Consumers In Dark Over Risks Of New Light Bulbs

Just before all the knees jerk too much . . . the average CF bulb contains 5mg of mercury *vapour*. The average thermometer contains 500mg of *liquid* mercury, and most manual thermostats contain 3000mg of liquid mercury. Regular flourescent bulbs have about 10mg of mercury vapour.

So, if you broke a thermometer, you'd have to break 100 CF bulbs to equal that amount of mercury. Silver Amalgam dental fillings have more mercury in them than a CF bulb does, and constant exposure to your fillings results in no detectable mercury in your organs.

---
The preceding comment deals with mature subject matter, however immaturely presented. Viewer discretion is advised.

No detectable mercury in your organs because none is looked for! It is amazing what can be ignored with very little effort. The question is why should we go from non toxic light bulbs to toxic light bulbs? The power industries refuse to generate power using regenerative energy sources because they couldn't justify highway robbery if they did, so please don't use energy consumption as a reason to poison ourselves.

I'm confused. If the new bulbs only contain 5 mg of mercury vapour and the poster above says current bulbs contain 10, then why aren't similar procedures to the one in the article carried out when breaking lighbulbs?

Mercury exposure from "silver" tooth fillings: emerging evidence questions a traditional dental paradigm

FL Lorscheider, MJ Vimy and AO Summers
Department of Medical Physiology, Faculty of Medicine, University of Calgary, Alberta, Canada.

For more than 160 years dentistry has used silver amalgam, which contains approximately 50% Hg metal, as the preferred tooth filling material. During the past decade medical research has demonstrated that this Hg is continuously released as vapor into mouth air; then it is inhaled, absorbed into body tissues, oxidized to ionic Hg, and finally covalently bound to cell proteins. Animal and human experiments demonstrate that the uptake, tissue distribution, and excretion of amalgam Hg is significant, and that dental amalgam is the major contributing source to Hg body burden in humans. Current research on the pathophysiological effects of amalgam Hg has focused upon the immune system, renal system, oral and intestinal bacteria, reproductive system, and the central nervous system. Research evidence does not support the notion of amalgam safety.

Mercury in Dental Amalgam—A Neurotoxic Risk?

Herbert L. Needleman, MD

JAMA. 2006;295:1835-1836.

Dental amalgam, which contains 50% mercury by weight, has been used for at least 150 years. Because mercury is an acknowledged neurotoxin, concerns about the health effects of exposure to this chemical are widespread. Consequently, many individuals have submitted to removal of amalgam dental fillings, an uncomfortable, expensive procedure that is not free of hazard. In this issue of JAMA, Bellinger and colleagues1 and DeRouen and colleagues2 report the first 2 randomized controlled trials comparing the health effects in children treated with mercury amalgam fillings with those treated with a composite dental restorative material.

Mercury is a highly reactive metal that has widely recognized toxic properties at high dose, including parethesias, cerebellar ataxia, dysarthria, and constriction of the visual fields.3 The significance of lower-level asymptomatic exposures on brain function is less clear, and sound clinical studies are needed to define this risk. Amalgam mercury enters the bloodstream, and a number of investigations suggest that this has toxic consequences. Mercury levels in expired air are correlated with the number of amalgam fillings.4 Dentists and dental assistants have deficits in motor function and cognitive scores in relation to their number of fillings and to their urinary mercury excretion.5 Mercury also has been suggested as a risk factor for multiple sclerosis and Alzheimer disease.6

Sorry to spread this out over more than one comment but I am not at home and can't do any better. <p><b> Traces of mercury in organs from primates with amalgam fillings.</b> <br> * Danscher G, <br>* Horsted-Bindslev P, <br>* Rungby J. <p>Department of Neurobiology, University of Aarhus, Denmark. <p>In order to trace possible accumulations of mercury, three vervet monkeys received occlusal amalgam fillings, three others maxillary bone implants of amalgam, and three untreated monkeys served as controls. One year later all animals were sacrificed by transcardial perfusion with glutaraldehyde. Tissue sections from different organs were subjected to silver amplification by autometallography and analyzed at light and electron microscopical levels. It was found that amalgam fillings (total, 0.7-1.2 g) caused deposition of mercury in the following tissues: spinal ganglia, anterior pituitary, adrenal, medulla, liver, kidneys, lungs, and intestinal lymph glands. In monkeys with maxillary silver amalgam implants (total, 0.1-0.3 g), mercury was found in the same organs except for liver, lungs, and intestinal lymph glands. Organs from the three control animals were devoid of precipitate. To evaluate whether silver released from the corroding amalgam fillings added to the staining pattern, tissue sections were exposed to potassium cyanide prior to being autometallographically developed. This treatment removes all traces of silver, leaving mercury sulfide accumulation untouched. By comparing sections that had been exposed to cyanide with untreated parallels no difference was seen in the pattern confirming that mercury was the only catalyst present in the tissue. These results strongly support what has been suggested previously that dental fillings in primates cause absorption of mercury released from amalgam fillings through lungs and intestinal tract, and that depending on exposure mercury is distributed to most organs and will eventually be found in the central nervous system. The present data also show that silver released from the corroding filling is not absorbed. PMID: 2115006 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

