Oral Sci 1998 Apr;106(2 Pt 2):678-86
(88) M.E.Godfrey, "Chronic alilments related to amalgams", J.Adv Med,1990, 3:247
(99) M.Nylander et al, Mercury accumulation in tissues from dental staff and controls", Swedish Dental Journal, 13:235-243, 1989; & M.Nylander et al, Br J Ind Med 1991, 48(11):729-34; & "Mercury in pituitary glands of dentists", Lancet,442, Feb 26, 1986
(110) N.Roeveld et al, "Mental retardation and parental occupation", Br J Ind Med 50(10): 945-954, 1993. (112) A.Oskarsson et al, "Mercury in breast milk in relation to fish consumption and amalgam", Arch environ Health, 1996,51(3):234-41; & Analyst,120(3): 765- 770, 1995; & Archives of Environmental Health, 51(3):234-41, May 1995; & Drasch et al, "Mercury in human colostrum and early breast milk", + J.Trace Elem. Med.Biol., 1998,12:23-27. (120) L.Pohl, Dept. of Dental Materials Science, Umea Univ., Sweden, "The dentist's exposure to elemental mercury during clinical work", Acta Odontol Scand,v53,n1,p44-48,1995.
(121) A.S.Rowland et al,"The Effect of Occupational Exposure to mercury vapor on the fertility of female dental assistants",Occupational & Environmental Medicine, v55,n1,1994
(123) I. Skare et al, "Mercury exposure of different origins among dentists and dental nurses", ScandJ Work Environ Health, 16:340-347, 1990.
(124) I.Akesson et al, Dept. of Occupational Medicine, "Status of mercury and selenium in dental personel", Arch Environ Health, 46(2): 102-109, 1991 & S.B.Chang et al, Anal Toxicol , 1987, 11(4):149-53.
(138) D. Zander et al,"Studies on Human Exposure to Mercuy Amalgam Fillings", Ubl Hyg, 1990, 190: 325-
(142) M.E. Ariza et al, "Mercury mutagenisis", biochem Mol Toxicol, 1999, 13(2):107-12; & M.E.Ariza et al, "Mutagenic effect of mercury", InVivo 8(4):559-63,1994.
(143) P.Boffetta et al, "Carciagenicity of mercury", Scand J Work Environ Health, 19(1):1-7,1993;& J Occup Med, 36(11):1260-64, 1994.
(146) Gerhard et al, Zentralbl Gynakol, 1992, 114, 593-602: & I.Gerhard, Therapeutikon, 1993, 7, 478-91; & E.Roller et al, J Fert Reprod, 1995, 3, 31-33; & U.Vallon et al, J Fert Reprod 1995, 3,31.
(153) International Acadamy of oral Medicine and Toxicology, "A Scientific Response to the American Dental Association Special Report and Statement of Confidence in Dental Amalgam, IAOMT, POB 608531, Orlando,32860-8531.
(154) K.Nordlind et al, "Patch test reactions to metal salts in patients with oral mucosal lesions associated with amalgam fillings", Contact Dermatitis,1992, 27:3, 157-160; & E.Djerasci et al, Int Dent J 19:481-8,1969; & A.M.Robinson et al, Contact Dermatitis due to Amalgam fillings",Arch Dermatol Syphilol, 59:p116-8,1949; & R.R.White et al, Mercury hypersensitivity among dental students, JADA, 92:124-7,1976;
(156) E.G.Miller et al, "Prevelence of Mercury Hypersensitivity among Dental Students", J Dent Res. 64:Abstract 1472, p338,1985; & D.Kawahara et al, "Epidemiologic Study of occupational Contact Dermatitis in the Dental Clinic", Contact Dermatitis, Vol 28, No.2, pp114-5,1993.
(171) A.Jokstad, "Mercury excretion and ocuupational exposure of dental personnel",Community Dent Oral Epidemiology, 18(3):143-8,1990.
(172) B.Nilsson et al, Dept. of Environmental Medicine, Univ. Of Umea, "Urinary mercury excretion in dental personnel", Swed Dent J, 1986,10(6):221-32; & Swed Dent J, 1986, 10(1-2):1-14; & Science of the Total Environment, 1990, 94(3):179-85.
(173) D.Zander et al, "Mercury exposure of male dentists, female dentists, and dental aides", Zentralbl Hyg Umweltmed, 1992,193(4):318-28.
(178) J.Lenihan et al, "Mercury hazards in dental practice", Br Dent J, 1973, 135: 363-376; & G.S.Nixon et al, J Oral Ther Pharm, 1965, 1: 512.
