Author: Bender M.
Source: A Report to US House of Representatives Government Oversight Subcommittee on Domestic Policy Assessing State and Local Regulations to Reduce Dental Mercury Emissions.
Year: 2008
Comment:
This report suggests,
"Measures that Congress should consider include:
• Require dental clinics that replace amalgam to install and properly operate amalgam
separators, and to report annually on quantities of mercury collected.
• Assess a modest user fee of $30.00 for the production of each additional mercury
tooth filling, payable by the manufacturer at time of sale. Funds collected should be
placed into a designated account to cover the costs of controlling mercury pollution.
• Phase-out the use of mercury tooth fillings within the next 3-5 years."
Abstract / Excerpt:
It’s becoming increasing clear that the recent improvements in technology for the nonmercury filling—most commonly the “composite”—have rendered the mercury tooth filling— aka “amalgam”—obsolete. One only has to look at the recent bans on new amalgam placement in Norwegian or Swedish dental patients or elimination of insurance coverage for amalgam restorations in Danish patients to document mercury-free tooth restoratives as a viable substitute. Practically speaking, the age of amalgam is over. “So why do over 60 million mercury tooth fillings still get placed into Americans’ mouths every year? Is it because it is simply cheaper and quicker for your dentists to place an amalgam and they make more money doing so? Is it because, as the expression goes, “you can’t teach an old dog new tricks,” and in some cases dentists are reluctant to change or take the time to master the new techniques for placement of composites? Or is it because the US dental sector, led by the American Dental Association and its state associations, remains in denial that mercury is a neurotoxin — a hazardous material before it is placed in the mouth, and a hazard that releases toxic vapors after it is in the mouth? And could concerns about potential legal liability reinforce this denial? Or finally, is it because dentists are not aware or held accountable to the fact—undisputed by the US EPA since it was presented to the US House subcommittee last fall– that the continued use of amalgam is resulting in the release of upwards of 10 tons—and growing— of mercury into the air and water each year in the U.S. And that at least some of that mercury gets taken up in the fish Americans eat and, in particular, poses the most acute risk to pregnant women and their developing fetus and young children?”
Citation:
Bender M. Facing up to the hazards of mercury tooth fillings. A Report to US House of Representatives Government Oversight Subcommittee on Domestic Policy Assessing State and Local Regulations to Reduce Dental Mercury Emissions. Mercury Policy Project. 2008.