![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 17 to 41 of 41. Go back in thread:
Posted by Phillipa on September 30, 2009, at 20:44:34
In reply to Re: Swine flue vaccine UTube sent to me a must see, posted by psych chat on September 30, 2009, at 20:26:22
The absolute key to the mercury preservative is the single dose vial which can be requested by Mothers for their children. As the doc I saw said that's what his kids receive.
When nursing had to have flu shot or highly recommended and did no flu or shot symptoms. But no more flu shots for me as the last time got one two years ago both me and husband sick. Last year out more in busy stores and no flu. Now they say over 60 get shingles vaccine. That I also decline as before when nursing only the ladies that had had chicken pox allowed to care for shingles patients so I got them no shingles. Of course wasn't over 60 but that innoculation on good to age 69 and half way there almost. Those are my well thought out decisions. Thanks for all the responses. Love Phillipa think I'll pass on the fish heard a guy on a diet of fish almost died lately on the news.
Posted by yxibow on October 1, 2009, at 4:28:09
In reply to Re: Swine flue vaccine UTube sent to me a must see, posted by Phillipa on September 30, 2009, at 20:44:34
> The absolute key to the mercury preservative is the single dose vial which can be requested by Mothers for their children. As the doc I saw said that's what his kids receive.
There will never be an end to the theories of minute amounts of MICROGRAMS of thimerosal in vaccines.... which the WHO has repeatedly said poses no health risk. It is not methyl mercury.
Additionally though there may be other future possibilities, it is one of the few preservatives that does not pose risk to the effectiveness of the vaccine itself.
> When nursing had to have flu shot or highly recommended and did no flu or shot symptoms. But no more flu shots for me as the last time got one two years ago both me and husband sick.
Probably because your husband and you LIVE TOGETHER, the vaccine didn't work or was attenuated in you, and both of you passed it on to yourselves.This is the CLASSIC case of correlation does imply causation.
Last year out more in busy stores and no flu.
No flu? Or no vaccine ? If you didn't get it, you were just lucky of the hundreds of thousands of people who get it every year and the 45,000 people who die of it.
Now they say over 60 get shingles vaccine. That I also decline as before when nursing only the ladies that had had chicken pox allowed to care for shingles patients so I got them no shingles.
Of course wasn't over 60 but that innoculation on good to age 69 and half way there almost.Shingles is a painful and potentially debilitating condition especially in the elderly, causing neurological damage in severe cases.
It can strike at any adult age and it's certainly something I wouldn't wish on anyone...
Those are my well thought out decisions.
I'll let it speak for itself, one may decide as they wish...
Thanks for all the responses. Love Phillipa think I'll pass on the fish heard a guy on a diet of fish almost died lately on the news.
I don't mean to single you out Jan, but think about this for a minute -- if someone who mostly ate fish died of it, there would be no people in Southeast Asia or Inuit or First Nations, or New Englanders for that matter in the US.At any rate this FOX News (um... well if one doesn't know by now how 'reliable' they are... I can't go further.... it's politics.)
Fox is owned by Rupert Murdock, who among people features Glenn Beck, et alia who have promoted, as a Jew myself, what I consider the truly stomach turning "death panel" idiocy and the "Hitler Obama".There's no verifying of the credentials of this "Kent Holtorf", and in fact I don't even recall seeing his name in lower thirds (on the screen) by Fox.
Believe as one wishes... but the very "sent to me" implies a viral video... and disinformation in health is potentially dangerous as far as I'm concerned.
-- what can I say.
Posted by Larry Hoover on October 1, 2009, at 9:29:43
In reply to Re: Swine flue vaccine UTube sent to me a must see » Larry Hoover, posted by bleauberry on September 30, 2009, at 16:59:43
> > Chelation therapy influences far more minerals than simply mercury, and far more powerfully, also. There are confounds coming out the yin-yang on chelation. If mercury is the culprit, then selenium supplementation should be of great benefit. When selenium is incorporated into e.g. methionine, in place of the sulfur atom in the sulfhydryl group, it becomes extremely reactive to mercury. The resultant selenium-mercury compound is so stable and unreactive that less than one molecule will dissolve in a liter of water......it's one of the most insoluble compounds in existence. If mercury is sequestered, it cannot do any damage.
>
> With chelation in general I would agree. With DMSA specifically, it primary has affinity for lead and mercury, secondarily things like cadmium. I do not believe it has much affinity for common minerals.Just on that one point, DMSA pulls zinc and copper into the urine. I was thinking more in terms of physiological metals, rather than in terms of toxic metals.