(186) C.N.Ong et al, "Concentrations of heavy metal in maternal and umbilical cord blood", Biometals, 6(1):61-66, 1993; & J.Yang et al, "Maternal-fetal transfer of metallic mercury via placenta and milk", Ann Clin Lab Sci, 27(2):135-141, Mar 1997); & Y.K.Soong et al, J of Formosa Medical Assoc., 1991, 90(1): 59-65; & T. Suzuki et al, Dept. Of Human Ecology, Univ. Of Tokyo, "Mercury in human amnotic fluid",Scand J Work Environ & Health, 3:32-35,1977; & D.A. Spencer et al, "Mercury Concentration in Cord Blood", Arch Dis Child, 1988, 63(2):202-3.
(188) I.I. Ship et al, School of Dental Research, Univ of Penn., Mar 1983; & P.A.Gronla et al, JADA, 1970, 81:923-25.
(193) E.N.Cohen et al, "Occupational disease in dentistry", Amer. Dent Assoc, 1980, 101(1): 21-31; & G.Bjorklund, "risk evaluation of the occupational environment in dental care", Tidsski Nor Laegeforen, 1991, 111(8): 948-50; & A.Ahlbom et al, :Dentists, dental nurses, and brain tumors", Br Med J, 1986, 202(6521):662.
(195) B.Moller-Madsen et al, "Mercury concentrations in blood of Danish dentists", Scand J Dent Res, 1988, 96(1): 56-9.
(209) Mark Richardson, Environmental Health Directorate,Health Canada, Assessment ofMercury Exposure and Risks from Dental Amalgam, 1995, Final Report; & G.M. Richardson et al,"A Monte Carlo Assessment of Mercury Exposure and Risks from Dental Amalgam", Human and Ecological Risk Assessment, 2(4): 709-761.
(217) Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, U.S. Public Health Service, "Toxicological Profile for Mercury"(ATSDRTP93/10), 1994; & Apr 19,1999 Media Advisory,New MRLs for toxic substances, MRL:elemental mercury vapor/inhalation/ chronic & http://atsdr1.atsdr.cdc.gov:8080/97list.html.
(219) D.E. Cutright et al, Dept. Of Prosthodontics, Temple Univ."Systemic mercury levels caused by inhaling mist during high-speed amalgam grinding", J Oral Med 28(4):100-104,1973 ; & A.Nimmo et al, "Inhalation during removal of amalgam restorations", J Prosthet Dent, 63(2):1990 Feb, 228-33; & Stonehouse CA, Newman AP. Mercury vapour release from a dental aspirator. Br Dent J 2001 May 26;190(10):558-60 & http://atsdr1.atsdr.cdc.gov:8080/97list.html.
(230) S. Rogers, M.D., Chemical Sensitivity, Keats Publishing; & Bauer,F; The toxicity of mercury in Dental Amalgam, CDA Journal, June 1982.
(240) K.W. Hinkleman et al, "Mercury release during ultrasonic scaling of amalgam", J Dent Res. 74(SE):131, Abstract 960, 1995;
(245) P.Lokken, "Lethal mercury poisoning in a dental assistant", Nor Tannlaegeforen Tid, Apr 1971, 81(4):275-288 & R. Wronski et al, "A csse of panarteritis nodoa assciated with chronic mercury poisoning", Dtsch Med Wohenschr, Mar 1977, 102(9):323-325.
(246) K.Iyer et al, "Mercury Poisoning in a dentist", Arch Neurol,1976, 33:788-790.
(247) E.C.Lonnroth et al, "Adverse health reactions in skin, eyes, and respiratory tract among dental personnel in Sweden", Swed Dent J, 1998, 22(1-2): 33-45; & L.Kanerva et al,"Occupational contact urticaria", Contact Dermatitis, 1996, 35(4): 229-33.
(248) Y.Finkelstein,"The enigma of parkinsonism in chronic borderline mercury intoxication, resolved by challenge with penicillamine. Neurotoxicology, 1996, Spring, 17(1): 291-5.
(249) C.H.Ngim et al, Dept. of Occupational Medicine, Univ. Of Singapore,"Chronic neurobehavioral effects of elemental mercury in dentists", Brithish Journal of Industrial Medicine, 1992; 49(11):782-790. (253) S.Langworth et al, Dept. of Occupational Medicine, Huddinge Univ. Hospital, "Exposure to mercury vapor and impact on health in the dental profession in Sweden", J Dent Res, 1997, 76(7):1397-1404.