"Just before all the knees jerk too much"<br />
<br />
When I was kid, I used to play with the stuff, although I did have some idea that mercury was toxic. I also played around with lead, melting it down, the fumes were everywhere, and I know someone who was into electronics as a hobby and breathed in lead fumes from all the soldering he did.<br />
<br />
As you can see, I've suffered no n..n..n..n..n..neurological effects, and neither did the electronics ho..ho..ho..hobbyist.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.worldwise.com/recfluorlig.html">http://www.worldwise.com/recfluorlig.html</a><br />
Fluorescent light bulbs contain mercury. The standard fluorescent lamp contains approximately 20 milligrams of mercury. While there are no known health hazards from exposure to lamps that are intact, improper disposal of fluorescent lamps can contaminate the environment. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) estimates that over 800 million lamps are produced each year to replace 800 million lamps that are then disposed. Since 1 gram of mercury is enough to contaminate a 2-acre pond, there is enough mercury in those lamps to contaminate 20 million acres of water.

5 or 10mg of mercury vapour will just float out the window. The question is, why are hazmat precautions being taken where no requirement exists?<br />
<br />
When the Janitor breaks a flourescent light tube (not CF tube - the big ones) HAZMAT is not nessecary. Have a look at the procedure if you break a thermometer or blood pressure meter and there is liquid mercury on the ground:<br />
<br />
<a href="http://tinyurl.com/2eevmp">http://tinyurl.com/2eevmp</a><br />
<br />
Vs if you break a mercury vapour tube:<br />
<br />
<a href="http://tinyurl.com/ytwmqu">http://tinyurl.com/ytwmqu</a><br />
<br />
The article is clearly trying to play 'chicken little', and is no different than the Terror Alert Level colours, or talk of Bird Flu Pandemics.<br />
<br />
FUD.<br />
<p>---<br>The preceding comment deals with mature subject matter, however immaturely presented. Viewer discretion is advised.<br />

From the link below:<br />
---------------------------------<br />
The "Mercury Toxicity" Scam:<br />
How Anti-Amalgamists Swindle People<br />
Stephen Barrett, M.D.<br />
<br />
More than half a century ago, Orson Welles panicked his radio audience by reporting that Martians had invaded New Jersey. On December 23, 1990, CBS-TV's "60 Minutes" achieved a similar effect by announcing that toxins have invaded the American mouth. There was, however, a big difference. Welles' broadcast was intended to be entertaining. The "60 Minutes" broadcast, narrated by veteran reporter Morley Safer, was intended to alarm—to persuade its audience that the mercury in dental fillings is a poison. It was the most irresponsible report on a health topic ever broadcast on network television.<br />
<br />
Mercury is a component of the amalgam used for "silver" fillings. The other major ingredients are silver, tin, copper, and zinc. When mixed, these elements bond to form a strong, stable substance. The difference between bound and unbound chemicals can be illustrated by a simple analogy. Elemental hydrogen is an explosive gas. Elemental oxygen is a gas that supports combustion. When combined, however, they form water, which has neither of these effects. Amalgam's ingredients are tightly bonded to each other. Although the types of chemical bonds in water and amalgam differ, saying that amalgam will poison you is just as wrong as saying that drinking water will make you explode and burst into flames.<br />
<br />
Very sensitive instruments can detect billionths of a gram of mercury vapor in the mouth of a person with amalgam fillings. However, the minuscule amount of mercury the body absorbs from amalgams is far below the level that exerts any adverse health effect . One study found that people with symptoms they related to amalgam fillings did not have significant mercury levels. The study compared ten symptomatic patients and eight patients with no reported health complaints. The symptom group had neither a higher estimated daily uptake of inhaled mercury vapor, nor a higher mercury concentration in blood and urine than in the control group. The amounts of mercury detected by the tests were trivial . Some studies have shown that the problems patients attribute to amalgam restorations are psychosomatic in nature and have been exacerbated greatly by information from the media or from a dentist <br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/mercury.html">http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/mercury.html</a><p>---<br>The preceding comment deals with mature subject matter, however immaturely presented. Viewer discretion is advised.<br />

"approximately 20 milligrams of mercury. While there are no known health hazards from exposure to lamps that are intact, improper disposal of fluorescent lamps can contaminate the environment. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) estimates that over 800 million lamps are produced each year to replace 800 million lamps that are then disposed. Since 1 gram of mercury is enough to contaminate a 2-acre pond, there is enough mercury in those lamps to contaminate 20 million acres of water."

