Talk:Dental amalgam controversy

Forked content - Dental amalgam controversy

There is an article for Dental amalgam controversy, then Amalgam (dentistry) and Mercury poisoning.

Wikipedia tries not to repeat the development of content. Persons wishes to write about the dental amalgam controversy should do so at the article for that, and not at the articles for amalgam or mercury poisoning. Those articles should link to the "dental amalgam controversy" article, so that discussion can be centralized. I am looking at these articles now and intend to merge all content from amalgam and mercury poisoning to the controversy article, then make sections in each of those articles based on the lede of the controversy article.

My intent is to direct people to the controversy article if they want to read about the controversy. Please discuss my doing this only at Talk:Dental_amalgam_controversy, not on the talk pages of the other articles, to the extent that it is reasonable to have this conversation in one place. Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:58, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

I merged content from amalgam and mercury poisoning to here. This is all the content, and in those articles, I replaced the section on "Dental amalgam toxicity" with a portion of the lede here and a link to this article. I did this only because the content was being independently developed in multiple places. Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:27, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Should the article discuss or link to oral galvanism? Although not exclusive to amalgam, the latter is probably the most common cause of it and it's effects have been raised as a health concern.Freddie Orrell 21:29, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Rearranged article

I often edit health articles. WikiProject Medicine, the community of editors which collaborate to develop health content, recommends that health articles comply with the order of sections in the medical manual of style. I tried to apply that guideline, MEDMOS, to this article by rearranging all the sections here and making some placeholder sections for headings which would typically exist in a disease article. I do not think I deleted any existing content or added anything substantial. My intent was only to make this match the order of other health articles. Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:32, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Name change to "Dental amalgam toxicity"

This article was once called "Dental amalgam discussion", and later "Dental amalgam controversy", and I have just named it "Dental amalgam toxicity". It seemed to me the article was not about any discussion or controversy, but was instead talking about the purported toxicity of dental amalgam. If anyone questions this name change then it could be changed again, or we could seek other comment. Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:38, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

New title immediately suggests that there is an issue of toxicity... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.29.83.252 (talk) 21:19, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

That is not my intent. I wanted a neutral title. Do you like the previous name? Blue Rasberry (talk) 21:26, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

The vast majority, mainstream opinion is that amalgam is entirely safe to use. It is routinely used in primary care all around the world. So to reflect the real world situation, I would suggest a title which implies that this is fringe. Not happy with old or new, but have no other suggestions right now. 188.29.83.252 (talk) 22:17, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

188.29.83.252 I am unclear what is best. I did not like the controversy title because I did not see how the article's content constituted a discussion of a controversy. A part of the article which seems to not be a controversy is the extent to which dental amalgams lead to environmental contamination. I am not clear if this is purported to have health implications, but this part of the article at least seems to not be challenged. I took the name "toxicity" because I wanted to frame this as a medical concern and apply WP:MEDMOS to name the section headings and give an outline to the article. I had the idea that if this were a controversy article then it would be less appropriate to frame it like a medical article.

I am not sure that calling the article "dental amalgam controversy" expresses the view that worry about "dental amalgam controversy" is the fringe perspective. I also think a title which implies that this view is fringe would be best. What do you think of any of these?

• Effects of mercury from dental amalgam
• Safety of dental amalgam
• Criticism of the use of dental amalgam
• Effects of dental amalgam
• Concerns about dental amalgam

I am not sure what the title should be. I have not reviewed the sources here, either. Do you have more thoughts? Blue Rasberry (talk) 01:17, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't much like "controversy" in WP section or article titles, but here the (let's call it) issue is really the only subject of the article. From the list above, I'd go for "Safety of dental amalgam". Toxicity seems rather to prejudge, although I know it doesn't. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 17:19, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes agree "safety of dental amalgam" is probably most neutral. Describes content of article but does not take sides. 94.196.236.61 (talk) 17:23, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

• More feedback is at the WikiProject Medicine talk page. There are a range of opinions there. Let me wait a bit more. Blue Rasberry (talk) 17:18, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Per discussion at WikiProject Medicine, I think that the name "Dental amalgam controversy" would be most in line with the precedent set by other articles and the least objectionable title. The name I used, "dental amalgam toxicity", has some problems, and should not remain. In my opinion, Safety of dental amalgam would be a good title and better than "dental amalgam toxicity", but I do not want to be the one to close this and perform the move. Right now I just want to confirm that the current title of "Dental amalgam toxicity" is not desirable. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:18, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Were we moving it back to controversy, then? I agree that the current title is prejudicial (as per my comments in the WT:MED discussion). Yobol (talk) 04:23, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Yobol There is consensus that moving this to "Dental amalgam controversy" would be an improvement as compared to its current title, "Dental amalgam toxicity". I just requested the move. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:22, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Statements from medical societies

Hello. I work for Consumer Reports, an organization which does health communication. In my opinion, Consumer Reports gets its information from conservative sources which are supposed to be noncontroversial.