DMSA is probably the safest chelator, but it's far from being the only one.
Lar
Posted by Phillipa on October 1, 2009, at 19:28:53
In reply to Re: Swine flue vaccine UTube sent to me a must see » Phillipa, posted by yxibow on October 1, 2009, at 4:28:09
Sent by nursing newsletter and you receive CEU's for answering questions that follow on content. Phillipa
Posted by 10derHeart on October 1, 2009, at 21:58:24
In reply to Re: Swine flue vaccine UTube sent to me a must see » Phillipa, posted by yxibow on October 1, 2009, at 4:28:09
I think this is the doctor you mentioned. I have seen him appear on Fox and other cable networks, from time to time. I think most recently about swine flu, but I do seem to remember stuff about bioidentical hormones, too. I also used to live in Torrance CA, where one of his centers is located. Maybe I used to see his name on a sign or soemthing...can't recall.
http://www.holtorfmed.com/doctors/kent-holtorf-md/
I imagine one could attempt to verify his credentials somehow, in the same way it's done for any other MD. I've never done that, any further than quick online searches for any malpractice actions, etc.
I hadn't seen or heard any stories about fish, eating, men, dying or so forth, but I thought I recognized his name.
Is he connected to the story Phillipa mentioned about eating fish? Or is it H1N1?
Posted by seldomseen on October 2, 2009, at 4:55:06
In reply to Swine flue vaccine UTube sent to me a must see, posted by Phillipa on September 26, 2009, at 12:51:59
It may interest you folks to know that neither I nor any of the scientists who work in my lab are opting to receive the H1N1 vaccine.
It has nothing to do with the mercury preservative, but rather with the speed with which the vaccine was forced to market.
It may interest you to know that the companies producing the vaccine were granted a waiver of liability should any harm be caused by the vaccine.
IMO there is inadequate testing of it.
However, in all fairness, none of us are in a high risk group and would likely weather H1N1 with little to no complications, so the risk/benefit conclusion was fairly straightforward.
Posted by Phillipa on October 2, 2009, at 20:20:45
In reply to Re: Swine flue vaccine UTube sent to me a must see, posted by seldomseen on October 2, 2009, at 4:55:06
Seldom thanks so very much for posting true scientific facts. I knew it was rushed to market didn't know about the waiver so no lawsuits. To me this means it's really serious the vaccine. Please since you command more respecto on meds would you post it in a new thread? Thanks so much. I figure 63 in good health isn't a risk factor either. Love Phillipa
Posted by yxibow on October 2, 2009, at 23:19:53
In reply to Re: Swine flue vaccine UTube sent to me a must see, posted by seldomseen on October 2, 2009, at 4:55:06
> It may interest you folks to know that neither I nor any of the scientists who work in my lab are opting to receive the H1N1 vaccine.
>
> It has nothing to do with the mercury preservative, but rather with the speed with which the vaccine was forced to market.
>
> It may interest you to know that the companies producing the vaccine were granted a waiver of liability should any harm be caused by the vaccine.There is always an assumed liability... torts are extraordinarily common in the US... I don't know that's worth much on paper.
> IMO there is inadequate testing of it.
>
> However, in all fairness, none of us are in a high risk group and would likely weather H1N1 with little to no complications, so the risk/benefit conclusion was fairly straightforward.
Well that's an informed choice and its sort of one that I'm wavering on.
I also believe the links of microscopic quantities of mercury, what is actually up until maybe future preservatives, one that doesn't interfere with the vaccine itself.......and the links to autism while I feel for people looking for answer, I find over the top. But everyone is entitled to their opinion
They have invested much more carefulness than the 1976 rushed swine flu vaccine which had more Guillain-Barré complications than normal... but still, as I have said before, I don't know that I want to be the first.
Still in my 30s (woohoo), I am barely in the risk group for it but with all my medications and problems that I have, it doesn't help.
So I get the regular annual flu vaccine... I don't need 104 degree temperatures on top of the fact that my body doesn't regulate temperature well.........I feel "hotter" than most even though my temperature measured is "normal"... and that's partially somatic, partially Seroquel/Anafranil, and my weight and who knows what. So an acute 102 degrees would feel like expiring in the desert. It ain't fun.
My ideal temperature without layers is about 68 degrees -- but down here its (sigh) much warmer.I miss the Northwest.
Anyhow, random.