Someone did not do their math. If 1 gram can contaminate 2 acres . . .then .02 grams times 800 million is 16 million, not 20.

Someone also didn't point out than many flourescent tubes are recycled every year, and the mercury reclaimed.

---
The preceding comment deals with mature subject matter, however immaturely presented. Viewer discretion is advised.

"When I was kid, I used to play with the stuff, although I did have some idea that mercury was toxic. I also played around with lead, melting it down, the fumes were everywhere, and I know someone who was into electronics as a hobby and breathed in lead fumes from all the soldering he did."

I did too, play with mercury. But our chem teacher wouldn't allow us to touch it, nor be very close to it so as to breathe the vapours. I still 'play' with lead, to make my own bullets.

And I am someone with electronics as a hobby. Half my computer room is dedicated to electronics. I have a fume extractor, because I'm not a total id-10-t, and most of my stuff is RoHS. The harshest fumes though come from the solvents used to make circuit boards, and the dust you get from cutting the fiberglass boards.

How else am I going to build my droid army?

---
The preceding comment deals with mature subject matter, however immaturely presented. Viewer discretion is advised.

Off topic a bit, but the debate blends in with another thread about 'common sense' and 'who to believe'. I take pubmed over a random website any day of the week. Look for peer reviewed articles in particular. People can put anything on a website, and of course just because somebody is an 'MD' doesn't mean anything, its not like you can check online credentials. Sites like 'quackwatch' are often set up just to tow the party line.

In the case of mercury amalgams, there are two studies concluding a 'positive' case for medically significant effects. Monkeys are not humans, but the functioning of their organs is similar. I'd pay attention to it if only for the reason that nine monkeys gave their lives to show that there is in fact mercury deposits in organs from both fillings and implants.

Turning to the 'opposing' study mentioned in the 'quackwatch' article, once agian some 'common sense' can go a long way. First of all, the study is restricted to testing of saliva and urine, which showed statistically small amounts. In the monkeys the lungs and intestinal tract had deposits of mercury, meaning that there is no indication that it would come out in urine OR saliva. The study says only that 'saliva' is not statistically significant for looking for residue. Thats fine, but means little.

The study also only looks at patients who SAY their fillings cause them problems. That also means nothing, as the study mentions, the idea could have just been planted in their heads.


So the moral of the story, is that it is VERY possible that you have mercury in your organs. Perhaps you are comforted by the fact its been going on a long time, I'm not. Getting them out is out of the question without a large sum of money, but I'll be paying close attention to the next ones.

PUBMED is a great resource, but of course you have to check the study. As for the lightbulbs, like fillings the most important issue are ones not mentioned. Who thinks of calling anybody or even recycling old bulbs? WHen they break they go in the garbage.

For fillings, I'd be interested in knowing more about the process of composition of the amalgams. For example, can there be a 'bad batch' or a bad company that makes a product that is worse than others? Are there dental procedures that are worse than others? Is it ONLY because of 'bad press' that the dental industry is stearing clear of the silver amalgams?

As for the article on cfl's, they are not "new technology". We've been using them - along with incandescants - for fifteen years.
As for dental amalgam, I guess I should be glad that I never went to a dentist until my early twenties. I may have added 20 years to my life.
Well, 'cept for the playing with lead, mercury and smoking cigarettes when I was little. But then again, my Mom said that playing by the river, the airport, railway and highway would kill me too.
But then she never said why I wasn't allowed to play anywhere else?

---
Everybody got to deviate from the norm

I like balance. The Toronto Star can be a balance for the Globe and Mail. Quackwatch can balance PUBMED, and both can be reliable sites - it all depends on testing methods. All that is required for truth is a standardized test.

I've got both silver amalgam fillings, and newer UV curing type, as well as gold. I can't say with any certainty whether my silver amalgam fillings affect my health. But I know anyone who eats canned tuna probabally has similar levels of mercury in their organs as I do.

I don't think the silver amalgam fillings have really been used since the UV curing type came along.

As for both stories, Amalgam and CF lights - I see them both as FUD. There are contradictory evidence for both. When I look at the mercury HAZMAT procedures I see the original article (using my tinfoil hat persepective) as a 'plant' by incandecent light manufacturers. But mercury as a heavy metal poison should be respected. But that is also no reason to jerk our knees in adopting CF bulbs.

---
The preceding comment deals with mature subject matter, however immaturely presented. Viewer discretion is advised.