(260) J.S. Woods et al, "Urinary porphyrin profiles as biomarker of mercury exposure: studies on dentists", J Toxicol Environ Health, 40(2-3):1993, p235-; & "Altered porphyrin metabolites as a biomarker of mercury exposure and toxicity", Physiol Pharocol, 1996,74(2):210-15, & Canadian J Physiology and Pharmacology, Feb 1996; & M.D Martin et al, "Validity of urine samples for low-level mercury exposure assessment and relationship to porphyrin and creatinine excretion rates", J Pharmacol Exp Ther, Apr 1996 & J.S. Woods et al, "Effects of Porphyinogenic Metals on Coproporphrinogen Oxidase in Liver and Kidney" Toxicology and Applied Pharmacology,1989,97: 183-190,
(275) L.M.Mikhailova et al, "Influence of occupational factors on disease of reproductive organs", Pediatriya Akusherstvoi Ginekologiya,33(6):56-58,1971
(277) Wiksztrajtis & B. Baranski, "Epidemiological survey of Lithunia dental offices", Med. Pr., 24:248, 1973. (& 38)
(279)Jenkins, Biological Monitoring of Toxic Trace Metals, Vol 1, Biological Monitoring and Surveillance, U.S. EPA, Sept 1980, p3; & M.J.Gonzalez et el, "Mercury in human hair; residents of Madrid, Spain", Arch Environ Health, 1985, 40(4):225-8; & D.Airey, Mercury in human hair: a review" Environmental Health Perspectives,1983. 52:303-316; & "Total mercury concentrations in human hair from 13 countries", Sci Total Environ 1983, 32(2): 157-80; & S.A.Katz et al, "Use of hair analysis for evaluating mercury intoxication of the human body", J Appl Toxicol, 1992, 12(2): 79-84; & Wilhelm M; Muller F; Idel H. Biological monitoring of mercury vapor exposure by scalp hair analysis in comparison to blood and urine. Toxicol Lett 1996 Nov;88(1-3):221-6; & Ziff, Validity of Hair Anlysis for Diagnosis of Mercury Status, Bioprobe Newsletter, Jan 1988, www.bioprobe.com.
(283) A.Ahlbom et al, "Dentists, dental nurses, and brain tumors", British Medical Journal, Vol292, March 8, 1986, p262.
(284) R.Glass, "Mortality of New England Dentists", U.S. Dept. Of Health, Public Health Service, Washington D.C., 1966; & R. Simpson et al, "Suicide rates of Iowa dentists", J. Of Amer. Dental Assoc.,1983,v107:441-; & B.B.Arnetz et al, "Suicide among Swedish Dentists", Scand J Soc Med, 1987, 15(4):243-6; & Vital Statistics of the U.S.-1970, National Center for Health Statistics, Table 1-26, "Deaths from 281 Selected Causes, by Age, Race and Sex, death statistics from 31 states; & U.S. Surgeon General Report, 2000
(287) M.C. Newland et al,"Behavioral consequences of in utero exposure to mercury vapor", Toxicology & Applied Pharmacology, 1996, 139: 374-386; & K.Warfvinge et al, "Mercury distribution in neonatal cortical areas ...after exposure to mercury vapor", Environmental Research, 1994, 67:196-208.
(290) D. Echeverria et al, Neurobehavioral effects from exposure to dental amalgam" FASEB J, Aug 1998, 12(11):971-980.
(303) H.V.Aposhian et al, "mobilization of Mercury in Humans by DMPS", Envir. Health Perspectives, Vol 106, Supp. 4, Aug.1998; & "Urinary Mercury after Administration DMPS", FASEB J., 6: 2472-
(395) Baranski B. Environmental Health Perspectives 1993; 101(suppl 2): 85-90; & & Baranski B. Effect of mercury on the sexual cycle and prenatal and postnatal development of progeny. Med Pr 1981; 32(4): 271-6; & Hooper A, Mercury poisoning in Dentistry, Wisconsin Medical J, Aug 1980, vol 79; & Shapiro IM, Cornblath DR, Sumner AJ. Neurophysiological and neuropsychological function in mercury- exposed dentists. The Lancet 1982; 1:1147-1150; & Szzell BP and Oler J. Chronic low-level mercury exposure and neuropsychological functioning. J of Clin and Exper Neuropsych 1986; 8:581-93
(396) Epidemiologisk undersokning av fosterkador hos 1.2 milj. barn, fodda sedan 1967; Norge yrkesmed. Avd. Haukelands sykehus. Aftenposton 6 mpv 1997.
