Chin-Chin wrote:Do you know what we are supposed to do with the metal fillings?
It might not be a bad idea to start substituting them with composite ('white') fillings.
The dentist who treated you and your family, was either old or a fraud, and maybe both. There used to be a motto: "extension for prevention", meaning it was better to do a filling before there could be a cavity. I think about 30 years ago they slowly started to ditch that practice.
To sue a dentist is very difficult, because it's almost impossible to prove.
Yes, I think that the dentist did it for profit. The worst was that he did it without explaining to us what he was to do.
Anyhow, that was a long time ago. Is that a common procedure to take out the metal fillings and substitute with composite ones? CurlyGirl's experience sounds pretty horrid to me.
I also would like to do it for aesthetic reasons, because metal fillings just don't look that great...
I think nowadays it is common practice, and I also think that amalgam fillings are used less and less. Normally a dentist uses a water-cooled drill and uses an aspiration unit to directly suck away the debris, water, and possible gas.
Thanks CG for the candida link.
I did it and don't seem to have to worry.
I'm still waiting for the results of the mercury test.
DO you think testing for mercury in the blood is sufficient to tell if there is mercury in the body? Do you know of other tests?
It seems many caution against replacing old mercury-containing fillings with mercury-free ones, as the release of mercury occasioned by this can be worse than the original problem.
At the same time, I know many (over the age of about 45) who have old fillings actually drop out, and need to be replaced.
If fillings drop out naturally or need to be replaced at times, and this is happening the world over, why the strong caution about replacing them before this happens?
Is there a safe way to prevent the uptake of mercury when eating fish? like eating chlorella before/with/after your fish?
I wouldn't want to just eat cilantro if there's a chance I could be pushing mercury deeper, but if chlorella binds it while in the digestive tract, does that mean it's a safe way to reduce your uptake of mercury?
It is my understanding that chlorella, when used regularly in the absence of fish and fish products, will begin to break down and get rid of the toxins in your body--after 3 to 4 months' consistent use. But, then you must continue using the chlorella, and abstain from all fish and fish products if you want your system "clean." Vegetarians and vegans consider chlorella a good substitute for animal-derived protein (amino acids) and believe chlorella to be a good source of vitamins and minerals. In other words, if you have chosen to consume chlorella, most likely along with its cousin spirulina, you are forgoing fish and fish products--and wanting to forgo them.
Stick to the "bottom feeders" to ensure lower toxicity as far as fish consumption goes. Higher toxicity is bio-magnification: big fish eat little fish increase heavy metals. Salmon is considered "low toxicity" fish.
"All Knowledge Is Worth Having." - Jacqueline Carey
The best source on this topic in the U.S. is Andy Cutler, a layperson, who wrote a book about a protocol using DMSA to clear mercury after fillings have been removed. There is short-term circulating mercury, as well as that stored deeply in tissues, and there is no reason to undertake the therapies to remove mercury until one's teeth are free of amalgams.
In my experience, while there may be a growing problem with exposure from fish and other environmental sources, it is a tiny factor compared to the degree of mercury effects one suffers from having amalgams in the mouth. It is good to be concerned about any mercury exposure, but really-- check in your mouth first. It is overwhelming compared to any other sources you are getting, in most cases, unless you've been acutely mercury-poisoned from direct exposure and are experiencing severe nervous system effects from this poisoning.
Kookaburra wrote:
What about the mercury we ingest everyday through eating fish? Isn't that more dangerous than zinc? At least with zinc, it is water soluble but mercury isn't.
RRM wrote:
Did you think it was limited to the aqua world?
Unfortunately not.
Its everywhere.
Its just that some fish contain high levels of mercury, but most fish dont.
Of course, too much mercury is bad.
But too much of any metal is bad.
Is your mercury level elevated?
Kookaburra wrote:
Everywhere? Do fruits contain mercury too?
Is your mercury level elevated?
I do not know whether my mercury level is elevated. Are there tests for that?
Oscar wrote:I think it's far more important to reduce/eliminate the consumption of HCAs than worry about the ingestion mercury or other metals.
As far as I know it's not proven that a higher intake of mercury through diet has adverse effects on health, and the amount depends a lot on what kind of fish you're eating. Search the internet for more info. A simple chart:
RRM wrote:
Yes, even fruits may contain traces of mercury.
And every human being contains traces of mercury (or more).
Naturally, mercury is deposited from the atmosphere particularly
due to vulcano acitivty.
)