I just rearranged this article in lots of ways as described above. When I was doing this I tried to avoid changing existing content, and feel that I was doing general cleanup which should not be controversial.

After the cleanup, I added content to the article relating to my work at my organization. Here is that content repeated:

The American College of Medical Toxicology and the American Academy of Clinical Toxicology say that research confirms that mercury from amalgams does not cause illness because the amount of mercury that they release is not enough to cause a health problem. In response to some people wanting their existing amalgam removed for fear of mercury poisoning, these societies advise that the removal of filling is likely to cause a greater exposure to mercury than leaving the fillings in place. These societies warn that removal of amalgam fillings, in addition to being unnecessary health care and likely to cause more mercury exposure than leaving them in place, is expensive.

Normally when I add health information to Wikipedia articles I just say the health practice. In this case, I qualified the information saying that it came from particular health organizations, just because that is what has already been happening in this article and because I did not want to enter or try to resolve any existing controversy. If anyone has questions please ask me. I do this as part of a project to develop health information on Wikipedia which I have described at WP:Choosing Wisely. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:54, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

1.) The statement of the two toxicology associations is just an opinion and not based on science. There is no scientific study at all - peer reviewed or not -, where the amount of mercury vapour escaping from dental amalgam fillings was measured, the toxic properties of mercury considered with the conclusion, that this amount of mercury is safe and not able to produce any harm to the patient. 2.) The removal of dental amalgam fillings is dangerous to patient and dental staff only if appropriate safety measures against mercury vapour are not used. The mission of IAOMT is to spread education at this item. 217.233.205.198 (talk) 12:01, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Do you have some published science to share? Do IAOMT or their members publish science? Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:33, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

There is a wealth of published science about mercury and dental amalgam, but unfortunately a lot of misleading studies. Mutter discusses common errors about this subject in Is dental amalgam safe for humans? The opinion of the scientific committee of the European Commission. Here you can find a lot of studies, most of them in English language, some in German. IAOMT is, as far as I know, an international association of dental professionals (not a scientific community), dedicated to dental therapies with minimum harm to patients, in particular by avoiding unhealthy material when replacing tooth substance. They do it by considering the state of science - e.g. in scientific conferences - and by education of dentists. 217.233.205.198 (talk) 11:15, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

@Blueraspberry:It is great your organization is doing this. It seem wikipedia has become a magnet for pseudoscience and junk science. The more members who have some knowledge in evidence-based medicine and dentistry the better.Dig Deeper (talk) 05:45, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Statement from ATSDR in its Toxicological Profile for Mercury, chapter 2.2.1.4: "The central nervous system is probably the most sensitive target organ for metallic mercury vapor exposure. Nervous system disorders following exposure to metallic mercury vapors are both consistent and pronounced. Acute-, intermediate-, and chronic-duration exposures elicit similar neurological effects. Symptoms intensify and may become irreversible as exposure duration and/or concentration increases." This is the state of science, concerning neurological effects by inhalation exposure. I have never seen any proof, that there is an exemption for mercury vapor released from dental amalgam, neither in general nor because of the amount of mercury. But you may refuse this statement, because ATSDR isn't a medical society. 79.202.36.146 (talk) 11:54, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Revisions of 11/2

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Yobol has been massively deleting the work of other users. S/he just deletes entire sections rather than improving or discussing. I made additions to this article, which s/he has *repeatedly* deleted wtih no discussion. Are his/her other edits similarly reckless?

Is this practice of removing all non-secondary sources sanctioned by MEDRS? Just because it is not covered in a secondary source does not make the data any less credible, factual, or pertinent. These are the additions I made which Yobol deleted:

1. The reference advisory limits for mercury toxicity in Canada. These are advisory limits which are used to regulate the safety of dental amalgam.
2. Data from the most recent Canadian Health Survey. (This is a massive health survey the goverment of Canada does periodically.) In the last survey, one of the things they collected data on was the number of amalgam fillings each person had. They also collected body samples and measured mercury concentration in urine. They found that 80% of people had a daily dose of Hg that exceeding the recommended dose limit.
3. Statements of the International Academy of Oral Medicine and Toxicology. That is an association of dental professionals focused on the exact topic of this article. Removed my summary of their work, positions, and main findings.

