Printer Friendlier Version

<<< back to [Home]

Endogenous and Exogenous Toxins
Organic and Inorganic Toxins
     Introduction
     Inorganic Toxins
     Organic Toxins
Toxic Elements - Heavy Metals
Sources of Exogenous Toxins
     Where do Exogenous Toxins come from?
     Accumulation of Toxins in the Body
     Pollution
     Mercury in the Food Chain
Case Studies
     Relative Rates of Decomposition
     Historical Mercury Poisoning - Hat Making and Minamata Disease
     Mercury Levels in Women
     Mercury Amalgam Fillings and other Dental Issues
           Mercury Amalgam Fillings
           Amalgam Filling Removal
           Alternatives to Amalgam Fillings - Composite and Ceramic Fillings
           Other Metals in the Mouth - Implants and Osteotomies
           Use of Bisphenol A in Dentistry
     Mercury and Vaccination
     Mercury and CFL Lighting
     Fluoride in Toothpaste and Drinking Water
     Arsenic in Chicken Feed
     Aspartame, Additives and Soft Drinks
     Plastic Containers and Bottles
     Canned Foods
     Cigarette Smoke

Last Updated: 18 November 2013

 
Endogenous and Exogenous Toxins:

There are two types of toxins, endogenous and exogenous toxins.

• Endogenous toxins are those produced by the body as a byproduct of biochemical processes, and may tend to accumulate in the joins or various muscle groups.


• Exogenous toxins are toxins ingested or absorbed by a person into the body from external sources, including food, water, air, contact etc. This page is primarily concerned with exogenous toxins, although many of the methods of detoxification (e.g. light therapies, phospholipid therapy, detox patches) are capable of removing both types of toxins.

It could be argued that the toxins expelled by bad bacteria and fungi (e.g. Candida albicans) into the digestive tract, which are distributed round the body by the blood stream, are a form of exogenous toxin, even though they originate from within the body - as they are not produced by the body's own 'natural' biochemical processes. However, if bad bacteria and fungi species are inside the body, then any poisons they produce could be argued to be endotoxins. Such excretions are thus classifed as 'exotoxins' and are examined further down below.

Technically speaking, there is a third category of toxins, known as autogenous toxins. These are the toxins that one is born with, in the form of pathogens or toxic compounds, generally from environmental/dietary exposure over multiple generations. As discussed on the Causes and Effects page, these are usually passed down from the maternal line, from the mother to the baby in the womb. However, these are in a sense just exogenous toxins that happen to be absorbed from the mother rather than from the environment.

back to top

 
Organic and Inorganic Toxins:

Introduction:

To understand what the different types of toxins are that can accumulate in the body and thus how they can be removed, one first has to go back to basics and understand the different between inorganic and organic chemistry. Inorganic chemistry is concerned with:

• Inorganic chemistry concerns individual chemical elements, either in their:
  
  
  • Individual atomic form (e.g. Iron or Fe)
  
  
  • Molecular form, i.e. clumped together with covalent bonds (electron sharing) (e.g. Oxygen / O2 / O=O, Chlorine / Cl2 / Cl=Cl). Covalent bonds between carbon atoms are classified as organic compounds.
  
  
  • Ionic form, where two or more positively/negatively charged ions join to form an ionic bond, creating an electrically neutral compound. Ionic compounds when dissolved in water may ionise to varying degrees forming free floating ions (positively charged ions (cations) and negatively charged ions (anions), e.g. salt dissolved in water forms Na+ and Cl-.)
  
  
  • A compounds consisting of elements held together in a combination of covalent and ionic bonds (although this is perhaps a philosophical definition)
  
  
• Organic chemistry concerns itself with compounds containing single carbon atoms or multiple carbon atoms joined together in either covalently bonded chains (e.g. alcohol, propanol, petrol compounds, amino acids) or in (benzene) rings (classified as aromatic compounds, e.g. benzene, phenols etc.). Inorganic forms of chemical elements such as heavy metals (e.g. oxides) can bond to organic compounds such as amino acids and thus become an organic form of that heavy metal.

As explored on the causes and effects page, exogenous toxins can come from a variety of sources. Some of these are listed below. It is estimated that the body is exposed to over 200 different synthesized (organic) chemicals per day from toiletry products, cosmetics and food additives. Some of the substances are not that toxic, but can tend to stick to cell membranes and interfere with biochemical processes. Others more directly interfere with the endocrine system and biochemical processes.

• Inorganic Chemical Toxins


• Toxic Elements, e.g. heavy metals - mercury, arsenic, cadmium, etc.


• Toxic Element Salts, e.g. Mercuric Sulphate, Mercuric Oxide, etc.


• Ammonia, e.g. cigarette smoke


• Preservatives, e.g. nitrites. Nitrites are themselves considered toxic in concentrations over 200ppm, which is the recommended limit for Sodium Nitrite, a common preservative in cured meats, like bacon, and also in cheese products and processed meats such as sausages. Nitrosamines can be formed when the nitrites in cured meats react with the downstream products of amino acids (i.e. secondary amines), particularly in the acidic conditions of the stomach. Nitrosamines are carcinogenic (and are linked to bowel cancer). High temperatures, e.g. frying can also increased the rate of formation of nitrosamines in meat. Nitrosamines are linked to bowel cancer. Nitrosamines are also found in beer, fish, fish by-products, tobacco smoke and latex products (e.g. condoms - in very low concentrations).


• etc.




• Organic Chemical Toxins


• Certain Petroleum and Petrochemical/Synthetic Chemical Derivatives and Plastics


• Tar from cigarettes and other smoked herbs; also passive smoking, e.g. parents smoking in front of children (in house, in car, outside etc.); inhaling smoke from jossticks lit by misguided massage practitioners or those giving a tai chi or yoga class etc. to create a 'relaxing' atmosphere (try opening a window, using essential oils or keeping plants in the room, all of which do not poison your guests/clients). All burning of organic compounds produces tar which damages the lungs.


• Rogue fatty acids, e.g. transfats from baked goods and fried food.


• Pesticides (organic component of)


• Herbicides (organic component of)


• Preservatives


• Artificial Colourings


• Artificial Stabilisers


• Artificial Thickeners, e.g. MSG


• Antibiotics


• Anti-depressants


• Certain toxic or carcinogenic chemical compounds found in bathroom products and cosmetics, e.g. after shave, eau de toilette, skin creams, shampoos, etc.


• Biotoxins


• PCBs (Printed Circuit Boards)


• Organic Heavy Metals (heavy metals bonded to amino acids)


• Formaldehyde, e.g. cigarette smoke


• Benzene (gaseous) and other petrochemicals given off by the operation of photocopiers and printers (i.e. laserjet, inkjet) in office environments, exaccerbated where there is poor ventilation and fresh air. Next time you use your laserjet print, try inhaling close to it and notice the smell and see how good it makes you feel!


• Toxins found in laundry detergents


• Carcinogenic compounds formed by unsound cooking methods, deep frying or burning


• Synthesized and naturally occurring (often oil based) drugs, e.g. THC, LSD etc.


• Many more

back to top

 
Sources of Exogenous Toxins:
 
Where do Exogenous Toxins come from?

We absorb toxins from:

• Air - through lungs and skin - household cleaning products, chemical vapours from synthetic textiles in carpets, from synthetic foam used in sofas, mattresses etc. and from plastics and other petrochemical-based products, crop spraying, chemical spraying, plastics, glues, carpets, smog, traffic fumes, smoke, laserjet/inkjet printers (e.g. benzene from toner fusing), airplane cabin air, firework displays etc. According to the USEPA, the airbourne concentrations of toxic chemicals are 2-5 times higher inside American homes than in the outside air. Cabin air in commerical airliners is drawn in through the engines. This air goes to the front of the plane for the cockpit and circulates backwards meaning the passengers at the rear receive the most 'rebreathed' air. In isolated incidents (e.g. 150 incidents in 2001-2007 in the UK), an engine oil leak results in burnt and gaseous oil particles circulating in the cabin air, including high levels of TCP (an organophosphate neurotoxin) and Carbon Monoxide. Low levels are detected in pilots even who have not been exposed to severe incidences. Effect of poisoning crew and passengers. The effects do not necessarily wear off with time. It is commonly referred to as Aerotoxic Syndrome. Firework displays are well known for their elevated levels of heavy metals.


• Food - ingested, e.g. junk food, processed foods, TV dinners, food heated in plastic containers, fried food (free radicals, carcinogens, transfats, e.g. the known animal carcinogen acrylamide is generated in fried or overheated carbohydrate foods (such as french fries and potato chips)), BBQ food (e.g. broiling or barbecuing meats can lead to the formation of minute quantities of many potent carcinogens that are comparable to those found in cigarette smoke (i.e., benzopyrene)), baked goods, food containing preservatives, pesticides, herbicides and antibiotics, foods baked in aluminium foil, overheating teflon frying pans, high mercury levels in fish, especially 'speciality fish' like tuna and swordfish, etc. DDT for example whilst illegal in most developed countries is still used in many developing countries where food is exported globally. Table salt typically contains Aluminium (anti-caking agent 554) and Cyanide - better to use sea salt or even better Himalayan Crystal Salt. The form of Al is probably harmless, but the other forms of salt are still superior in terms of mineral content.


• Harmful micro-organisms excretions (Exotoxins) - mainly in digestive tract and colon, introduced through contaminated food, food poisoning or low protein diet (little stomach acid produced to protect digestive tract) e.g. candida, bad bacteria, mycoplasma, fungus, protozoa, parasites, etc. Diets high in simple carbohydrates and alcohol and excessive antibiotic usage and a lack of true fermented foods allow such micro-organisms to proliferate and excrete ever more toxins. These micro-organisms excrete toxins into our system in much the same way as we excrete our waste products into the toilet. Would you voluntarily choose to have 'excrement' injected into your body? And example of exotoxins produced by bad bacteria, parasites and fungi includes Hydrogen Sulphide (Sulfide in the USA), or H2S. A study of Gram positive D/L lactate producing bacteria has shown that they can produce H2S in presence of certain heavy metals as a survival defence mechanism. This is examined in the H2S section on the Effects of Toxicity page. In addition, when these harmful micro-organisms are killed off, they release Endotoxins (those toxins not normally excreted by the bacteria/parasites but contained within their structure).


• Water - ingested. Toxins found in tap water, well water, mineral water. e.g. contaminated ground water with cadmium; old lead pipes leading from water main to the house (home owner's responsibility, chlorine, fluoride etc. Also through petroleum-based toxins leaching into water through plastic containers and re-used plastic water bottles etc.


