EU is urged to press for global ban on mercury
BMJ 2007; 334 doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.39097.341076.DB (Published 18 January 2007) Cite this as: BMJ 2007;334:117
All rapid responses
Rapid responses are electronic comments to the editor. They enable our users to debate issues raised in articles published on bmj.com. A rapid response is first posted online. If you need the URL (web address) of an individual response, simply click on the response headline and copy the URL from the browser window. A proportion of responses will, after editing, be published online and in the print journal as letters, which are indexed in PubMed. Rapid responses are not indexed in PubMed and they are not journal articles. The BMJ reserves the right to remove responses which are being wilfully misrepresented as published articles or when it is brought to our attention that a response spreads misinformation.
From March 2022, the word limit for rapid responses will be 600 words not including references and author details. We will no longer post responses that exceed this limit.
The word limit for letters selected from posted responses remains 300 words.
Mercury burden in fish has an ally: dental amalgams.
Undoubtedly, mercury amalgam fillings are the most important source of
inorganic mercury and mercury vapor in the general population. The
quantity of mercury from amalgam fillings noticeably exceeds the combined
amount of mercury from other sources: food (mainly derived from fishweb),
water and air. [1,2,3]
For this reason, women of childbearing age and children should not have
mercury fillings implanted in their teeth. Likewise, mercury exposure from
amalgam removal during pregnancy may cause severe adverse events to
foetus.[4,5]
Physicians and dentists as well as their patients should be made aware of
this risk.
Gianpaolo Guzzi DDS
Italian Association for Metals and Biocompatibility Research –
A.I.R.M.E.B., Milan, Italy
References
1. Lorscheider LF, Vimy MJ, Summers AO. Mercury exposure from
“silver” tooth fillings: emerging evidence questions a traditional dental
paradigm. FASEB J. 1995; 9: 504-508.
2. Clarkson TW. The three modern faces of mercury. Environ Health
Perspect. 2002; 110 Suppl 1: 11-23.
3. Mutter J, Naumann J, Sadaghiani C, Walach H, Drasch G.
Disregarding basic principle of mercury toxicity. Int J Hyg Environ
Health. 2004;207:391-7
4. Drasch G, Schupp I, Hofl H, Reinke R, Roider G. Mercury burden of
human fetal and infant tissues. Eur J Pediatr. 1994;153:607-610.
5. Guzzi G, Grandi M, Cattaneo C, Calza S, Minoia C, Ronchi A, Gatti
A, Severi G. Dental amalgam and mercury levels in autopsy tissues: food
for thought. Am J Forensic Med Pathol 2006; 27,42-45.
Competing interests:
None declared
Competing interests: No competing interests
Is this news?
“News” would be that medicine is leading the way, by abandoning the
mercury sphygmomanometer. I’m not seeing that in GPs surgeries in
Australia. If I were to choose my GP according to his environmental
credentials, I’d be hard pressed to find a GP with an aneroid
sphygmomanometer.
I couldn’t help noticing that your recent poll about the most
important medical advance since 1840, did not see the mercury
sphygmomanometer as a candidate. That be news.
Competing interests:
None declared
Competing interests: No competing interests