Other things (not my work) s/he has removed all information about: -- amalgam containing possible endocrine disrupters, -- factors in absorption of mercury from amalgam (bruxism, gum chewing) -- research on monkeys showing accumulation in organs

I don't mind when others find a more succint or pertinent way of stating the information. But this behavior of wholesale removing relevant information is disrespectful of the time, work, and perspective of other users. As a contributor to Wikipedia, I am very tired of this kind of behaviour. I have no agenda in this article. I came to it while looking for information about mercury toxicity. I tried to contribute what I found to be relevant & credible information. Ajobin (talk) 19:18, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

All health related information on Wikipedia needs to conform to WP:MEDRS, which states that primary sources should generally NOT be used for health related information. If you want to add information to this article, it needs to be sourced to MEDRS compliant sources. I note that the IAOMT is a fringe advocacy group formed specifically to push an anti-amalgam view, and is not the type of independent source we should be using in this article. Yobol (talk) 23:09, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

• Points 1 and 2 do not seem to come under MEDRS. 1 seems to be a legal regulation, and 2 seems to be an environmental survey that might not be connected to any statement about personal health. I agree with Yobol about the deletion of the 3rd point, which is the fringe society. This is not a mainstream organization doing science, but seems to be a political activist group acting outside of science and medicine.

I am not seeing information about endocrine disruptors but most likely that should be in the mercury poisoning article and not here, and I am not sure about monkey amalgam. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:32, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

The IAOMT is not a political activist group. It is a group of professional dentists who do research and advocacy about amalgam toxicity. They study the facts and latest research and issue summaries and reports on their findings. You just don't agree with them. Science is a process that a community engages in. The concensus of science right now is that amalgam is safe for teeth fillings. That doesn't mean that there aren't professionals and scientists who take a different opinion and have evidence for their opinion. Instead of characterizing the opposing opinion appropriately, you are just deleting them from the overview of professional organization in this article. You are censoring from the article even though they are a highly relevant professional group.

The Canadian report is not an environmental survey. It is a public health survey and in the last one it collected data to precisely address this issue. Again you would rather censor it that find an appropriate characterization for it? Ajobin (talk) 00:58, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Please respond about this. Yobol changed the information about Canada so that it simply says "Amalgam use is legal in Canada." However Canada has a reference intake level for mercury. In their last massive public health survey they specifically studied the relationship between number of fillings and mercury levels. They did this precisely because they were concerned about this issue. And they did find a relationship. Characterize it however you see fit, but deleting all reference to it is plainly biased. Likewise with deleting the principal group of dentists who research amalgam & advocate against it from the list of relevant organizations on this subject. Ajobin (talk) 00:10, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

The Canadian Health Measures Survey mercury & amalgam study: G. Mark Richardson, Mercury Exposure and Risks from Dental Amalgam in Canada: The Canadian Health Measures Survey 2007–2009, Hum. Ecol. Risk Assess., 20/2 (2014) 433-447. DOI: 10.1080/10807039.2012.743433

Data was collected on "the concentration of Hg in urine of survey participants. These data were employed to determine Hg exposures in the Canadian population. Also determined was the number of amalgam-restored tooth surfaces that would not result in exposure exceeding the dose associated with Canada's reference exposure level (REL) for Hg0. ... Of Canadians with dental amalgam restorations, 80.4% experience a daily dose of Hg that exceeds the Canadian REL-associated dose. The number of amalgam surfaces that will not result in exceeding the REL-associated dose varied from two amalgam surfaces (children, both sexes) to seven surfaces (adult males)." Ajobin (talk) 11:24, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Ajobin Regardless of what IAOMT is, they are not publishing in per-reviewed journals. Per WP:MEDRS, when health claims are made in Wikipedia articles, those claims must have a connection to peer review. You may say that "Science is a process that a community engages in", but Wikipedia for a long time has had an extreme and unfair bias against all science outside the peer review process. Because of that bias, the citations to that organization's information seem outside the scope of what Wikipedia can present since their own self-published materials are all that was cited.