• Water - through skin, eyes and air. Toxins from water are absorbed through the skin, whilst bathing, e.g. hot showers [hot water opens up pores and removes skin's oils (defensive barrier), toxins can be more readily absorbed - and an aerosol of Chlorine can be inhaled. Increased temperature also reduces the solubility of dissolved gases so they tend to come out of solution and into the air - have you noticed the faint chlorine smell in the shower and also when you fill a sink up with hot water - put your head close to it and smell. The surface area of the skin exposed to hot water, and the volumes of water, in the shower are very great, and a shower can expose one to up to 10 times more chlorine than drinking unfiltered tap water all day. Other chemicals released in shower water can include chloroform, trichloroethylene (TCE) and hydrogen sulfide. A shower filter can potentially help to remove such contaminants.], bathing in ponds, lakes or the sea where excessive pollution is present, chlorinated swimming baths [trihalomethanes (THMs) and chloramines, chiefly trichloramine, in the surface bacterial biofilm - formed by chlorine reacting with organic matter (chiefly Ammonium compounds, e.g. urea (urine, sweat), skin flakes, skin oil, lotions etc.) from bathers. Trichloramine and trichloromethane are carcinogens and causes the stinging sensation in the eyes and skin, and damage the skin/eyes as well as the lungs. The amount of trichloramines vs other chloramines depends on pH and free Chlorine concentration in water], etc.


• Beverages - ingested


• Skin - contact with wood lacquers and treatment compounds (e.g. wood treatment compounds like Pentachlorophenol (PCP) which is now banned by still persistent in the environment and prevalent in probably most people in the UK), treated leather upholstry, ; household products e.g. aluminium in deodorants, other bathroom products, kitchen products, cleaning chemicals, face creams, moisturiser, make up, etc.


• Medicines, i.e. over usage of synthetic prescription pharmaceuticals and over the counter remedies


• Drug abuse, legal or illegal - the drugs themselves, but also the impurities, fillers and toxins (when ingested or much worse injected without being filtered out by the liver) and carcinogenic substances formed when smoking them. e.g. alcohol, tobacco smoking, pharaceuticals, anti-depressants, antibiotics, marijuana/hashish smoking, cocaine, amphetamines, ecstacy, LSD, heroin, etc. Toxins include a wide variety of organic and inorganic carcinogens and heavy metals.


• Antibiotics - ingested. Through gratuitous prescription to patients by GPs when diagnosis is uncertain.


• Vaccinations - including Flu Jabs - contain a mercury-based preservative called Thimerosal.


• Amalgam fillings - may be prone to leaking mercury. Contain up to 75% pure mercury! And we are happy to have these inserted into our mouths in a damp environment 24/7, swallowing any saliva that has come into contact with them.


• Tattoos - ink often contains mercury


• Vaccines - containing the preservative Thimerosal which contains ethyl-mercury (organic mercury))


• Many other sources


• Some of above factors are passed onto child from mother in the womb

back to top

 
Accumulation of Toxins:

A 2004 study by the WWF of the blood of 14 EU Ministers from 13 EU member countries found that on average each volunteer had 37 toxic chemicals in his blood of the 103 different parameters being tested for. This is not to say that other toxic chemicals were present that were not included in the test remit.

www.wwf.fi/wwf/www/uploads/pdf/baqdblood.pdf

Statistics from the Vietnam War show the differential rates of decomposition amongst human bodies. Vietnamese bodies started to decompose within 24 to 48 hours of death. In contrast, bodies of Americans (in Vietnam) did not start to decompose until 4 or 5 days after death. This was no doubt due to the high levels of toxins accumulated in the human body in American residents in the 1960s which slow down the rate of decomposition.

To further illustrate to extent of toxicity in modern lifestyles, decomposition now starts only after 7 to 10 days after death. In addition, twice as much formaldehyde was needed to embalm a person's body 20 years, compared to now. The implication of this is that the toxins and chemicals present in the dead person's body help to preserve the body longer than a body without toxins, heavy metals and chemicals present. Mould will grow at a slower rate (if at all) in a solution containing high levels of mercury or lead, for example. So one can imagine the effect carrying around all these toxins is having on one's own cells whilst one is alive!

back to top

 
Pollution:

According to the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), in 2002, U.S. alone released 2.1 million tonnes (4.7 billion pounds) of toxins into the earth's atmosphere. The EPA also estimates that fine-particle pollution causes an estimated 20,000 premature deaths in the U.S. each year. According to a study conducted by the University of Michigan, one ton of oil is spilled (in the ocean) for every million tons transported. Whilst a low percentage, if we think about how much oil is consumed, this is still quite a significant figure. An estimated 7 million people become sick and more than 1,000 die in the USA every year from waterborne microbes.

If we go back in time to before man became industrialised, then the vast majority of the aforementioned toxins would not be present. Of course, some other types of toxin may be present on account of lifestyle and ignorance, for example excessive smoke inhalation for those living in cold climates and sitting around fires so often, eating burnt or mouldy food, drinking alcohol and smoking etc. Medical care, hygiene and food availability were probably also major factors to a lower life expectancy.

Below is a link to a time line of the last century, entitled the 'Slippery Slope Index', containing statistics regarding mortality rates and health problems, and relating these to the changes in agriculture, the rise of mass production techniques (e.g. use of growth hormones and antibiotics in cattle/poultry populations; irradiation; crop spraying; food additives), the rise of processed/convenience foods and increase in saturated fat content of the average meal, the decrease in average fibre content and intake of fresh fruit and vegetables, decrease in exercise taken, the introduction of petrochemical products, the use of pharmaceutical drugs. Clearly, it is up to the individual as to how to interpret these figures, but they do paint a rather disturbing picture about modern dietary and health (mal)practices and their huge cost on modern populations. The information was compiled by Randall Fitzgerald in his slightly controversial (but factual) book 'The Hundred-Year Lie: How to Protect Yourself from the Chemicals That Are Destroying Your Health' (2007).

www.hundredyearlie.com/ssi.html

back to top

 
Mercury in the Food Chain:

Mercury, as other elements in the periodic table at the top of this page, does not break down. It occurs naturally and is found in tiny amounts in oceans, rocks and soil. It becomes airbourne when rocks break down through erosion, volcanoes erupt and when soil decomposes. It then circulates in the environment and is redistributed.

The United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) recently stated (in 2005) that mercury can be transported in the atmosphere and oceans around the globe thousands of miles from where it is emitted. A UNEP report also states that coal-fired power stations and waste incinerators presently account for 1,500 tons, or 70%, of new quantified man-made mercury emissions to the atmosphere. Restrictions on pollution from power stations and incinerators could help to curb such emissions. But don't hold your breath!

In 1989, it was estimated that used household batteries made up approximately 86% of all dumped mercury, i.e. refined mercury or mercury derivatives that are used in industrial products and then dumped, often in domestic waste and not recycled or disposed of as a special consolidation. Dumped mercury often seeps into the ground water, polluting local water supplies. The sale of mercury oxide batteries is now banned in some countries, and restricted in other countries. For example, the USA banned mercury oxide batteries except for up to 25mg of mercury per button cell battery in the Mercury-Containing and Rechargeable Battery Management Act in 1996.

Other sources of mercury contaimination, either from the manufacture of, use of or dumping of (usually into landfill or industrial effluent): laboratory reagents and equipment, electrodes (e.g. Calomel electrode), thermometers, barometers, dental applications (mercury amalgam fillings), paints, electrical appliances, mercurial diuretics, fluorescent lamps, cosmetics, hair dyes, the manufacture and delivery of petroleum products, and also fungicides and pesticides. Although the usage in fungicides and pesticides have decreased due to environmental concerns, mercury residues still persist in the environment (i.e. air, water, soil etc.) from past use.

Large amounts of mercury become airbourne when oil, coal, wood and natural gas are burned, or when waste containing mercury is incinerated. Once airbourne, mercury falls to the ground with rain and snow, landing on water or soil, thereby causing contamination. Lakes and rivers are also directly polluted by the discharge of mercury-laden industrial and municipal waste into them. Once in a body of water, the inorganic mercury (usually Mercuric Chloride) is converted into organic mercury in the form of methylmercury (CH3Hg) by bacteria through chelation and other processes (methylation - addition of a methyl-group) - inside aquatic biota and also sediments. Organic mercury is many hundred times more toxic than inorganic mercury. Fish absorb the methylmercury from their food source and from the water as it passes over their gills. Mercury is bound tightly to proteins in all tissues in fish. For example, below is an article by Daphine Zuniga about her mercury poisoning from a high fish diet.

www.oprah.com/health/omag/health_omag_200504_mercury.jhtml

According to Doctor's Data (Urine Toxic Metals Test Report), based on various academic reference sources, the human intake of dietary mercury (specifically) is negligible (with the exception of fish), unless the food is contaminated with one of the above sources. A daily diet of fish can result in 1-10 micrograms of mercury to be ingested per day, with about 3/4 of this as methylmercury.

Below is an on line tool to calculate the maximum 'safe' weekly tuna intake depending on your sex and weight, assuming that you eat no other types of fish (which is of course not recommended, as tuna and swordfish are the two fish types highest in mercury).

www.ewg.org/tunacalculator

Inorganic mercury (mercuric salts or mercuric oxide) is converted into organic mercury, either methylmercury or ethylmercury (C2H5Hg) in the gastro intestinal tract by bacteria where it can be more readily absorbed by the tissues including the brain. If amalgam fillings are leaking, the mercury they emit is inorganic. This mercury tends to build up in the large intestine where it is converted to organic mercury. More information on amalgam fillings can be found in the Mercury Amalgam Fillings section.

Quoting from the 2007 paper 'Integrative Medicine and the Role of Modified Citrus Pectin/Alginates in Heavy Metal Chelation and Detoxification: Five Case Reports' by Isaac Eliaz, Elaine Weil and Barry Wilk:

http://tang-thorkil.dk/chelationstudy.pdf

'One of the major issues with heavy metals, especially mercury, is the high percentage of reabsorption through the gut. While elemental mercury is poorly absorbed through the gut, its organic methylated form is highly absorbed (90-95% absorption). The non-organic elemental mercury excreted through the bile is often methylated by abnormal bacteria or yeast in the gut resulting in re-absorption of methylated mercury. Organic mercury (from fish and seafood) and elemental mercury absorbed from various pollutants can also be absorbed through the digestive tract. The methylated mercury can pass the blood-brain barrier, and exert its toxic effects in the brain either as methylated mercury, or after being demethylated in the brain, as elemental mercury.'

Paul Cutler argues that both inorganic and organic mercury can be harmful, just in different ways. Organic mercury is not harmful to the kidneys but easily crosses the blood brain barrier. Inorganic mercury is much more harmful but cannot easily cross the blood brain barrer. The half life of conversion of organic to inrganic mercury is approximately 44 days. It is estimated that approximately 5-10% of the total amount of organic mercury consumed ends up in the brain as inorganic mercury (i.e. converting from organic to inorganic form which does the actual damage). Inorganic mercury is very poorly absorbed by the digestive tract, and the liver and gallbladder excrete mercury from the body in its inorganic form.

http://onibasu.com/archives/am/41984.html

http://onibasu.com/archives/am/5501.html

It is thought that the significant heavy metal levels present in certain fish species means that those who feed regularly on fish, i.e. chickens and their eggs (and some people) may be higher in their mercury concentrations.

