| Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools. |
Dental Mercury and Norway1 IAOMT, 8297 ChampionsGate Boulevard, #193, ChampionsGate, FL 33896, USA; info{at}iaomt.org To the Editor: These comments are submitted in response to the Guest Editorial by Derek Jones ( J Dent Res 87[2]:101–102, 2008 ), on behalf of 586 doctorate university professors, physicians, and dentists of the International Academy of Oral Medicine and Toxicology. Dentists should consider the environmental consequences of their actions. In 2005, EU dentists accounted for 70–100 tons, or 25%, of industrial mercury use. The mercury in dental fillings continuously escapes, appearing in the feces and urine and becoming the primary source of mercury in human waste. The annual fecal excretion for the Swedish population is comparable with the yearly mercury leakage from a chloralkali plant (Skare, 1992). Human waste is second only to direct release from dental offices as a contributor of dental mercury to wastewater treatment plants (AMSA, 2001). For every 1000 lbs of environmentally released mercury, there is a 43% increase in the rate of special education and 61% increase in the rate of autism (Palmer et al., 2006). Global pathways of mercury pollution via air and water have been well-documented. The United Nations Environment Program has stressed the importance of reducing the quantity of mercury circulating in the biosphere. As Norway decreases its own pollution, it will decrease global mercury pollution, enhancing global health. REFERENCES
The author replies2 Professor Emeritus of Biomaterials, Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS, Canada; dwjones{at}dal.ca The views on dental amalgam of Dr. Larose and of the "International Academy of Oral Medicine and Toxicology" are well-known. These views are at variance with the views based upon validated scientific data. Dentistry does indeed have consideration for environmental consequences regarding dental amalgam use, which is why we have an international standard for amalgam traps (ISO 11143:1999). In Canada and many other countries, regulations regarding amalgam waste have been implemented. This is in spite of the fact that dentistry’s contribution to environmental pollution by mercury is negligible compared with that from other sources. Validated scientific data clearly show that amalgam has many distinct scientific and clinical advantages compared with composite restorative materials. Mercury does indeed escape from dental amalgam restorations; however, it would take 1680 years for all of the mercury to escape from a large amalgam restoration. That is how slowly it is released. The amount of mercury released into the environment each year from all sources is estimated at between 6.3 million kg and 22 to 33 million kg. However, 50% is estimated as coming from natural sources, and some 42% from the burning of fossil fuels. If mercury from dentistry were reduced to zero, it would have no impact on the mercury pollution problem worldwide. I have calculated, using the best available data source, that the environmental impact from 800,000 dental offices worldwide and 20 billion amalgam surfaces in people’s mouths would represent between 0.05 and 0.27% of the total worldwide environmental mercury pollution from all sources (this would be significantly reduced by the use of amalgam traps, which is increasing). The banning of "dental amalgam" is a political issue that will have no impact on total worldwide mercury pollution, but that, regrettably, will reduce the dental health benefits provided by the use of dental amalgam.
Journal of Dental Research, Vol. 87, No. 5,
413 (2008)
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 |
|
|
 |
|
Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