"...Canada has a reference intake level for mercury." may be true also, but per WP:PRIMARY Wikipedia tries to avoid publishing reference numbers because their significance is not immediately obvious to a layman. In certain unusual cases it is acceptable to publish some numbers, but this rarely happens in medicine. The most discussed case is medical dosing; this is prohibited. From that consensus, giving numbers about toxicology doses is also prohibited, because typical people cannot see a number and understand the extent to which it is good or bad.

Wikipedia rarely covers primary research. This is why information about a urine study is not permissible in Wikipedia. More information on that is in WP:MEDRS.

You say that people here do not agree with the IAOMT. I am more of a librarian than anything else, and most people here are also. I neither know nor care what this or any other group says; I mostly just look at what they have published and where. Without reading any of these papers, I can see by the titles and publishing that these sources do not meet WP:MEDRS. Most of Wikipedia is just library cataloging, because the authors of books and papers typically label their work to note whether it should be cited by general information resources like Wikipedia. When the authors of papers themselves want their papers called as primary research, then of course Wikipedians agree and say that those papers cannot be used here. Since the sources you present seem to be labeled as primary research, that is why I dismiss them without considering them.

I encourage you to look for secondary sources. PubMed gets practically every paper from every researcher in the world, and it is free. Try looking there, perhaps with this search I started. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:16, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

He didn't just delete their publication. He deleted them from the list of professional "Organizations" which have position statements on this issue. He removed their publication and he removed this:

The IAOMT educates dentists on safely handling and disposing of mercury-laden amalgam fillings, and developed safe forms of effective dental treatment in many areas, including periodontics and preventing oral disease. The IAOMT has researched and reported on the danger of mercury in amalgam fillings to the health and safety of patients, dental workers, and the environment.

I don't mind if he characterizes them as a lesser group. He is welcome to point out that their views are not mainstream. I think that is already clear from the ADA position, but go ahead and point it out. Listing them as an organization working on this question does not imply they are on par with the FDA. It just shows that there are other views among professional dentists, which is the truth. I have had a few dentists who suggested they could remove the amalgam from my mouth. I didn't. It doesn't concern me. Doesn't mean that the existences of other views should be censored.

Re. the Canadian study: I now understand your concern with primary sources. I understand that in order for a study to be included we cannot link to the original study, but must instead find some other meta-study discussing it. However, I do not understand why it is inadmissible to point out that Canada has a reference advisory limit for mercury. Ajobin (talk) 01:45, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

The IAOMT is an advocacy group, formed specifically as an anti-amalgam group. The type of WP:MEDRS compliant source would be a body of medical professionals that would impartially analyze the data and come to an independent conclusion; this is clearly not the case with the IAOMT. Using them would be akin to using a group of doctors who are also HIV denialist as a reliable source for whether or not HIV causes AIDS. Yobol (talk) 04:43, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Ajobin You might say "Canada has a reference limit for mercury", or you might say "Various countries have reference advisory limits for mercury", but you cannot list the actual advisory limit because an odd number has no meaning except to a handful of people with very specific training. When numbers are presented, they should immediately mean something without other context. When numbers are listed, readers are pressured to draw a conclusions, but in this case people cannot understand the number without further research.

The reason why IAOMT cannot be cited is because they do not interact with other scientists or dentists. In conventional science, people publish in journals that everyone shares and in which many people can comment. IAOMT seems to only publish in their own website, and not in any public place, and Wikipedia almost always omits the views of these kinds of groups unless they already have a lot of respect from publishing in third party sources on other occasions. Yes, as you say, this is censorship of views outside of mainstream science. Wikipedia is never the first publication to acknowledge a group's legitimacy; someone else has to review their ideas first and comment on them. The content that you are adding is not the problem. The problem is that the citation is to a self-published work, rather than someone else's review of this information. Is that more clear? Please say if it is not, because I am happy to talk more. I could be wrong about something here. Blue Rasberry (talk) 12:55, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

• Bluerasberry Re. the Canadian advisory limit: The deleted text did not say a number. It said: "Amalgam use is legal in Canada, but the government has a reference exposure level (REL) for mercury guideline which it uses to study risk." Ajobin (talk) 17:18, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Ajobin Sorry for the confusion. Yes, that kind of information seems appropriate for inclusion. Somehow I lost track of the conversation focus. Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:30, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