Mercury is actually 13 times heavier than water, but is not actually 'wet'. Iron objects float on top of mercury.

back to top


Other Heavy Metals

Sources of other heavy metals include:

• Arsenic, for example, derives from a variety of sources including coal fired power plants, smelters, pesticides, herbicides and some marine plants and seafoods.


• Lead, for example, derives from a variety of sources including leaded gas, canned goods, old artist paints with lead-pigment, newsprint and coloured adverts, hair dyes and rinses, dolomite, soft coal, leaded glass, pewter ware or jewelry, fertilisers, pesticides, pottery, cosmetics, tobacco smoke, air pollution, rubber toys (e.g. from China), storage batteries (e.g. car batteries - lead acid), etc.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lead_poisoning

'One of the largest threats to children is lead paint that exists in many homes, especially older ones; thus children in older housing with chipping paint are at greater risk.'


• Mercury, for example, derives from a variety of sources including thermometers, paints, explosives, electrical appliances, batteries, mercurial diuretics, fungicides, fluorescent lamps, cosmetics, hair dyes, amalgam fillings, salt water fish caught in contaminated waters, and the manufacture and delivery of petroleum products.


• Cadmium, for example, derives from soft water, cigarette smoke, air pollution, seafood, teas, bone meal, oxide dusts, paints and welding etc.

Source: Trace Minerals International, www.tracemin.com.

Doctor's Data's Urine Toxic Metals report further lists sources of Lead contamination and toxicity:

• Smelting and alloying
• Glazes on foreign ceramics
• Leaded (anti-knock compound) petrol fumes or exhaust fumes
• Lead piping or leaded joints in some municipal water systems - lead piping connecting one's house to the water supply (not the water company's responsibility)
• Uncoated lead weights for scuba diving

Most of the Lead contamination occurs from oral ingestion of contaminated food or water, or by children eating or mouthing lead-containing substances/objects. The degree of absorption of orally ingested lead depends on the stomach contents (an empty stomach increases the likelihood of absorption) and upon the body's general mineral status (deficiencies of Calcium, Zinc or Iron can significantly increase lead uptake; sufficent levels can offer a degree of protection). The degree of absorption from transdermal exposure is slight, although if one touches an object then touches the mouth, then there may be a chance of oral ingestion. Chances of inhalation of lead pollution has decreased significantly in most modern countries with the advent of non-Leaded fuels, except of course in those countries that still use Leaded petrol, e.g. China.

One can speculate about the degree of potential Lead contamination of food that may occur in pots and pans that have a lead base, sealed into the stainless steel, to improve even thermal conduction and provide a 'lag' in the heating from the cooker. An example could be a saucepan by 'Prestige'. Whilst the lead base is sealed into the stainless steel, these saucepans are supposed to be handled with care when cooling and cleaning, as there is considerable heat trapped inside the base of the saucepan or pot when it is removed from the heat, and they are supposed to be cooled down before any water is poured into them for washing up. One can offset this temperature differential to an extent by pouring very hot water into them, if something is burning or sticking to the bottom, but in general terms one should avoid sudden cooling as this may 'damage' the pan. To what extent this might cause micro-cracking of the steel and lead to escape, one can but speculate. I doubt the manufacturer would be willing to help in this regard! Plain stainless stee pans do not have this problem (are more susceptible to food sticking or burning on the bottom if on a high heat) and nor do Ceramic pots and pans.

Please see the following chart, provided by Metametrix, for a list of toxic elements and their sources. It examines Aluminium, Antimony, Arsenic, Barium, Bismuth, Cadmium, Caesium, Gallium, Gadolinium, Germanium, Lead, Mercury, Nickel, Niobium, Platinum, Rhodium, Tellurium, Thallium and Thorium.

http://www.metametrix.com/files/test-menu/interpretive-guides/Elements-IG.pdf

Simply left click, or right click and select 'Save Target'). Viewing this chart requires Adobe Reader. If you do not have this, please download it from the following link.

http://www.adobe.com/products/acrobat/readstep2.html

back to top


Case Studies:
 

Historical Mercury Poisoning - Hat Making and Minamata Disease:

The hat making industry in the 1800s used mercuric nitrate in the felting process and the constant exposure to the chemical resulted in workers developing mercury poisoning. Hat makers' behaviour was often unpredictable and this is how the term 'mad as a hatter' originated. The cause of the 'madness' was not however understood at the time.

When Mercury was first used in widespread industrial processes, much like when DDT was first introduced, various people decided to prove it was totally harmless for PR purposes, by either drinking pure mercury or being sprayed in DDT. These people did not live very long afterwards.

In 1956 in Minamata Bay in Japan, local residents showed various symptoms including numbness of limbs and around the mouth, sensory disturbance, difficulty with normal hand movements, loss of co-ordination, weakness and tremors, slurred and slow speech, and altered hearing and vision. Symptoms were observed to worsen and led to paralysis, involuntary movements, difficulty in swallowing, convulsions, brain damage and finally death. The 'disease' was first thought to be genetic and was named 'Minamata Disease'. Cats also exhibited similar symptoms. Further research revealed high levels of mercury in the bay, resulting from mercuric salts being discharged into the bay by a local chemical manufacturing plant. 'Minamata Disease' was in fact mercury poisoning.

Please see the link below for frequently asked questions about mercury.

www.greenfacts.org/mercury/l-3/index.htm

back to top
 

Mercury levels in Women:

In a USEPA study from 2003, it was found that 1 in every 12 women in the USA has mercury levels in the body that exceeds the level considered safe by the USEPA. From the year 2000 onwards, about 5 million women (8% of those of childbearing age between 16 and 49) had at least 5.8ppb (parts per billion) in their blood. In 2003 the U.S. Research Council estimated that approximately 60,000 babies born each year in the USA could be at risk of brain damage with possible effects ranging from learnign difficulties to impaired nervous systems. U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention data suggests that the number of such babies could be as high as 300,000 babies born per year. The USEPA has found that children born to women with blood concentations of mercury of over 5.8ppm are at some risk of negative health effects, such as reduced developmental IQ and problems with motor skills such as hand-eye co-ordination.

back to top
 

Mercury Amalgam Fillings and Other Dental Issues:



back to top

 
Mercury Amalgam Fillings

Mercury is the second most toxic element known to man, after Plutonium. One of the most significant sources of mercury toxicity in the human body is the mercury amalgam filling. Amalgam fillings contain 52-75% pure mercury. It is presently illegal to fit mercury amalgam fillings in Sweden and Austria, on account of the health risk it poses to dentists, let alone patients. As of March 2008, Norway has banned the use of Mercury in dental practices, including mercury amalgam fillings.

www.detoxmetals.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=48&Itemid=48

Mercury has been used in fillings for several hundred years. Not only do amalgam fillings look unsightly, they may also be detrimental to one's health. The British Dental Association now admit that some mercury vapour does indeed leak from amalgam fillings, but that it is an insignificant amount that is not detrimental to health. It does concede that approximately 3% of the population may be hypersensitive to mercury amalagams and may have a reaction. 3% of the population is nearly 2 million people affected in the UK! The World Health Organization has found that the average individual could absorb as much as 120 micrograms of mercury per day from their amalgam fillings, which is considered a toxic dose. The act of brushing the filling or chewing gum may indeed increase the rate at which mercury vapour is released from the filling. Mercury vapour is ingested and absorbed into the blood stream, whereupon it attaches itself to tissues and fatty acids in the brain. Some amalgams have been tested and shown to have lost over half of their mercury content. Mercury is the second most toxic element known to man and there is no safe level as such. Any level in the body will cause some detrimental effects on a cellular level. It just depends what arbitrary cut off point the government classifies as 'safe' and as 'harmful'. How much damage do you want to cause to your body? It is all relative. One might argue the sane answer is as little as possible please.

The video below, courtesy of the International Academy of Oral Medicine and Toxicology ( target="_blank">http://IAOMT.org) presents physical video evidence of mercury vapor release from a 25 year old amalgam filling, and an overview of the scientific data confirming its distribution to the vital organs of the body.



Studies show that farmers who work with pesticides and herbicides are approximately eight times more likely to develop cancer in later life than the equivalent organic farmers. Cancer rates amongst dentists who handle mercury amalgam fillings are equally much higher than those of the general population.

Mercury amalgams are much cheaper to fit than ceramic or composite fillings, and therefore are fitted as standard on the National Health Service in the UK. If the BDA admitted that there were significant health risks associated with Amalgam fillings, there would no doubt be an enormous number of law suits, probably bringing down the entire health service, if this was indeed the case. So is the status quo a conspiracy, incompetence, oversight or sensible medical regulation? Is the public being told the truth? You decide!

back to top

 
Amalgam Filling Removal

If you have a mercury amalgam, or several, you can have them inspected to see if they are healthy and if they appear not to be eroded significantly. This can be done by both a dentist and an experienced consultant of naturopathic medicine. All fillings should be inspected regularly, regardless of type. If you have mercury amalgam fillings, it may indeed be time to replace them anyway, in which case don't have amalgams fitted again, but an alternative such as composite or ceramic fillings.

If you are a CFS sufferer, you should seriously consider having them removed. If a filling is not emitting a significant amount of vapour now, it in all likelihood will later, and the effect of continuous vapour release into the body over decades should not be underestimated. However, when considering Amalgam removal, then one must consider the dangers of liberating a significant amount of Mercury all at once during the actual removal process, which can render a patient considerably more ill than before the procedure. If you are getting better consistently in your treatment programme, then don't bother having your amalgam fillings out yet. If you are not able to get better without removing them, then remove them. This is generally the same advice often given by practitioners for if or when to start a detoxification/chelation programme.

I personally believe that Mercury Amalgam Fillings should all be removed (at some point), but in accordance with procedures outlined by the British Society for Mercury Free Dentistry. This involves the use of a rubber dam and oxygen apparatus to prevent the patient breating in any mercury vapour. A holistic dentist or practitioner will be able to advise you on pre- and post-treatment detoxification protocols. These pre- and post-treatment protocols are almost more important than the precautions taken during the procedure itself, to deal with the inevitable Mercury that is ingested during the procedure, so do not overlook these as you may live to regret it.

It is generally recommended to go to a dentist at a mercury-free practice who has an excellent reputation. Just because a dentist does not use mercury does not mean he or she is a good dentist! With regard to filling removal, a good dentist will not recommend anything, but merely point out the pros and cons with each option. An unscrupulous dentist will recommend the most expensive course of treatment, regardless of what is right for you. Some dentists use the rubber dam and suction device, but do not provide patients with oxygen to breathe, but simply place a cloth over the nose. Whilst this may indeed be sufficient for some patients, others with a greater mercury sensitivity, may well inhale small amounts of mercury as the filling is cut up and removed, leading to illness and mercury toxicity symptoms. Whilst it may not be strictly necessary for all, it cannot hurt to use oxygen in any case.