(397) Hudecek R, Danersund A. Removal of Incompatible Dental Material in Patients with Intolerance of Dental Materials. In: Amalgam and Health: The Swedish Council for Planning and Research Coordination, 1999, p78-84.
(398) Saengsirinavin C, Pringsulaka P. Mercury levels in urine and head hair of dental personnel. J Dent Assoc Thai 1988; 38(4): 170-9.
(399) Herber RF, Wibowo AA. Exposure of dentists and assistants to mercury: levels in urine and hair related to conditions of practice. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol 1988; 16(3): 153-8;
(400) Kim DE, Song KB, Kim YJ. Mercury contents in hair of dental personnel and evaluation of various agents suppressing mercury vaporization. Taehan Chikkwa Uisa Hyophoe Chi 27(7): 649-59.
(401) Sikorski R, Juszkiewicz T. Women in dental surguries: reproductive hazards in occupational exposure to mercury. Int Arch Occup Environ Health 1987; 59(6):551-7.
(407) Eedy DJ, Burrows D, Dlifford T, Fay A. Elevated T cell subpopulations in dental students. J prosthet Dent 1990; 63(5):593-6.
(433) Epidemiologisk undersokning av fosterkador hos 1.2 milj. barn, fodda sedan 1967; Norge yrkesmed. Avd. Haukelands sykehus. Aftenposton 6 mpv 1997.
(490) Rojas M, Olivet C . Occupational exposure and health effects of metallic mercury among dentists and dental assistants: a preliminary study. Valencia, Venezuela; Acta Cient Venez 2000;51(1):32-8; & Nadorfy-Lopez E, Bello B. Skeletal muscle abnormalities associated with occupational exposure to mercury vapours. Histol Histopathol 2000 Jul;15(3):673-82.
(491) Nerudova J, Cabelkova Z, Cikrt M; Mobilization of mercury by DMPS in occupationally exposed workers. Int J Occup Med Environ Health 2000;13(2):131-46.
(492) Glina DM, Satut BT, Andrade EM. Occupational exposure to metallic mercury in the dentist's office of a public primary health care clinic in the city of Sao Paulo. Cad Saude Publica 1997 Apr;13(2):257-267.
(493) Moller AT, Spangenberg JJ. Stress and coping amongst South African dentists in private practice. J Dent Assoc S Afr 1996 Jun;51(6):347-57; & Stefansson CG, Wicks S. Health care occupations and suicide in Sweden 1961-1985. Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol 1991 Dec;26(6):259-64
(503) Rupp, Paffenberger, Significance to health of mercury used in dental practice, Reports of Councils and Bureaus, JADA, Vol 182, June 1971; & Rao, Hefferen, Biocompatibility of Dental Materials, Vol III,D.C. Smith and D.F. Williams, Eds., CRC Press, Boca Raton, Fl 1982, Toxicity of Mercury; & Center for Chemical Hazard Assessment, Potential Occupational Hazards: Dentistry, Syracuse Research, Contract No.210-78-0019, 1980; & Merck Manuel, 14th Edition, p1552.
(504) Gosselin, Smith, Hodge, Clincial Toxicology of Commercial Products, Williams and Wilkins Publisher, Baltimore, 5th Ed, 1984; & Katzung, MD, Basic Clinical Pharmacology, 2nd Ed.; & Thienes, Haley, Clinical Toxicology, Lea & Febeger, Philadelphia, 5th Ed, 1972.
(520) Health effects of amalgam fillings and results of replacement of amalgam filings. Over 1500 medical study references (most in Medline) and approx. 60,000 clinical cases of amalgam replacement followed by doctors. www.home.earthlink.net/~berniew1/amalg6.html
(531) Dr. Ewan Macdonald et al , Evidence dentists have higher than normal levels of mercury exposure and adverse health effects, Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, May 2002; & Wesnes K., A pilot study of the effect of low level exposure to mercury on the health of dental surgeons. Occupational & Environmental Medicine. 52(12):813-7, 1995 Dec.
(541) Razagui IB, Haswell SJ; . Mercury and selenium concentrations in maternal and neonatal scalp hair: relationship to amalgam-based dental treatment received during pregnancy. Biol Trace Elem Res 2001 Jul;81(1):1-19; & Cernichiari E, Brewer R, Myers GJ, Marsh DO, Berlin M, Clarkson TW; Monitoring methyl mercury during pregnancy: maternal hair predicts fetal brain exposure. Neurotoxicology 1995 Winter;16(4):729005-10:
Back to the top
Back to Mercury Poisoned main page