• I also don't see any sourcing provided in this discussion that would indicate the views of this advocacy group are particularly notable. What authoritative independent source demonstrates their views are noteworthy and influential? Without that, it was correct to remove mention from the article per WP:WEIGHT. Zad68 16:00, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

• Re the IAOMT: I am not asking you to take them as a reliable source. They are a group of dentists opposed to the use of mercury fillings, and therefore should be included in the list of professional organizations who have positions on the subject. Characterize their opposition and their work however you see fit to avoid undue weight, but deleting them is to pretend that their is no professional opposition, when there is. That is a strange thing to say that they don't interact with other dentists given that it is part of their mission to educate dentists about the risks of mercury. Ajobin (talk) 17:18, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

• Please provide an authoritative, independent reliable source that demonstrates this group is noteworthy and we can include it. We cannot possibly open the door to inclusion of position statements of every advocacy group regarding any topic. There has to be some recognition by an authoritative body independent of the organization that the group is noteworthy. Zad68 17:33, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Why is their mission statement not adequate for demonstrating the work that they are involved in? The mission statement that was deleted says they have 700 members and are an approved continuing education provider for dentists. It also says they have been expert witnesses before Congress, FDA, state legislatures, Health Canada, and other government bodies. They have another page of press releases showing that this is the work that they do. What policy says that additional proof is required to prove that this organization exists and does the work that it says it does? If I am forced to then I suppose I will contact them, point them to the article, and see if they can point to any proof about their work. Perhaps I will do that in any case. The standards you are imposing here simply to point out that there is professional dissent on this issue are ludicrous. You are creating a biased article by deleting all evidence of opposition. If there is some policy saying additional proof is required, then why not just add a citation needed flag, or put it up for discussion, rather than deleting all evidence of professional opposition? It does not improve the neutrality of the article to only show one side of the debate. Ajobin (talk) 19:03, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Their mission statement is not adequate because they published it themselves, and they rely on the credibility that they assert about themselves. No one is doubting that the organization believes what it publishes in its own press releases. What is in question is that people outside this organization respect these statements. Contacting this organization for their opinion will not address the problem. The most common and easiest way to get a perspective into Wikipedia is to find a third-party (meaning not self-published) critique of the idea in a medical journal. If you cite a source which meets WP:MEDRS then that gets the information in Wikipedia. If you cannot find a MEDRS source, then find the best source you have that is not published by the organization and share that. You said that it was strange when I said this organization seems to not interact with other dentists; show something published by dentists from outside this organization but which is about this organization. See WP:SPS for the general policy on self-published sources. Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:30, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Again, I am not trying to establish the credibility of anything they are saying. I am trying to include them as a group which is very active on this issue. Likewise, I would not be contacting them for their opinion, but for independent proof that they do work in the areas they say they do. The fact that they are a group of 700 dentists working on this issue and opposed to amalgam is in itself significant to this article. Again, the statement in question is not one of scientific opinion or findings. It simply describes their work.

The IAOMT educates dentists on safely handling and disposing of mercury-laden amalgam fillings, and developed safe forms of effective dental treatment in many areas, including periodontics and preventing oral disease. The IAOMT has researched and reported on the danger of mercury in amalgam fillings to the health and safety of patients, dental workers, and the environment.

You are welcome to change the characterization from "the danger" to something else if you find that to be too strong. Ajobin (talk) 20:41, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Ajobin, sorry, but you're still not connecting to the point we're making. Basically there are two things you need: 1) A reliable source that supports the proposed content, and 2) An independent secondary source that demonstrates the topic is noteworthy enough for inclusion (i.e. meets the Wikipedia policy regarding WP:WEIGHT). You keep hitting on 1), but the objections are regarding 2). Please address 2). Zad68 21:04, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

This study is not MEDRS and this group is not MEDRS. You can search pubmed to find better sources. QuackGuru (talk) 21:21, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

I am not trying to prove any medical facts or anything that can be found in Pubmed. I am only trying to show that there is a group of dental professionals who are active in the dental amalgam controversy. I don't see why I need an outside source to attest to their mission? What outside source could possibly attest to size of their membership? I suppose they themselves might be able to point me to an independent source that can attest to the classes they offer or the advocacy work they do. I looked at their website and it seems they are engaged in a lawsuit against the FDA. So I an probably find proof of that. But I really don't see why I should need independent proof for such basic things as that they exist, have a mission in this area, and have a substantial membership of dentists. Anyway, if you insist then I will contact them to request proof of these things. Ajobin (talk) 00:02, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