Please bear in mind that even with the above precautions, a significant amount of mercury may be released during the procedure and absorbed into the body (through swallowing and inhaling), temporarily increasing toxicity levels. If this elevated level is not treated in any way, and the patient may well become slightly or extremely ill, and will be worse off than before the dental procedure took place. This is why the use of an absorbant such as chlorella, bentonite or charcoal powder is recommended for use during (immediately prior to) the procedure. Bentonite and Charcoal are far more powerful as absorbants than Chlorella in my opinion. One may even want to consider the use of a laxative substance in order to speed up the transit time of the newly ingested heavy metals through the digestive tract, so there is less time for them to be absorbed into the bloodstream. Taking a significant dosage of a laxative, like Senna or perhaps Epsom Salts may be in order. Having a clear bowel beforehand will help (i.e. not too congested), as the more excrement there is stuck in the bowel, the more material there is to absorb the Mercury as it passes through and retain it effectively in the digestive tract, to be slowly absorbed back into the body over time.

Amalgam Fillings leak out Mercury during the extraction procedure if they are cut into segments and removed from a tooth. If you are lucky, if you have Amalgam Fillings in your wisdom teeth, then you can simply have the wisdom teeth removed without any need to actually cut the amalgam filling up. Wisdom teeth removal in the upper I would strongly recommend not going ahead with an Amalgam removal until you have a definite and clear plan of pre- and post-removal treatment. Do not be fobbed off by a dentist who will give you that information after the procedure. By then the Mercury has been swallowed and much of it is circulating in the blood and being absorbed into the tissues. You need to be sure you have all the materials you need and that you are 100% happy with the pre- and post-removal protocol, and not be in the position of having done nothing and arguing with your dentist after the event.

As a rule, it is recommended that if you intend to have your amalgam filling(s) out, that you undergo some detoxification before the procedure. In this way, at least you are removing more of the mercury from your blood stream and intestines before releasing new amounts of mercury into your system, and will not burden the liver too much. After the filling removal, a full detoxification programme is a must, as you will more than likely have elevated mercury levels in your blood stream. If these levels are left untreated, they will simply deposit more mercury into your brain and tissues and put a constant strain on your liver and kidneys, making you feel much worse. How you actually feel will depend on your personal sensitivity to heavy metals.

An example of detoxification protocol would be taking a chelating agent such as NCD, Pectasol, DMSA or EDTA for a month prior to the procedure, taking bentonite clay (or chlorella) immediately prior (30 mins prior) to and after the procedure (for a number of days and then semi-regularly for the rest of one's detox programme); with NCD/Pectasol/OSR/DMSA/DMPS usage continuing pretty much as soon as you leave the dentists; and starting with Mercury Mobilisers such as Lipoic acid when you have cleared most of the circulating Mercury in your body; and in the latter stages beginning with phosphatidyl choline supplementation, OAPD and FIR sauna usage until you have finished your detoxification programme. Some dentists provide high dosage Vitamin C IV injections immediately after the amalgam removal, to minimise the effects of Mercury toxicity on the system.

You should of course discuss this with your dentist or naturopath/consultant. Never use a chelating agent (e.g. Cilantro, DMSA etc) before you have your amalgam fillings removed as it may draw mercury out from your filling(s). Chelating agents such as NCD, Pectasol, DMSA and EDTA are considered safe to use whilst you still have your amalgam fillings. Some combination products contain Lipoic Acid and other poweful mercury mobilising agents, and whilst many claim to be safe to use with your amalgams still in place, it is probably not advisable to use anything with mercury mobilisers in it until later on in your detox programme.

Bear in mind that if your naturopath or consultant gives you no advice about detoxification treatment if he or she knows you are going to have a mercury amalgam filling removed, then it may be best to find someone else. Otherwise you may spend many months needlessly feeling unwell whilst your consultant prescribes you various expensive supplements trying to figure out (at your expense, physically and financially) why you aren't getting any better. Andy Cutler suggests using DMPS or DMSA around 4 days after the amalgam filling removal, and that some ingestion/absorption of Mercury will occur no matter how careful one is during the operation.

Some researchers are of the opinion that certain chelating agents that cross the blood-brain barrier (in particular Lipoic Acid) should not be used for up to 4 months after a mercury amalgam filling removal, as they may actually help mercury cross the blood-brain barrier from the blood into the brain, rather than simply removing mercury from the tissues and blood. Please see the Oral Chelation section on the Detox page for more information.

The supplements mentioned in this section are described in detail on the Detoxification Protocols page.

back to top

 
Alternatives to Amalgam Fillings - Composite and Ceramic Fillings

I recommend that people brush their teeth properly and avoid eating refined sugar in excess so that they never need a filling in the first place! You wouldn't leave peaces of food stuck to the biting or chewing surfaces of your teeth all day or over night would you? So equally you shouldn't want to leave any food stuck between your teeth either. Brushing doesn't remove all the food stuck between one's teeth. Therefore, it is wise to become good friends with dental floss! However, in the event that you do require a filling, the sensible options are a composite or ceramic filling. Ceramics are harder and more brittle and are better suited for cutting surfaces at the front of the mouth, whereas composites are more flexible and softer, and are better suited to molars at the back of the mouth for chewing. If a filling is to be very small, then the filling is literally filled into the hole in the tooth in situ (direct filling), and it is hardened layer by layer using UV light. If the hole is quite large, then an in situ filling can still be used, but the better option is to use an inlay (indirect filling). An impression is taken and a filling is made up in a laboratory, sent back to the dentist, whereupon he or she bonds it into the hole. Whilst waiting for the inlay, a temporary filling is used to protect the filling site. Composites have a shorter life than ceramics (porcelain fillings), typically 3-8 years. Amalgam fillings have a theoretical life of 12 years. The lifespan of ceramics lies somewhere in between, however they are more prone to chipping. How well one looks after one's teeth and the filling are also important in prolonging the life of the filling. Modern composites contain no metal at all, whereas ceramics contain aluminium and zirconium oxides, but there is no evidence as such to suggest that these can leak out from the filling. In addition, some people argue that consumption of small amounts of aluminium oxide (Al2O3) is harmless as the form of aluminium is stable and insoluble (a common component of certain edible clays). Composites may however release non-metallic toxins, as by their nature contain plastics. Take your choice! There are mercury-free practices as well as regular practices that will fit these fillings for you. A dentist should give you a choice, if they are private. If they do not, and fit an amalgam as default without asking, then you should change dentist.

back to top

 
Other Metals in the Mouth - Implants and Osteotomies:

There are issues surrounding other metals in the mouth. Whilst 316L surgical grade steel is the most inert and it is understood that they are not significantly leached by chelating agents (and if so, the main metal leached is Iron), other metals are more problematic, such as Titanium. This is frequently used in artificial roots for tooth implants. Titanium is known to leach into the tissues continuously to a small degree and can potential cause a number of health problems, albeit to a slightly lesser extent than mercury. It is still a toxic metal however. There are ceramic alternatives.

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2009/08/08/Be-VERY-Careful-When-Replacing-Missing-Teeth.aspx

One form of dental operation that often accompanies orthodontics is mandibular or maxillary advancement surgery or osteotomy. The most common type of corrective jaw surgery is the mandibular osteotomy which involves the cutting of the jaw on each side from inside the mouth (behind the teeth), moving it forwards and holding that position by inserting 316L surgical grade stainless steel plates on each side and screwing them directly into the bone. Whilst surgical steel (316L) is relatively inert, it does contain Nickel, Chromium and Molybdenum as well as Iron of course (and other elements). Nickel is a toxic heavy metal, whilst Cr and Mb are nutritional elements in small quantities and toxic in larger quantities. Whilst there is generally no issue with leaching, even with chelation therapy, it is probably wise to avoid such a procedure unless it is strictly necessary, and not just for cosmetic reasons. There is always a risk of loss of sensation through nerve damage.

I myself had a bilateral maxillary osteotomy at BUPA Bishopswood Hospital and was advised by my surgeon Graham Bounds that there was a 5% chance of reduced sensation in my lower lip and perhaps a 1% chance of no sensation afterwards. The operation including hospital, surgeon and anaethesia fees was around £5000. After the operation I had no sensation at all (as is often the case), and after some months only a very reduced level of sensation returned. Meaning that sometimes when drinking I dribble on himself and kissing is only 'half 'as pleasurable as it should be! A very mild pins and needles sensation in the lower lip is felt 24/7, especially when touching the lower lip against the upper lip or against something else. I thought I was either very unlucky or the figures provided by Bounds were a sales pitch and grossly exaggerated. However, in hindsight it may be because Bounds accidentally put one of the screws into the nerve canal in my jaw!

After a year or so, I noticed that chewing anything firmer on the right rear molar would result in aching for a couple of days afterwards. I presumed this was due to gum recession and shallower roots. However, 9.5 years after the operation, the aching on this right rear molar really started getting worse, and it also seemed to affect the other teeth on the right side that were more sensitive to pressure than before. It got to a point where chewing anything but the lightest of foods on the right would be excruciatingly painful so I had to stop eating on the right side entirely for 3-4 months. Also I found that when lying on my right side in bed would feel uncomfortable in the area around the rear right molar, but sometimes surrounding areas. Sleeping on the right was aggravating my tooth more and more, so even if I avoiding chewing on the right, it still didn't get any better. My dentist took various x-rays and was no real help, couldn't identify the problem. They thought it was possibly due to one of the screws underneath that no.6 right lower molar that was perhaps too close to the root of the tooth but the X-rays weren't conclusive. In the end I saw a well known dentist on Harley Street in London, and firstly it was observed that my bite was perhaps putting pressure on the right side so he smoothed off a few of the teeth to make the bite more balanced and then suggested a type of CT scan at a special facility on Harley Street, CT Dent, using a Cone Beam CT Scan for both upper and lower jaws. This revealed that the screw underneath the root of that molar was not too close but instead, the screw at the back of the chain (there are 2 in front and one behind the point where the jaw was cut) was penetrating the nerve canal. It would appear Bounds got it wrong and this is what was causing the problems. However, the only solution to this problem is to have the screw removed by an oral surgeon - at additional expense.

Going back to the time after the operation, I also suspect that the excessive amount of recession of the gums around the teeth on the lower jaw may have been at least partly due to the jaw operation - perhaps partly due to somewhat impaired health at the time. I had a friend who had a Maxillary Osteotomy, which involved slicing off the bone retaining the upper jaw's teeth (maxilla), taking another slice to remove a slice of bone, then replacing the original slice with the teeth back on and drilling it in. My friend reported that this his upper jaw felt very uncomfortable 6-9 months afterwards. Many surgeons and orthodontists recommend having both maxillary and mandibular osteotomies performed, if the upper teeth protrude down too much, and the lower jaw is not long enough, but most people settle for just the lower jaw surgery. My cousin, who shared the exact same genetic 'problem', elected to avoid surgery completely and just have orthodontics done on the upper teeth, much to the displeasure of her orthodontist. I wish in hindsight I had done this or just not bothered at all.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surgical_stainless_steel

www.lenntech.com/stainless-steel-316l.htm

Accompanying issues relating to orthodontics are described below (not strictly relating to metal implants).