-- tidings
Posted by Sigismund on October 3, 2009, at 2:32:12
In reply to Re: Swine flue vaccine UTube sent to me a must see » seldomseen, posted by yxibow on October 2, 2009, at 23:19:53
I know someone who died from swine flu after a period in an induced coma.
It is perhaps not quick?
Some narcotics at home could be useful; I'd prefer to avoid vaccination and treatment.
Ah, small disinhibitions (first drink)...the best we can look forward to.
How much time is enough? Or too much?
Posted by Sigismund on October 3, 2009, at 2:58:36
In reply to Re: Swine flue vaccine UTube sent to me a must see, posted by Sigismund on October 3, 2009, at 2:32:12
Time is like alcohol.
Always too much and never enough.
Posted by bleauberry on October 3, 2009, at 8:01:27
In reply to Re: Swine flue vaccine UTube sent to me a must see » Phillipa, posted by yxibow on October 1, 2009, at 4:28:09
>
> At any rate this FOX News (um... well if one doesn't know by now how 'reliable' they are... I can't go further.... it's politics.)Kind of off topic, but since you mentioned I got curious. Can you help me out? I don't watch news much. But when I do I find Fox the most reliable. Here's why. They obviously are on the "right" side, while the others networks are on the "left" side. But what I see at Fox is they always have opposing views given equal time by guests. I don't see that hardly ever on the left networks. The left anchors hardly ever give mention of opposing views, their facts are usually cherry picked or bent a bit out of shape to give a certain appearance, and their usage of opposing-view guest speakers is nill. So in terms of reliability, I think Fox gives the viewer a broader picture to form their own opinion with?
>
>
> Fox is owned by Rupert Murdock, who among people features Glenn Beck, et alia who have promoted, as a Jew myself, what I consider the truly stomach turning "death panel" idiocy and the "Hitler Obama".Glen Beck happened to be on the radio when I was taking my break at work and I heard the parts of the show you refered to above. Those things were not said. The way they were said in the quotes above have been twisted out of proportion from what was actually said, twisted into a distortion completely left field of what was actually said. I'm puzzled why people do that? I'm puzzled why people take their cues from someone else's misinterpretation but never heard the actual presentation themselves? I don't know, maybe it's just me, but I don't trust any comments about any news deliverer or talk show host unless I've heard their exact words with my own ears or eyes. The phrases quoted above have dramatic effect when shown all by themselves. But when put into context with the surrounding ten minutes prior and ten minutes after, it becomes evident they are gross misinterpretations when presented all by themselves. That's what I don't like about the "left" networks. They do that all the time?
Maybe I'm wrong. Like I said, I don't watch news much. But when I do, I know what I see. When Fox says "fair and balanced", well, it actually is. The opposition is given fair and balanced time to make their case.
Fox I believe has offered something to the competitive marketplace that was missing for decades. That is, the other side of the story. Usually a less biased side. Biased sure, all humans have that, but a generous proportion of time is given to debaters of both sides of any issue. I don't see that anywhere else? I don't know, I think that's a good thing? What do you think?
>
> There's no verifying of the credentials of this "Kent Holtorf", and in fact I don't even recall seeing his name in lower thirds (on the screen) by Fox.
>I don't know who this person is or how he fits into the swine issue. I'm not even interested in that. I do know that Fox is highly aware they can easily lose their marketshare by parading scanty evidence, so I doubt that was the case? The organization is a business, and the goal is profit, and no business will thrive when the product is jaded. Maybe that's why Fox marketshare has risen while the others have fallen?
I usually don't believe as I wish or go by what someone else tells me. I prefer to go by the facts and judgements gathered by my own eyes and ears.
Posted by NKP on October 3, 2009, at 14:29:27
In reply to Re: Swine flue vaccine UTube sent to me a must see » yxibow, posted by bleauberry on October 3, 2009, at 8:01:27
I'm curious to know what you guys think of the following video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0j2X6HZrfdE
The person claims that only mercury salts are toxic, not elemental mercury. Is that true?
Posted by NKP on October 3, 2009, at 14:34:31
In reply to Elemental mercury vs. mercury salts, posted by NKP on October 3, 2009, at 14:29:27
Posted by bleauberry on October 3, 2009, at 18:08:48
In reply to Elemental mercury vs. mercury salts, posted by NKP on October 3, 2009, at 14:29:27
> I'm curious to know what you guys think of the following video:
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0j2X6HZrfdE
>
> The person claims that only mercury salts are toxic, not elemental mercury. Is that true?I'm not even going to bother watching the video.
What would get my attention?