If you searched pubmed you may find a lot more than you think. This is not about proof. This is about sourcing. What section do you want to expand and what do you want to generally include? QuackGuru (talk) 00:38, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't want to expand anything. I just want to restore what was deleted, or some approximation of it. Mainly, I want to see it more fairly represent who is involved in the controversy, why, and how they are involved. I understand that the ADA views are are better supported and therefore can have more said about them. I am not looking for parity, just due weight. The lack of secondary sources may prevent certain findings from making it into the article but it shouldn't prevent the expression of the fact that there are concerns from numerous professionals who disagree with the professional/scientific concensus that amalgam is safe. This tendancy to enforce MEDRS without making any effort to add citations so that both sides can be appropriately characterized leads to bias. I am going on holiday forthwith. Ajobin (talk) 02:24, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Enforcing MEDRS is a good thing and it is up to you to find other MEDRS compliant citations to avoid bias. QuackGuru (talk) 02:27, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Let's not take WP policies to the letter here. The IAOMT has a rather professional website which clearly shows this is not a few renegade dentists. The amount of involved professors in their science advisory board alone establishes its notability en credibility. They should at least be briefly mentioned. And since this article is about toxicity of a substance, any information about limits should be welcomed. I'd like to remind everyone here that in the right amounts, water is toxic (causing hyponatriemia if you want to look it up). So when someone tries to add this information, please don't do a discouraging delete, but expand and improve upon it. PizzaMan (♨♨) 15:39, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

If they're truly an influential, noteworthy organization it should be easy to provide independent reliable secondary sources saying so. This isn't "to the letter", this is the spirit. Zad68 20:32, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. The position that we should ignore our policies and guidelines because the website looks "rather professional" is remarkably unconvincing. (Not to mention it actually does not look professional at all...) Yobol (talk) 20:36, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

You could just mark the information as in need of a better citation. Instead you are creating an article about controvery that ignores one side of the debate. At minimum, you could have moved it to the talk page for discussion, to preserve some hope of a balanced article. I do not agree that Wikipedia is meant to function like this. I realize this is a small issue and can be fixed when better sources can be found. I will contact the organization in question for pointers. However, this also matters to me as as an editor and a donor here. I would like an official judgment on this. Is the correct way to do this to file a dispute? Ajobin (talk) 22:08, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

I agree that this is not a "major medical or scientific organization" and is therefore not a reliable source per WP:MEDRS. Ajobin you have been asked several times to provide some independent, reliable source that would convince folks that IAOMT is a even a significant minority opinion and you have provided nothing. There is no forum in Wikipedia where you are going to get any traction without that. We all need some more evidence and the burden is on you to provide it. Per policy and guideline, decisions about things like this are driven by sources, not by personal preferences. Jytdog (talk) 22:35, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

I responded to your point. As I said, I will contact them and ask for pointers about where their work has been documented. Unfortunately, the only way you can prove the size of most groups is by their own statements.

Saying that there is an opposed group of professionals or that Canada has a reference limit for mercury are not scientific statements -- noone is endangered by a mistake here. It would be more constructive to just flag it as needing a better reference. Barring that, moving the information to the talk page at least preserves the hope of balance and respect for other editors work. Do you think that this way of doing things makes Wikipedia a better place for editors and readers? I think it is creates more problems than it solves. There is a small chance it is removing a potential inaccuracy and a certainty that it is creating bias by deleting one point of view in a controversy and all documentation for it. It is also disrespectful of the work of others to just delete it with no discussion. Ajobin (talk) 22:33, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

No discussion?? This is HUGE SECTION OF DISCUSSION. Three things. 1) if you want to change Wikipedia's sourcing guidelines, have at it. But this is not the place for that (try WT:MEDRS). 2) just for kicks, try finding sources that discuss the importance of the American Dental Association. You will have no problem. (because they actually are mainstream and important) 3) At this point you are WP:IDHT. I recommend WP:SHUN. Ajobin is just trolling at this point. done here. Jytdog (talk) 23:19, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Sorry Ajobin but you're still not connecting to our points and I'm losing faith that you will/can/want to. At this point I'm not sure further Talk page discussion will be productive, I'll simply watch the article for edits. Zad68 05:07, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Dental amalgam controversy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120229035622/http://aappolicy.aappublications.org:80/cgi/content/full/pediatrics;108/1/197 to http://aappolicy.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/pediatrics%3B108/1/197
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090211053845/http://www.fda.gov:80/cdrh/consumer/amalgams2002.html to http://www.fda.gov/cdrh/consumer/amalgams2002.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20140924170254/http://www.government.se/sb/d/11459/a/118550 to http://www.government.se/sb/d/11459/a/118550