Should I try Orthodontics? Orthodontists often give you a rather over-optimistic picture of how successful orthodontic treatment can be, much like a car sales person will try to talk up a car in order to sell you a car. An Orthodontist clearly believes their work is worthwhile, otherwise they would not be doing it, so you cannot expect an unbiased opinion. Every sold customer means profit also. Here is my own personal experience of orthodontic treatment with Roy Abrahams, an Orthodontist in Rickmansworth, Hertfordshire, UK. He may not be representative of all orthodontists of course. You can make up your own mind and weigh up the pros and cons.

http://www.orthodontist-online.co.uk/index.html
I sought orthodontic treatment as I had a big overbite, my lower jaw was too short in relation to the upper jaw and the front teeth on the upper jaw were pointing in all different directions, but mainly pointing backwards in an effort to meet the teeth of the lower jaw. I decided to have orthodontic treatment in conjunction with surgery on my lower jaw to move it forwards (as recommended by the orthodontist, to create the perfect profile.
To summarise, my experience from 2000 to 2002 was of ineffective orthodontic treatment, with a lack of direction in treatment of the teeth of the lower jaw, first moving them back and up, then forward and down, and then doing very little at all for the last few months; and achieving very little apart from heavy exposure of the roots of the teeth and a misaligned biting plane on the lower jaw.

Roy instructed my surgeon to remove the lower wisdom teeth and two premolar teeth so that when the front teeth on the lower jaw were pulled back, they would all fit on the jaw properly (prior to treatment the lower jaw was too short for the number of teeth on it). A big gap was left between the teeth on both the left and right side of the lower jaw. Why these teeth were instructed by Roy Abrahams to have been removed is beyond my understanding. A very disappointing result. Once you've exposed the roots, the gums won't grow back again so it is a permanent feature! The gap in the teeth denied some of the teeth structural support and means that the discrepency in the biting plane will just get worse over time unless corrective action is taken (i.e. getting ceramic (better than Titanium) implants to fill the gap).

I visited Roy Abrahams on the instruction of my local dentist (the one who gave me an amalgam filling in 1990 without offering me a choice of a non-Mercury alternative) who seemed to highly rate his work. He was the most local also. If you are going to try orthodontics, I would not suggest that you follow the recommendation of your local dentist about seeing any particular orthodontist, but find the best orthodontist you can find in a big city, preferably capital city. In my case I should have sought out the best orthodontist I could find in London. Most local dentists are likely to be rather average, and thus are not in the best position to be able to judge the work of others in the field of dentistry and facial/oral surgery. Orthodontics are very tricky. As with most things, an average practitioner will yield poor results. An excellent one will yield good results.

Another factor to consider is that the advice you receive may vary considerably, sometimes annoyingly so when it is too late! Some dentists or orthodontists will encourage wearers of a brace/orthodontics to brush their teeth regularly and well to avoid discolouration of the teeth relative to that underneath the appliances (seen once they are removed). Others will tell you to only brush very gently, as you would be brushing your teeth many times a day anyway, there may be a danger of receeding gums from repeated aggressive brushings. It seems that a dentist or orthodontist will exaggerate advice as they assume the average person is lazy and won't bother looking after their teeth, regardless of who they are talking to. It is not sensible to give over-zealous advice to someone who is already neurotic! It would be better just to tell the truth and be honest!
I was advised that the excessive recession of the teeth on his lower jaw was down to his overbrushing of his teeth during the time the braces were in place. However, this does not quite tally, as there was minimal recession on the top teeth, and I was not aware of having brushed them significantly differently (but could be wrong of course). I put this down to the excessive movement of the front lower teeth during orthodontic treatment, which moved up too much when pulled back so had to be pushed back forwards again. It is also likely that the actual mandibular osteotomy was also a major factor as the jaw rarely 'likes' being cut and moved forwards, and being forced to grow back together again (to bridge the new gap) over many months. This effect of jaw surgery was never mentioned to me.

In addition, once the recession of the teeth had started, the rate of recession was hugely greater than the normal rate of recession, even given gentle brushing, and in the course of 5 years, the gum recession was so bad that I will likely have most of the teeth on his lower jaw fall out in the next 5 or 10 years and will need to have numerous implants fitted (at enormous expense). My molars on the lower jaw were worst affected, followed by his canine teeth. In fact his left lower molar was worst affected and has ached intensely for many years when chewing something very chewy (e.g. well cooked chicken or fresh nuts). He also cannot eat apples without a knife as biting into them with my upper incisor teeth is too painful. The jaw operation associated with the orthodontics (the osteotomy) also left me with little sensation in my lower lip (not great for the next 50 years of kissing and dribbling on myself when looking down as I can't feel the saliva in the front of my mouth). Prior to the orthodontics, there was very minimal if any recession on the teeth of my lower jaw, my gums being healthy and strong, and I had been known to brush his teeth quite vigorously prior to that.

Towards the end of the 'treatment', Roy became tired of me, and told me that there was no point having further orthodontic appointments (I had prepaid for a course of orthodontic treatment, so after the operation, he lost interest in me as a patient). I had one additional orthodontic appointment, and nothing had really been achieved over that month period - I had hoped the issues around the lower gap and the gap could have been resolved naively. When I next saw him, he was very flippant and turned on the attitude to discourage me from any appointments. When the retainers were issued, instructions for their care were given extremely nonchalantly. Retainers look similar to boxing mouth guards and are worn at night on occasion to prevent the slow movement of the teeth back to their original (undesired) positions after orthodontic treatment (braces). I was told to 'brush them with toothpaste occasionally if you want to'. However, after 2 or 3 days of wearing them, I became aware of a funny taste whilst wearing them and found pieces of white fungus floating around in his mouth. Highly pleasant! Even brushing them with toothpaste once or twice a day wasn't enough, and after many months of trying to clean them properly, he asked the orthodontist's reception and was told to soak them in vinegar overnight, every few months or so. I have further found that leaving the retainers when not in use in a mug of concentrated (saturated) saline solution or in a pint glass/mug of vinegar (with cling film on the top to prevent one's bathroom smelling too much!) keeps any bacterial/fungal build up from occurring. Retainers are then brushed with toothpaste and rinsed immediately before use each time when removed from whichever solution is used to store them in when not in use. It would have been preferable to have been advised of the correct procedure from the start.
Please see the section below on Toxicity from Plastics for a discussion of the negative aspects of using orthodontic retainers after the orthodontic treatment has finished, and the amount of regular moving of the teeth by using retainers.

Do I recommend Orthodontics? Well, not really! If one considers the amount of time, effort and expense put in, and the amount of associated aggravation in the past, present and likely future, then for a little cosmetic vanity, it was really not worth it. If you go to a highly skilled orthodontist, and surgeon, then the amount of gum recession may be reduced, but it will still be an issue. Whilst I cannot undo any of the above, I can certainly share my experience with you the reader and provide you with an example of what can happen with orthodontics to counterbalance the sales pitch from your own dentist or orthodontist.

back to top

 
Bisphenol A in Dentistry

Please note that sealants sometimes used to coat teeth for added protection against dental decay, particularly where there are troublesome or exposed parts of the enamel, use bisphenol A or BPA, which is known to be a hormone disrupting chemical.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bisphenol_A

http://www.thegreenguide.com/doc/30/toxicdentistry

Research shows that although composite fillings tend to contain BPA derived chemicals, e.g. bis-GMA (bisphenol A glycidyl methacrylate), they do not actually contain BPA itself and do not actually release/leach BPA into the saliva.

http://www.bisphenol-a.org/human/dental.html

'Since exposure to BPA from dental sealants occurs only in a short time period immediately after the sealant is applied, and dental sealants are applied only very infrequently, safety is most appropriately evaluated as an acute exposure event.'

www.babble.com/Swallowed-Filling-BPA-Breast-Milk-advice

'BPA has a short half-life...Within six hours of exposure, there are no detectable levels of BPA in the body. The health concerns about BPA revolve around continual exposure through food packaging and other plastics, not to mention the BPA found in the ground and water' [as opposed to a one off exposure witha dental sealant].

BPA also leaches from plastic retainers used by orthodontistry patients, which are worn in the mouth every week for the rest of one's life.

Please see the section on Sources of Exogenous Toxins and plastic packaging below for more information on BPA and plastics.

back to top

 


Mercury and Vaccinations:

The vast majority of injectable vaccines contain an organic form of mercury called Thiomersal. Alternative forms of preservative are also employed including formaldehyde and aluminium.

Organic forms of heavy metals are the most toxic, and Thiomersal is used as an anti-fungal and preservative to keep the vaccines 'safe' and extend their shelf life. Whilst this may sound convenient, it does not take into account the toxicological effects of injecting mercury directly into the body!

The benefits of vaccines, in particular vaccines such as the Flu Jab are hotly debated in the scientific community. Flu jabs are made up of strains of viri 'expected' to crop up over the Winter - influenza viri are constantly mutating so how accurate this prediction really is is anyone's guess. Perhaps it might be cheaper and more productive to encourage people to eat healthier and to naturally boost their immune systems. The flu vaccine is nurtured on decomposed animal, egg or human protein. Other vaccines employ various methods, including wounding animals, infecting them, and then killing them. If are you intending to have a vaccination, plan in advance and be sure to ask what is going to be in the shot. You have a right to know. You may want to enquire if there are alternatives without mercury.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thiomersal

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thiomersal_controversy

www.healing-arts.org/children/vaccines/vaccines-mercury.htm

www.quackwatch.org/03HealthPromotion/immu/thimerosal.html

Articles specifically about the Flu Jab can be found below.

http://curezone.com/art/read.asp?ID=32&db=12&C0=735

Mercola on Vitamin D vs The Flu Vaccine

www.nhsdirect.nhs.uk/articles/article.aspx?articleId=509

The links below explores links between Aluminium present in vaccines (e.g. Anthrax vaccine) and nerve damage, leading to pain and chronic fatigue, Macrophagic myofasciitis (MMF - an inflammatory muscle disease), and also Gulf War Syndrome.

www.wellnessresources.com/studies/entry/aluminum_vaccine_adjuvant_linked_to_chronic_fatigue_and_pain

www.rense.com/general67/vacc.htm

Some scientists have linked the polio virus (intestinal viri passed on by saliva or stools) to CFS. In addition, it is thought that the polio vaccine may contribute to CFS by making may for another enterovirus to grow in the intestines after vaccination, and to cause damage to the hypothalamus and brain stem.

www.immunesupport.com/library/showarticle.cfm/ID/3658/e/1/T/CFIDS_FM

An article examining the links between childhood polio and instances of CFS in adult life can be found at the link below.

www.cssa-inc.org/Articles/Childhood_Polio.htm

MMR is a triple or combined vaccine against measles, mumps and rubella.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MMR_vaccine

The MMR vaccine is a mixture of three live attenuated viruses, administered via injection for immunization against measles, mumps and rubella (also called German measles). It is generally administered to children around the age of one year, with a second dose before starting school (i.e. age 4/5). The second dose is not a booster; it is a dose to produce immunity in the small number of persons (2-5%) who fail to develop measles immunity after the first dose. In the United States, the vaccine was licensed in 1963 and the second dose was introduced in the mid 1990s. It is widely used around the world; since introduction of its earliest versions in the 1970s, over 500 million doses have been used in over 60 countries. As with all vaccinations, long-term effects and efficacy are subject to continuing study. The vaccine is sold by Merck as M-M-R II, GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals as Priorix, Serum Institute of India as Tresivac, and sanofi pasteur as Trimovax.