Well, if he were to eat a spoonful of elemental mercury on video, I would watch that. If it is so safe, show me.
Posted by NKP on October 3, 2009, at 18:37:05
In reply to Re: Elemental mercury vs. mercury salts » NKP, posted by bleauberry on October 3, 2009, at 18:08:48
> > I'm curious to know what you guys think of the following video:
> >
> > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0j2X6HZrfdE
> >
> > The person claims that only mercury salts are toxic, not elemental mercury. Is that true?
>
> I'm not even going to bother watching the video.
>
> What would get my attention?
>
> Well, if he were to eat a spoonful of elemental mercury on video, I would watch that. If it is so safe, show me.
>
>The person (who I'm not sure is a "he") plays with elemental mercury in their bare hands.
I was asking a real question about the toxicity of elemental mercury, since I used to play with the stuff as well when I was a child (I obtained it from thermometers which I broke open to remove the mercury).
I was hoping that somebody knowledgable on the subject might confirm or refute the person's claims. From what I've read on the internet, I am under the impression that elemental mercury is at least *less* toxic than mercury salts - but I am not very knowedgeable on these matters, which is why I was hoping that a more knowledgeable person might be able to shed some light.
Posted by desolationrower on October 3, 2009, at 19:21:31
In reply to Re: Elemental mercury vs. mercury salts, posted by NKP on October 3, 2009, at 18:37:05
well its not safe, but you are going to be absorbing less through your skin than through your GI track. salt vs. metal probably depends on the environment, what salt, etc.
-d/r
Posted by Phillipa on October 3, 2009, at 20:10:38
In reply to Re: Elemental mercury vs. mercury salts, posted by desolationrower on October 3, 2009, at 19:21:31
Okay guys as a kid at the dentists he'd give me a bead of mercury to play with in my hand. Not liquid not totally solid. Was used for filling teeth. So what was that? Phillipa
Posted by yxibow on October 3, 2009, at 22:50:45
In reply to Re: Swine flue vaccine UTube sent to me a must see, posted by Sigismund on October 3, 2009, at 2:32:12
> I know someone who died from swine flu after a period in an induced coma.
People do come out of induced comas..> It is perhaps not quick?
>
> Some narcotics at home could be useful; I'd prefer to avoid vaccination and treatment.
>
> Ah, small disinhibitions (first drink)...the best we can look forward to.
>
> How much time is enough? Or too much?
Narcotics are not going to help you, in fact the respiratory depression that they could cause would counteract the heroic life saving ventilators.Or are you saying you just want to exit life ??
Posted by yxibow on October 3, 2009, at 22:54:26
In reply to Re: Elemental mercury vs. mercury salts, posted by Phillipa on October 3, 2009, at 20:10:38
> Okay guys as a kid at the dentists he'd give me a bead of mercury to play with in my hand. Not liquid not totally solid. Was used for filling teeth. So what was that? Phillipa
Not the safest idea in the world... but you know, many generations of people did the same thing in chemistry class, or found them near mines in creeks, and they're still here today.
I'm not advocating such a stunt, but it isn't necessarily going to kill you, and a one-off experience probably wouldn't even register on a test on the body. That is if you didn't swallow it (we're not talking amalgams here..)
-- tidings.
Posted by yxibow on October 3, 2009, at 23:18:45
In reply to Re: Swine flue vaccine UTube sent to me a must see » yxibow, posted by bleauberry on October 3, 2009, at 8:01:27
> >
> > At any rate this FOX News (um... well if one doesn't know by now how 'reliable' they are... I can't go further.... it's politics.)
>
> Kind of off topic, but since you mentioned I got curious. Can you help me out? I don't watch news much. But when I do I find Fox the most reliable. Here's why. They obviously are on the "right" side, while the others networks are on the "left" side. But what I see at Fox is they always have opposing views given equal time by guests. I don't see that hardly ever on the left networks. The left anchors hardly ever give mention of opposing views, their facts are usually cherry picked or bent a bit out of shape to give a certain appearance, and their usage of opposing-view guest speakers is nill. So in terms of reliability, I think Fox gives the viewer a broader picture to form their own opinion with?They don't give "opposing" time to things, and they're very slanted towards giving the most time to right wing views and basically having "fluff" news.
And its gotten more and more the case -- they're owned by Rupert Murdoch who is a conservative Aussie. And the programming shows it. But if you want more right wing political views with distortions and less fact checking, be my guest.
