MERCURY FILLINGS?

Should we all be worried about

As dentists are told to restrict using amalgam in children and pregnant or breastfeeding women, a nagging question . . .

into line with the 2013 United Nations Minamata Convention.

A 2015 EU safety assessment acknowledges that having nine or more amalgam fillings may raise the level of mercury in a person’s body by some 87%.

And the EU safety assessment also cites a 1995 autopsy study by the University of Munich toxicologist, Professor Gustav Drasch, which found much higher than normal levels of mercury in the livers and kidneys of babies born to mothers who had more than ten teeth filled with amalgam.

The EU cites a further study, in the Journal of Exposure Science and Environmental Epidemiology in 2008, which found that the more fillings a pregnant mother had already had, the greater the concentration of mercury in her infant’s umbilical cord.

In the wake of the Munich University study, the German government acted to curb the use of amalgam in children and women of childbearing age. Since then, Sweden, Norway and Denmark have also banned or restricted mercury fillings, first by restricting their use on ‘vulnerable groups’: children and pregnant women.

The health issue is clouded, however, by the fact that these nations have all stated the bans are first and foremost due to environmental concerns.

Mercury from fillings is a significant contributor to air and water pollution — which ultimately ends up in our drinking water supplies and the fish we eat.

Much of this pollution is caused by cremations: data submitted to the EU suggests an average cremation releases up to 4g of amalgam-filling mercury into the atmosphere.

So why — if this is purely an environmental matter — are the mercury curbs placed first on children and mothers (rather than older adults who might end up being cremated long before children)?

It would appear the legislators are erring on the side of caution, trying to walk a tightrope between acknowledging legitimate scientific concerns and causing panic.

Dental expert, Professor Damien Walmsley, claims any ban is ‘purely for environmental protection and does not reflect any evidencebased concerns about adverse effects of amalgam fillings on dental patients.’

As for the threat posed by the powerful next-generation MRI scanners, Professor Walmsley says the new study shows that currentgeneration scanners don’t make mercury fillings leak.

Furthermore, he adds, as the use of amalgam fillings is phased out, the threat from new MRI scanners ‘will be a decreasing problem’.

For some dentists, a full ban on amalgam can’t come soon enough. David Harvie-Austin, a dentist and advocate for mercury-free dentistry, stopped using amalgam 35 years ago. ‘While I would not say everyone with amalgam fillings has a problem, some people don’t cope well with the mercury vapour that’s going into them 24/7,’ he said.

‘I believe it can affect organs on a cellular level and cause widespread symptoms of ill health.’

While there remains no conclusive evidence to support such ideas, a major study last year of European nations that have banned or curbed mercury amalgam use points to a positive and unexpected result.

The investigation by the UN Environment Programme has found that dentists in countries such as Norway have responded to the ban by working less invasively — filling fewer teeth and drilling less healthy tooth material out of teeth that do need filling.

Regardless of where one stands in the mercury debate, this unintended outcome of the new curbs may offer a silver lining for all.