Adverse reactions, rarely serious, may occur from each component of the MMR vaccine. 10% of children develop fever, malaise and a rash 521 days after the first vaccination; 5% develop temporary joint pain. Older women appear to be more at risk to joint pain, acute arthritis, and even (rarely) chronic arthritis. Anaphylaxis is an extremely rare but serious allergic reaction to the vaccine. The vaccine product brief lists many other adverse reactions.

The number of reports on neurologic disorders is very small, other than evidence for an association between a form of the MMR vaccine containing the Urabe mumps strain and rare adverse events of aseptic meningitis, a transient mild form of viral meningitis. The UK National Health Service stopped using the Urabe mumps strain in the early 1990s due to cases of transient mild viral meningitis, and switched to a form using the Jeryl Lynn mumps strain instead. The Urabe strain remains in use in a number of countries; MMR with the Urabe strain is much cheaper to manufacture than with the Jeryl Lynn strain, and a strain with higher efficacy along with a somewhat higher rate of mild side effects may still have the advantage of reduced incidence of overall adverse events.

The Cochrane Library review found several problems in the quality of MMR vaccine safety studies. Its authors concluded by recommending the adoption of standardized definitions of adverse events. The review's abstract concludes, "The design and reporting of safety outcomes in MMR vaccine studies, both pre- and post-marketing, are largely inadequate. The evidence of adverse events following immunisation with MMR cannot be separated from its role in preventing the target diseases."

In the UK, the MMR vaccine was the subject of controversy after publication of a 1998 paper by Andrew Wakefield et al. reporting a study of twelve children who had autism spectrum disorders and bowel symptoms, in many cases with onset observed soon after administration of MMR vaccine. During a 1998 press conference, Wakefield suggested that giving children the vaccines in three separate doses would be safer than a single injection. This suggestion was not supported by the paper, and several subsequent peer-reviewed studies have failed to show any association between the vaccine and autism. Administering the vaccines in three separate doses does not reduce the chance of adverse effects, and it increases the opportunity for infection by the two diseases not immunized against first. Health experts have criticized media reporting of the MMR-autism controversy for triggering a decline in vaccination rates. In 2007 Wakefield became the subject of a General Medical Council disciplinary hearing over allegations that his research had received funding related to litigation against MMR-vaccine manufacturers, and had concealed this fact from the editors of The Lancet.

In 2004, after an investigation by The Sunday Times, the interpretation section of the study, which identified a general association in time between the vaccine and autism, was formally retracted by ten of Wakefield's twelve coauthors. The Centers for Disease Control, the Institute of Medicine of the National Academy of Sciences, the UK National Health Service and the Cochrane Library review have all concluded that there is no evidence of a link between the MMR vaccine and autism.Í

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2001/01/07/mmr-safety-part-one.aspx

www.mmrthefacts.nhs.uk

Contrary to popular belief, the MMR vaccine does not contain Thiomersal. It, like other vaccines, may contain other foreign DNA/viral fragments as well as known allergens. Some researchers has postulated that the presence of viral agents in the body may act as triggers in conditions like CFS and Autism, by temporarily raising Nitric Oxide levels in the body. Please see the Causes and Effects and Viri page for more information.

A list of vaccines and immunisation references and research citations can be found on the Mercola web site at the link below.

www.mercola.com/article/vaccines/references.htm

As an afternote, there is a large amount of concern about the highly publicised Swine Flu (H1N1) in 2009. There is no known link between CFS and Swine Flu. However, as this is a topical issue, it is briefly mentioned here.

Whilst there are two main anti-viral drugs being used on sufferers, the most famous being Tamiflu, this is not widely tested and has been known to have a number of severe side effects. There is no vaccine (broken up pieces of the virus that can be used to train the body's immune system to fight it more effectively) at the time of writing, it is currently in the final stages of testing. It is reputed to be more similar to the flu vaccine than the infamous US Swine Flu vaccine of the 1970s that had to be scrapped on account of a number of cases of paralysis and death (from the vaccine). However, most vaccines still contain Mercury etc. The Swine flu seems to afflict the chest in severe cases, and it is documented that secondary bacterial chest infections are usually the actual cause of deaths. One can therefore look to using a bacterial vaccine such as Pneumovax II, which is a vaccine against Meningitis and Pneumonia. This does not contain Mercury or Formaldehyde preservatives but Phenol which can be broken down by the body. Your doctor or practitioner should be able to advise you about this vaccine.

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2009/09/19/The-Truth-about-the-Flu-Shot.aspx

Swine Flu is a pandemic virus which means that it can affect the young as well as old. It is estimated that nearly everyone will at one stage or other will fight off the Swine Flu virus, in mild incidents, with fatalities only affecting a small minority - you being more likely to be run over crossing the road, or indeed die of complications from the influenza virus. However, as mentioned on the Viral Infections and Immune System Impairement pages, there are a number of strategies to boost your immune system (preventatively) and antiviral herbs (viral treatment) that can be taken to assist the body's ability to resist and fight off the virus. If you are seriously ill, you should consider regular medical treatment for this virus. This is your own personal responsibility and choice.

back to top

 
Mercury and CFL Lighting:

As an afternote, Mercury is also found in CFL - Compact Fluorescent Lighting - light bulbs (e.g. energy saving bulbs, full spectrum bulbs) and fluorescent lighting tubes (typically found in office environments).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fluorescent_lamp

These bulbs and tubes contain mercury, and according to government statements, the mercury is only released when the bulbs and tubes are broken (i.e. duing disposal or when dropped). The purpose of CFL bulbs is to be more 'green' by having a longer life and using less power than a conventional incandescent light bulb.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incandescent_light_bulb

However, there are currently no effective methods of recycling the mercury in these bulbs and tubes once waste, and the energy requirement to manufacture the bulbs and tubes in the first place perhaps outweighs their energy saving benefit (a little like 'hybrid' cars - where does the electricity come from in the first place?) So which is more green? Lighting systems that are both energy efficient, not energy intensive to produce and which do not contain mercury or other toxic metals may be some way off. Numerous countries are seeking to ban incandescent bulbs by 2010 and manufacturers are slowly phasing incandescent products out.

www.reuk.co.uk/Toxic-Mercury-in-CFL-Bulbs.htm

www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=7431198

The Department of the Environment in the UK has stated that a room should be vacated for at least 15 minutes after a low-energy CFL bulb has been broken.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7172662.stm

'A vacuum cleaner should not be used to clear up the debris, and care should be taken not to inhale the dust. Instead, rubber gloves should be used, and the broken bulb put into a sealed plastic bag - which should be taken to the local council for disposal.'

Some sources also claim that as well as the disposal issue, CFL lights constantly emit small amounts of mercury vapour when in use. It is unlikely that CFL lights are 100% sealed, but as to the amounts emitted, this is a matter of debate as to whether they are significant or not. It would be good to see further studies performed in this area. So should we stock up on incandescent bulbs before they are phased out or move over to CFL lighting? Should one lobby governments to rethink their 'green' strategies? You decide. Either way, the exposure of Mercury is likely to be far greater in individuals who have Mercury Amalgam fillings (i.e. carrying around an amalgam which is up to 75% mercury in your mouth 24 hours a day!) or who have had multiple vaccinations (see below).

There are non-Mercury containing Halogen, energy saving light bulbs, for example Philips EcoClassic range. These look similar to regular incandescent light bulbs also use 70% of their power for the same light output. They also produce a similar or reduced electric field, which is useful. They are however more expensive, and most come in clear bulbs rather than pearl bulbs. Most wattages have now however been banned by the EU, even on these more efficient bulbs.

If you are buying up the last of the screw cap or bayonet cap incandescent 100W or 60W light bulbs on the internet, I would personally avoid those marked 'Rough Service' or 'Shatterproof'. These are more hardy in their construction and are designed for portable inspection lamps or when subject to vibration, such as in electric garage door fittings. They are generally plastic coated to prevent the glass shattering when it breaks, and this also means that they will smell very strongly of burnt plastic for some time after first use, unbearably so. They are thus not suitable for indoor usage in my opinion. Some Rough Service bulbs are also Teflon coated, which I would also avoid!

It should be noted that CFL lighting emits both an electric field multiple times stronger than the equivalent incandescent light bulb (with a higher power rating). One would assume that CFL lighting, on account of the lower power requirements, would have less of an electric field, but this is not so. In addition, CFL lighting also emits an additional EM radiation besides the visible and UV light of incandescent bulbs, namely of a frequency of between 10 and 20 kHz (in the radiowaves end of the spectrum). In short, CFL lighting may be something you want to avoid if at all possible, whilst you still can (swapping out CFL lighting for incandescent lighting), particularly if you are EMF and EMR sensitive.

www.emsmog.com/the_site/?p=4

back to top

 
Fluoride in Toothpaste and Drinking Water:

Fluoride is the salt of hydrofluoric acid (HF), probably one of the most corrosive and dangerous acids with the ability to eat through glass. Fluorine gas (F2) is highly poisonous. However, Sodium Fluoride (NaF) is only mildly toxic and slightly alkaline. NaF dissolves in water to form Na+ and F- ions.

Fluoride occurs naturally in most water sources, such as groundwater, lakes and rivers, and as such low levels of Fluoride can be found in the majority of mineral water products and domestic tap water in most countries. The levels are generally less than 0.5 ppm (parts per million) or mg/l. In the UK, average values in non-Fluoridated areas are around 0.1 to 0.2 mg/l. Fluoride levels in the groundwater are dependent upon the local geology. In those rocks richest in fluorite, apatite and micas, reflective of igneous and volcanic rocks, weathering and circulation of water within them can result in the release of Fluorine, which dissolves in water, reacting with rock minerals to form a Fluoride salt. This can then leach into the local groundwater. Natural fluoride levels are also dependent upon temperature, and arid regions tend to have higher fluoride levels because the groundwater levels are lower and the contact time with rocks tends to be longer. High Fluoride groundwaters are chiefly associated with waters rich in Sodium Bicarbonate and relatively low in Ca and Mg.

http://www.un-igrac.org/publications/150

In Ireland, Fluoride groundwater levels can reach as high as 5.8 mg/l in certain regions. In the volcanic areas of Nairobi, Rift Valley and Central Provinces in Africa, fluoride levels can reach as high as 50 mg/l.

http://www.who.int/water_sanitation_health/publications/fluoride_drinking_water_full.pdf

Global fluoride and arsenic groundwater levels are summarised at the link below.

http://www.rsc.org/chemistryworld/News/2008/April/23040801.asp

Water fluoridation programmes vary from country to country, but typically levels are below 1.5 mg/l. Not all countries have implemented fluoridation schemes and those that have often only implement them in specific regions, where they deem it will make the most impact in terms of dental health. In the British Isles, water fluoridation programmes are currently in operation in England (10% of population) and the Ireland (71-73% of population) only - Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland have not implemented any such programmes as yet.