But then, the nightly news has become more fluff these days.. there's nothing like (whatever you may think of him) Dan Rather or the late Walter Cronkite. The true legends of journalism are falling away.
People these days get more news from the Internet than television in general, or at least I do. I have almost never watched the evening news, except maybe at a hotel.> >
> >
> > Fox is owned by Rupert Murdock, who among people features Glenn Beck, et alia who have promoted, as a Jew myself, what I consider the truly stomach turning "death panel" idiocy and the "Hitler Obama".
>
> Glen Beck happened to be on the radio when I was taking my break at work and I heard the parts of the show you refered to above. Those things were not said. The way they were said in the quotes above have been twisted out of proportion from what was actually said, twisted into a distortion completely left field of what was actually said. I'm puzzled why people do that? I'm puzzled why people take their cues from someone else's misinterpretation but never heard the actual presentation themselves? I don't know, maybe it's just me, but I don't trust any comments about any news deliverer or talk show host unless I've heard their exact words with my own ears or eyes. The phrases quoted above have dramatic effect when shown all by themselves. But when put into context with the surrounding ten minutes prior and ten minutes after, it becomes evident they are gross misinterpretations when presented all by themselves. That's what I don't like about the "left" networks. They do that all the time?There ARE NO "left" network news. At best you could say they're centrist. As I mentioned people before... you couldn't really tell, but Rather, even a Texan, was and is probably a Democrat. But at best CBS news is centrist.
I don't care if Glenn Beck said or did not say things, he and his ilk (Rush Limbaugh, etc) created a disinformation about "death panels", a word and concept that never existed anywhere outside of the bizarre circle of "spontaneous protests" where people held what would have been considered atrocious and vile years ago, left or right, defacing a picture of Obama to look like Hitler.
But in today's world, there's no lower bounds of decency sometimes.
Yes, I believe in the freedom of the press, and the freedom to protest and express yourself, I wouldn't have the values I learned and generally view, but if you put yourself out there, you take the consequences of what you do. And there are limits, you can't yell fire in a crowded room.
If you want real quality journalism (with some of its own anti-Israel and other left-wing bias) you're going to have to read (or watch) the BBC.Or the CBC (Canada) at least at one point has reasonable journalism.
The Guardian is decidedly more left-leaning, but then as I said, newspapers in Europe are different.
Reuters and the Associated Press are reasonable conglomerated news sources.
UPI is owned by the same people who own the Washington Times, Sun Myung Moon's Unification Church, or sometimes referred to as "the moonies".
There's no real quality journalism there at all. In my view.
And just like New York, there's the tabloids like The Sun, except they have the "b*mb*" and her t*ts of the day on page 3 (pardon my slur, but its true).> Maybe I'm wrong. Like I said, I don't watch news much. But when I do, I know what I see. When Fox says "fair and balanced", well, it actually is. The opposition is given fair and balanced time to make their case.
As a graduate of communications I can tell you there is no such thing as balanced news. There is always bias, but consistently conservative think tanks blame the "liberal bias" in the news, when in fact news outlets (Fox as an extreme example) have become much more conservative. The Tribune Group (if they exist as an entity I think ?) is also one.
In Europe, especially places like France, etc, you read what paper you politically subscribe to by view. If you want a stalwart center-right paper, read Le Monde. If you want a left-wing, somewhat socialist paper, you read Libération... When my french was pretty good, I could read Le Monde. Its not an easy read, it has complex language... Libération was a bit easier.
> Fox I believe has offered something to the competitive marketplace that was missing for decades. That is, the other side of the story. Usually a less biased side. Biased sure, all humans have that, but a generous proportion of time is given to debaters of both sides of any issue. I don't see that anywhere else? I don't know, I think that's a good thing? What do you think?
>
> >
> > There's no verifying of the credentials of this "Kent Holtorf", and in fact I don't even recall seeing his name in lower thirds (on the screen) by Fox.
> >
>
> I don't know who this person is or how he fits into the swine issue. I'm not even interested in that. I do know that Fox is highly aware they can easily lose their marketshare by parading scanty evidence, so I doubt that was the case?Fox doesnt care about their market share like that... They wouldn't be surviving around if they did... besides they're so financially backed by Murdoch anyhow.
The organization is a business, and the goal is profit, and no business will thrive when the product is jaded. Maybe that's why Fox marketshare has risen while the others have fallen?
>
> I usually don't believe as I wish or go by what someone else tells me. I prefer to go by the facts and judgements gathered by my own eyes and ears.