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 09:27, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 5 external links on Dental amalgam controversy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.time.com/time/columnist/jaroff/article/0,9565,235009,00.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110713033557/http://www.osha.gov:80/SLTC/healthguidelines/mercuryvapor/recognition.html to http://www.osha.gov/SLTC/healthguidelines/mercuryvapor/recognition.html
• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.iaomt.org/where.htmf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20051220094930/http://www.kemi.se:80/upload/Trycksaker/Pdf/Rapporter/Rapport4_04.pdf to http://www.kemi.se/upload/Trycksaker/Pdf/Rapporter/Rapport4_04.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20141223231541/http://www.government.se:80/sb/d/2969/a/223295 to http://www.government.se/sb/d/2969/a/223295

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:41, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Section about Crawcour Family doesn't read like an encyclopedia

Some problematic word use:

• The Crawcours were a family of five Polish dentists who acquired a "superficial knowledge" of dentistry in France before unleashing themselves on the English public in the 1780s.
• In 1833, two members of the Crawcour family invaded the growing United States of America with a cheap coin silver amalgam they called "royal mineral succedaneum".
• The Crawcours set up elegant dental "parlours" in New York City and competed with the ethical dentists and catered to the wealthy and influential residents of the city.

This article isn't an epic retelling of the battle between ethical, safe, amalgam dentists and the villains trying to ruin their good name. --72.226.86.106 (talk) 23:12, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Almost a year has passed, this is still the case.--Adûnâi (talk) 23:30, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Fringe

FYI, there is currently a discussion about this article at WP:FT/N. Alexbrn (talk) 10:06, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Consideration

The following points haven't been taken into account.

1) It is scientifically known that metallic mercury is mostly absorbed through the lungs. Therefore the most likely scenario that mercury from amalgam fillings would cause signs of toxicity would be after a VO2Max type of physical activity such as sprinting/running or sexual activity.

2) Glutathione and Metallothionein are proteins that neutralize and remove mercury from the body, respectively. These proteins require Calcitriol (Active Vitamin D) for their genetic expression. Vitamin D deficiency is endemic in many countries. Vitamin D is also required to prevent degeneration by promoting healthy growth. Therefore the notion that amalgam fillings are safe for everyone in all situations is incorrect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Essereio (talk • contribs) 07:46, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

This is not a forum for general discussion of the topic nor is this a place to post original research. If you are proposing this content be added, then it needs be based on reliable sources per WP:MEDRS. Jytdog (talk) 19:07, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Mercury Exposure

In this section there is a claim about the amount of mercury exposure compared to weekly fish consumption. However, the claim is not cited, it simply says "One dental textbook says...". This is not a legitimate claim unless you can back it up with a source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.84.129.48 (talk) 16:01, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

You can add {{cn}} anywhere in articles to tag "citation needed". You might have noticed these tags while reading various articles on Wikipedia. I have found that every paragraph in the Mercury exposure ends with a source, so I personally don't know where to add "citation needed". Best, Altanner1991 (talk) 04:42, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Mention international travelers / immigrants

In some countries dentists will charge lots and wear special masks if an amalgam filling needs to be drilled (during replacement.)

So it would be best not to have any new ones installed, if ever planning to travel internationally. Jidanni (talk) 16:59, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Review article contradicts SCENIHR

Any thoughts about https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3025977/ from 2011? It contradicts the 2008 "it's safe" advice from the Scientific Committee on Emerging and Newly Identified Health Risks (SCENIHR). Johnuniq (talk) 05:28, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

That is not a review, rather an opinion by Joachim Mutter. Mutter is absolutly unreliable, advocating conspriray theories. Julius Senegal (talk) 11:26, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

Oh. Thanks. Johnuniq (talk) 04:31, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

This needs updated to incluse the new ban

Since the vote to ban in Eu in Jan 2024 this needs updated Jamesks (talk) 08:32, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Suggested merge

As it stands there is superfluous information on the page Galvanic shock. It should be merged here. I will see if I find time to go ahead. CFCF (talk) 19:34, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

  Y Merger complete. Klbrain (talk) 15:09, 26 October 2024 (UTC)