In the UK, the maximum limit for fluoride in drinking water is 1.5 mg/l, with levels typically less than 0.99 mg/l. In Ireland, fluoride levels are set by local authorities in the major cities to 0.6 - 0.8 mg/l with a target value of 0.7 mg/l. The USEPA has set the target fluoride level in fluoridated areas to 0.7 mg/l. The CDC has set a maximum contaminant level for fluoride in drinking water at 4 mg/l to prevent skeletal fluorosis (discussed below).

Water fluoridation schemes are implemented because the legislators believe (based on numerous studies) that they improve the population's dental health, reducing incidents of dental caries and lessening plaque build up, lessening the requirement for additional state funded dentists that might otherwise be necessary. Of course dental caries and plaque build up are only two of many dental problems and one would not wish the general public to see their dentists less often just because the water supply has been fluoridated. Presumably the focus is on reducing the number of unscheduled/emergency visits to the state-sponsored dentists.

The logic is that tap water will come into contact with teeth as it is used/consumed and thus will inhibit tooth decay somewhat more, but of course it will be swallowed in significant quantities unlike toothpaste or mouthwash which is generally not swallowed (although may be in small amounts). Contact with the mouth is only a small part of the water's journey through the body. The Fluoride in drinking water is absorbed into the bloodstream via the stomach and intestines. It may also be absorbed through the skin in the shower. F- reaches a peak in the blood approximately 30-60 minutes after ingestion. It is removed by the kidneys but some is absorbed by the bones and teeth and incorporated into their mineral structure. However the Fluoride concentration in fluoridated water is significantly less than topical oral products, and the issue is what the safe level of Fluoride is in drinking water - and the levels in Fluoridated water are deemed to be safe by the relevant water authorities.

Fluoride is used in most toothpastes and many mouthwashes, to help prevent dental caries and plaque build up on the teeth. Typically, concentration is around 0.1450 % or 1450 ppm F- (as Sodium Monofluorophosphate) in Colgate toothpaste. This is approximately 2000 times more concentrated than the Fluoride in drinking water. Colgate Fluorigard mouthwash contains 0.05% Sodium Fluoride, which is approximately 500ppm F- or roughly 700x concentration of fluoridated tap water. Toothpaste and mouthwashes are of course used topically, and small amounts are used at a time and only 2-3 times a day, whereas with tap water, potentially up to a litre a day may be drunk. Fluoride is not generally believed to be absorbed in any significant quantities from mouthwashes and toothbrushing, however it is likely that some Fluoride will be absorbed sublingually as it my experience with mouthwashes and any liquids under the tongue. Some toothpaste or mouthwash is however usually swallowed during use or prior to or during the washing out of the mouth.

Two of the most documented effects of elevated fluoride exposure are dental and skeletal fluorosis. Dental fluorosis occurs chiefly where children are exposed to high fluoride concentrations at an early age, when the tooth enamel is still developing. This can result in pitting and brown discolouration of the teeth. Skeletal fluorosis can affect both adults and children and tends to occur when large quantities of highly fluoridated water is ingested. This tends to occur in regions with high concentrations of fluoride in drinking water, often from naturally occurring sources (as described above) - in India, China and Africa - but also isolated cases in Europe amongst workers in chemical and mineral processing industries. Links to bone cancer or neurological and hormonal issues have not been determined by human and animal studies although one perhaps cannot rule these things out completely.

http://ec.europa.eu/health/scientific_committees/opinions_layman/fluoridation/en/

An article promoting the use of Fluoride can be found on the New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services' web site.

www.des.state.nh.us/factsheets/ehp/ard-ehp-14.htm There are various studies which point to the negative effects of using Fluoride topically, including the potential for Alzheimer's Disease, Acidosis, DNA damage, thickening but weakening of bones and teeth and decrease in immune system function. It is not within the scope of this article to review the reliability and basis of these studies - but I hope to do so soon.

www.health-science.com/fluoride_toxicity.html

www.nofluoride.com/second_thoughts.htm

www.doctoryourself.com/fluoridation.html

www.fluoridealert.org/health/teeth/fluorosis/caries.html

www.holisticmed.com/fluoride

www.aeoncp.com.au/Fluoride.htm

Below is a link to an article about the US National Research Council's (NRC) first-ever published review of the fluoride/thyroid literature. It concludes that there is clear evidence that small amounts of fluoride, at or near levels added to U.S. water supplies, present potential risks to the thyroid gland (i.e. the endocrine system / hormonal balance).

www.pr-inside.com/first-ever-government-review-of-fluoride-thyroid-r596428.htm

National Pure Water Association's web site is listed below. This web site campaigns against fluoridation of public drinking water supplies in the UK, on the basis that fluoride is intended to fight tooth decay when applied topically (i.e. when brushing teeth) and not to be swallowed (in all drinking water that one uses) - as toothpaste is not intended for swallowing. The debate is whether the benefit to the small number of people who do not brush their teeth properly or who are 'too poor' to buy toothpaste (homeless?) outweighs the potential or alleged cost to populations of millions of people who fall into a water company's catchment area of drinking fluoridated water.

http://www.npwa.freeserve.co.uk

In the UK there is only a small coverage of fluoridated catchment areas (10% of population), and any new schemes being considered require a public consultation - but the public is rarely in agreement on the issue, usually with more people being for than against, but often those who oppose such schemes are more vocal than the supporters.

A web site showing arguments for and against fluoride usage is listed below.

www.fluoridedebate.com/index.html

Water fluoridation controversy is examined on Wikipedia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_fluoridation_controversy

I would be interested in seeing whether the studies cited by opponents of Fluoridation Programmes actually compare the effects of the relative concentrations of fluoride in tap water from non-fluoridated areas with fluoridated areas, rather than solely focussing on fluoridated water. Are opponents saying that fluoride levels are safe below 0.5 mg/l, a the 0.2mg/l mark? But not safe at 0.7 mg/l? Are opponents saying that rainwater or filtered water is safer to drink than groundwater? It would seem a rather arbitrary distinction to make in my mind. If 0.7mg/l affects health over years of prolonged exposure, then I would also expect 0.2mg/l to have a similar but slower effect.

If you live in an area with fluoridated tap water, alternative options available to you include:

- purification systems - some of which will eliminate Fluoride completely but not all. Some systems will remove Chlorine and heavy metals too. Filtered water tends to taste better too. This is worth doing in my opinion for the latter reasons if nothing else.

- buying bottled mineral water for drinking - whereupon you will still be ingesting naturally occurring fluoride (most likely of a lesser concentration - check the label or ask the supplier for a data sheet -). This could be a very expensive option.

- relocating - but same problem as above, the tap water of a non-fluoridated area would still have maybe 10-20% of the Fluoride in the tap water compared with a fluoridated area.

Below is a link with information pertaining to the removal of fluoride from tap water, discussing what methods work and which products do not (e.g. Brita water filters). If you are investing in a water filter, be sure to check what it can and cannot remove. Many cheaper filters are negatively charged and cannot remove anions (e.g. Fl-, Cl- etc.) or micro-organisms etc.

http://chemistry.about.com/od/chemistryhowtoguide/a/removefluoride.htm

Below is an example of a water filtration product that removes fluoride from water.

www.berkeywater.com/Other_Products/PF_2.html

I have a Travel Berkey, which incorporates 2 black elements, and which also includes two PF2 elements which screw onto the bottom of black elements on the top compartment, i.e. hanging off the bottom of the top compartment inside the lower compartment. The PF2 elements provide protection against arsenic, fluoride and chlorine. Please see the picture below for my personal Travel Berkey. They are also available in non-leaching plastic (another model, in a larger size).



Most tap water is not neutral in pH. My local tap water is between 6.25 and 6.50, i.e. slightly acidic, on account of the chlorine that is added to it. Chlorine is an anti-microbial agent that kills off bacteria and other microbes that might cause illness and infection otherwise. It achieves this because it is an oxidising agent. When Chlorine gas dissolves in water, it produces hydrochloric acid and hydrochlorous acid (the oxidising agent). This oxidising power is taken into the body and can add to the free radical burden of the body as well as lowering one's pH. Pure water has a pH of 7. Chlorine will largely come out of solution in tap water if it is left exposed to air for 24 hours or boiled. This will generally raise the water's pH. Carbon dioxide can dissolve in water also however, if left exposed to air for a long time, forming carbonic acid, which will help to lower the pH. I wouldn't personally drink water that had been sitting around in a jug exposed to air for 24 hours.

There are various brands of toothpaste that do not use fluoride, but other active ingredients, for example, black walnut, aloe vera, tea tree oil or salvadora extract (e.g. Sarakan, PerioDent, Xylitol based-toothastes like BELKAdent, and also Kingfisher - which is approved by the British Dental Health Foundation). Black walnut is said to contain organic fluoride which helps strengthen teeth although I haven't examined the issue myself - in any case black walnut is highly antimicrobial. Many mouthwashes do not contain Fluoride, e.g. Listerine, Colgate Peroxyl. There are also Aloe Vera based mouthwashes. You can make your own mouthwash with baking soda, epsom salts, heavily diluted hydrogen peroxide (be careful of the concentration), various herbs like black walnut or many other ingredients.

I tried an experiment and stopped using Fluoride-based toothpaste for 6 months, when I first stopped using it, and with regular brushing using non-Fluoride toothpastes, and using Listerine and an Aloe Vera mouthwash, my teeth and gums were 'perfect' according to my dentist. Claims that non-Fluoride toothpastes are worthless should be taken with a pinch of salt, and it depends on the individual's diet, what drinks or teas are consumed, the number of times per day the teeth are brushed and in what manner, existing overall dental health, as well as the type of toothpaste and mouthwash used.

Presumably, if opponents believe that fluoridation scheme levels are harmful to health, then by their logic everyone needs to actively eliminate Fluoride from their bones as normal groundwater levels of fluoride are still significant.

How does one test for Fluoride poisoning? Most laboratories do not offer Fluoride tests, but a few do offer this - usually a blood or urine test.

Clearly this whole area is hotly debated, and whether you wish to use fluoride toothpaste and/or drink fluoridated drinking water is your decision.

back to top

 
Arsenic in Chicken Feed:

Arsenic is a heavy metal and is shown in its metallic elemental form in the picture above.

An arsenic derivative (roxarsone) is in fact added to chicken feed since the 1960s in the USA, to produce bigger and 'happier' (i.e. more docile) chickens.