Then be my guest. I'll run screaming from them.-- tidings
Posted by Larry Hoover on October 4, 2009, at 8:40:38
In reply to Elemental mercury vs. mercury salts, posted by NKP on October 3, 2009, at 14:29:27
> I'm curious to know what you guys think of the following video:
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0j2X6HZrfdE
>
> The person claims that only mercury salts are toxic, not elemental mercury. Is that true?The information in the video is, in my opinion as an environmental toxicologist, absolutely correct.
Lar
Posted by Larry Hoover on October 4, 2009, at 9:00:18
In reply to Re: Elemental mercury vs. mercury salts, posted by NKP on October 3, 2009, at 18:37:05
> The person (who I'm not sure is a "he") plays with elemental mercury in their bare hands.
Sounds like a woman to me.
> I was asking a real question about the toxicity of elemental mercury, since I used to play with the stuff as well when I was a child (I obtained it from thermometers which I broke open to remove the mercury).
The problem isn't so much in playing with it. It's from the potential for long-term exposure to mercury vapours from spills. Even small droplets of mercury take a long time to evaporate, and during that time there would be an elevated mercury vapour pressure in any closed airspace, such as a room in a house. Inhaled mercury vapour is absorbed from the lungs.
> I was hoping that somebody knowledgable on the subject might confirm or refute the person's claims. From what I've read on the internet, I am under the impression that elemental mercury is at least *less* toxic than mercury salts - but I am not very knowedgeable on these matters, which is why I was hoping that a more knowledgeable person might be able to shed some light.
You're absolutely correct in your understanding; elemental mercury is less toxic than mercury salts. We don't very often come in contact with true salts of mercury, however, but we instead are most often exposed to organic mercury compounds. In those organics, mercury has the same electron configuration as it does in the salts, but it has different bonds to the other atoms.
There is a contextual element to environmental mercury exposure that is often left out of discussions; the selenium/mercury ratio is as critical a factor to consider as is the absolute mercury exposure.
For predators at the apex of the food chain, the top order predators, absolute mercury exposures can be extraordinarily high. Polar bears have shown tissue mercury levels so high that they exceed our theoretical thresholds for acute toxicity (from one-time exposure), but these are levels from chronic exposure. And yet, these animals are reproducing normally, have normal lifespans, etc. The key to their survival is that they also have extremely high exposure to selenium.
When laboratories conduct the assays for absolute mercury content in tissue samples, the individual chemical forms of the mercury are entirely lumped together. There is no way to separate out mercury that has been wholly inactivated by selenium from mercury that is still in a toxic form. When we see these incredibly high mercury contents, we misunderstand what we're seeing unless we also identify what chemists call the speciation of the mercury, i.e. the actual chemical structures in which it was found. Those include elemental mercury, various organic mercury structures, chelated mercury ions, and also Se-Hg (the covalent selenium/mercury compound).
I suspect that mercury has always been found in high concentrations in fish and marine mammals of the high Arctic. Traditional foods of the Inuit such as muktuk (various spellings, but it is the skin of small whales) are extraordinarily abundant sources of selenium. The people may not have a chemistry-based understanding of why it is important to eat that particular food, but those who did, and passed on the behaviour to their heirs, are with us today.
So, if you're worried about mercury exposure, make sure you get selenium.
Lar
Posted by Larry Hoover on October 4, 2009, at 9:26:59
In reply to Re: Elemental mercury vs. mercury salts, posted by Phillipa on October 3, 2009, at 20:10:38
> Okay guys as a kid at the dentists he'd give me a bead of mercury to play with in my hand. Not liquid not totally solid. Was used for filling teeth. So what was that? Phillipa
That sounds like it was amalgam, what the dental profession calls a silver filling, which is a misnomer. It's a mercury filling, if you want to be pedantic, as it is 50% mercury by weight. It contains silver and tin (and traces of other metals), which are dissolved in the mercury. It gradually hardens as crystals of solid metal form in the solution. Some mercury remains a liquid, however.
Lar
Posted by NKP on October 4, 2009, at 15:45:47
In reply to Re: Elemental mercury vs. mercury salts » Phillipa, posted by Larry Hoover on October 4, 2009, at 9:26:59
Posted by Phillipa on October 4, 2009, at 19:11:48
In reply to Re: Elemental mercury vs. mercury salts » Phillipa, posted by Larry Hoover on October 4, 2009, at 9:26:59
Lar so that was dangerous any long term effects? Phillipa
This is the end of the thread.
Psycho-Babble Medication | Extras | FAQ
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.org
Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.