'A study by Duquesne University researchers has found that the organic arsenic added to chicken feed is chemically transformed into inorganic arsenic, a known carcinogen, much more quickly than previously thought. Organic arsenic is added to the feed of some 70 percent of the 7 billion roasters grown annually in the United States. The inorganic arsenic is found in poultry waste, which is used as fertilizer. That increases the risk that the inorganic arsenic will contaminate surface water and groundwater drinking supplies in farming areas where the chicken litter fertilizer is spread repeatedly, said John Stolz, professor of biology at Duquesne and co-author of the study reported in January in the peer-reviewed Environmental Science & Technology Online News.

"What goes into the ground is very different from the compound in the chicken feed," Mr. Stolz said. "That the organic arsenic transforms much faster means we could get a bolus of the stuff going through the groundwater aquifer."

Chicken producers in the United States use approximately 2.2 million pounds a year of a single arsenic feed additive, roxarsone, to control intestinal parasites, improve meat color, reduce stress and stimulate growth during the chickens' six-week life span. More than 95 percent of the additive is excreted unchanged in the chicken waste, which is regularly applied as fertilizer to surrounding farm fields.

It was previously thought that the inorganic arsenic formed slowly in the waste applied to fields, but the Duquesne study by Mr. Stolz and Duquesne environmental chemist Partha Basu found bacteria accelerated the conversion, which occurs in as little as a week.

Chronic exposure to inorganic arsenic is known to cause cancer and has been linked to heart disease, diabetes and declines in brain functions.

While arsenic occurs naturally in the environment, it is also a byproduct of coal-burning power plants and industries, some mining operations and copper smelting. The addition of arsenic to the environment by those industrial sources is closely scrutinized and controlled, and its use in pesticides and as a preservative in pressure-treated wood has been banned because of health concerns and the difficulty of removing it from the environment. And the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is re-evaluating its approval of organic arsenic applications on golf courses to control weeds.

But its use in the meat industry has attracted attention only in recent years. One study discovered arsenic-laced fertilizer dust inside the homes of farm communities where the chicken litter-based fertilizer was applied. Because chicken production is geographically concentrated, the arsenic-contaminated waste creates a disposal problem and exposes more people to more arsenic.'

www.post-gazette.com/pg/07067/767756-34.stm

Free range chickens tend to be allowed to eat up to 30% of their calorific intake from grass. As grass is very low in calories, this is a large amount of grass. Fish-meal is frequently fed to chickens, which in general results in much healthier animals (on account of the protein quality and essential fatty acid content).

www.lionsgrip.com/chickens.html

back to top

 
Soft Drinks: Acidity, Additives and Aspartame:

pH is a scale measuring the concentration of Hydrogen ions (protons) in a given solution. It ranges from 0.00 to 14.99, where the former value is extremely acidic and the latter value is extremely alkaline. pH 7 is neutral. Soft drinks have an average pH of 2.5 - 3.4, which is extremely acidic. The body's natural pH is around 7.4, which is slightly alkaline. pH is a logarithmic scale. A pH of 6 is 10 times more acidic than a pH of 7. Therefore the average soft drink is 10,000 times more acidic than the rest of the body! One can therefore see that drinking additional fluids will not dilute down this acidity very much! Acidic conditions can render a body much more susceptible to fungus, parasite and bad bacteria overgrowth, immune system dysfunction, mitochondrial dysfuction and general ill-health. In general terms, the more acidic the body is, the more unhealthy it is. So not only are soft drinks a source of chemical toxicity (including Caffeine), they are also very damaging to your body's pH balance. Please think of this next time you think of buying your children large bottles of Coca Cola. Is this really a sign of love and 'looking after' your children?

There is even evidence to suggest that consuming soft drinks from cans stored in very hot conditions (e.g. in Kuwaiti desert in Operation Desert Storm) is a significant factor in Gulf War Syndrome, on account of aspartame degradation etc. And it is not surprising. The effects of GWS are believed by many to be due largely to a variety of chemical toxins accumulating in the body. Perhaps contact with spent uranium bullets was another factor; or inhalation of vast amounts of crude oil smoke. It is likely that a full detoxification programme would help sufferers of GWS.

Aspartame can also be found in other consumer products such as probiotic yoghurt drinks, vitamins, etc. When purchasing any such product, one should always read the label! Please see the for more information on the potential adverse health effects of aspartame.

Below is an informative link giving 10 reasons as to why you should avoid drinking soft drinks.

http://www.watershed.net/top10sd.htm

back to top

 
Plastic containers and bottles:

An examination of which plastics used in purchased food and drink products packaging potentially leach cacinocgenic or hormone disrupting chemicals is found at the links below.

www.care2.com/greenliving/which-plastics-are-safe.html

Plastic bottles with a 1 or 7 in the triangle on the bttom of the bottle are those that may leach organic toxic compounds into the water. It is also generally good practice not to re-use clear plastic drinking bottles but dispose of them for recycling instead or otherwise after use. You may not ice a difference in taste when water is stored in re-used clear plastic bottles.

Kangenwaterreport.com...

An article about Bisphenol A in Plastic Bottles can be found at the link below.



Those who are considering orthodontic work should consider the fact that as well as the gum recession, they will need to wear plastic retainers on most nights in bed to fight the body's natural genetic memory which moves the teeth back to their original positions.

www.popeorthodontics.com/retention.asp

A wearing schedule suggested has been for the first 6 months after removing braces, to wear the retainers all the time (except during meals and when drinking acidic drinks). The next 6 months, wear them at night only. The next 6 months after that, wear them 3 nights a week, and for the remainder of your life, wear them one night a week only. The advice I received personally was to wear them initially 7 nights a week and gradually reduce this to one night a week. I have found even after several years that there is considerable movement of the teeth in between the weekly wears, and the teeth aching and feeling less secure after each nightly wear for half a day or so, meaning the teeth are being moved backwards and forwards, shallowing the roots gradually over time.

Vacuum form retainers are worn on both upper and lower teeth (as per above schedule). They are usually made of softer plastics, which tend to leach more. Unlike with plastic bottles, retainers are reused regularly, and the amount of leaching of BPA and other compounds is likely to increase over time. I noticed that after a year or so, the retainers, even when kept clean, could only be worn for so many hours a night before the taste in the mouth became too disgusting. This is a sign of leaching. It is likely that some organic toxins are ingested in this manner, through swallowing or sublingually directly into the bloodstream. Orthodontists will vary in the advice they give regarding how often retainers shoulld be replaced. If they are not kept clean properly and cleaned meticulously (and regularly soaked in vinegar), then there is an additional mould problem. At present, I am not aware of any type of non-plastic retainer available to take the place of current retainer materials for the top and bottom teeth, and as a result cannot recommend orthodontics in general as the fundamental maintenance premise is based on ingesting carcinogenic compounds over a lifetime (let alone other reasons).

Please see the Amalgam Fillings section above for a discussion of mandibular osteotomy and other surgical advancement operations that often accompany orthodontics.

Composite fillings may also present a similar leaching problem, but of course, they are there 24 hours a day, albeit much smaller in size and made of slightly different materials (i.e. much harder materials less likely to leach.

A recent study of 10 'racial and ethnic minority' babies by 5 indepedent research laboratories in the USA, Canada and the Netherlands has shown that up to 232 toxic chemicals were found in each baby, providing firm evidence that each baby was subjected to a host of dangerous substances whilst still in the mother's womb (i.e. absorbed directly from the mother's cumulative toxicity levels or daily exposure to these chemicals), including Bisphenol A (BPA), Tetrabromobisphenol A (TBBPA), Galaxolide and Tonalide, Perfluorobutanoic acid (PFBA or C4) and Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs).

www.ewg.org/minoritycordblood/fullreport

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2009/12/31/232-Toxic-Chemicals-found-in-10-Babies.aspx

back to top

 
Canned Foods:

Canned foods were first introduced in the 19th Century, where they were seen as a novelty and luxury food item by the middle classes. In early canned foods, lead was used as the solder, resulting in cases of lead poisoning in canned foods containing moist or liquid foods. The most famous case was the 1845 Franklin expedition of the Northwest Passage. The basic construction of older cans is a cylindrical segment and two flat pieces for the top and bottom, made of tin coated iron, and soldered on using Lead. The tin coating meant the iron was not rusted away by the food and that tin was preferentially leached into the food rather than iron. Tin is not know to cause significant toxicity problems. Lead soldering has largely, although not completely, been replaced by other types of can construction such as welded double seams. Modern cans use tin coated stainless steel rather than wrought iron. Lead soldering still remains on 3.7% of US cans, according to the NFPA. These tend to be for dried foods where there is less likelihood of the lead leaching into the food. Imported cans may however employ lead soldering on them, so it is wise to check. Please see the links below regarding lead use in tin cans.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canning

www.enotalone.com/article/7794.html

Approximately half of tin cans use an epoxy resin coating inside the can, which gives the lining its smooth, non-metallic appearance. It is used to minimise bacterial growth inside certain canned food stuffs. This epoxy resin contains the known toxic chemical Bisphenol A (BPA). Approximately 10% of such cans contain levels of BPA that greatly exceed recommended safety levels. This appears to be more prevalent amongst Infant Formulas.

The tin on the right uses a BPA-based epoxy resin which can be seen from the white lining of the can and the lid. The tin on the left uses the more prevalent tin lining, which can be seen from its shiny, metallic appearance.



www.ewg.org/reports/bisphenola

Please see the Mercury Amalgams section above for more information on Bisphenol A.

Arguably, tinned or canned organic foods are a misnomer. Whilst the food in question was 'organic' when put into the tins, their concentrations of toxic chemicals may have significantly increased when emerging from the tin for consumption. The same could be argued for Organic Foods that are sold in soft plastic packaging, which is probably less of an issue.

Other risks from non-acidic canned foods, e.g. meat, fish, mushrooms etc. include the potential for proliferation of the bacteria behind botulism if they are left for too long or if the cans themselves are dented or deformed which can affect the seals. This bacterial strain is especially heat resistant, and is normally killed by heat treatment of canned foods at 121C for 3 minutes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Botulism

As the tin lining of a can is there to prevent the oxidation of the steel can, it is a bad idea to store food in the can in the fridge after opening, as the Tin lining will oxidise at a much greater rate now that it is exposed to air.

Using a can to cook the contents in over a fire (e.g. travellers or camping) is an extremely bad idea, whether the lining of the can is tin or BPA, as in both cases, these products will end up in your food in much high concentrations than normal - because of the high temperature at the outside of the can and excessive oxidation of the lining.

back to top

 
Cigarette Smoke:

Cigarette smoke contains a variety of heavy metals (such as Arsenic, Cadmium, Mercury and Lead), as well as a variety of organic toxic compounds such as formaldehyde. For example, one cigarette's worth of smoke (side stream smoke, e.g. passive smoking) is estimated to contain 1000 micrograms of Mercury, 500 micrograms of Lead, 700 micrograms of Formaldehyde (compared with 20-90 micrograms in mainstream smoke), etc. Cigarette smoke is thought to contain at least 60 known carcinogenic compounds of a total of 4700 chemical compounds.

www.csn.ul.ie/~stephen/reports/bc4927.html

back to top


back to home