Letters to the Editor

by the Readers

Mercury Rising

Thank you for the article "Biting Back" (Cover story, Juliet Fletcher, May 23). It is well-written and on the mark. As a volunteer for the organization DAMS [Dental Amalgam Mercury Syndrome] for the past 15 years, I have dealt with many people who, after learning about the possibility of mercury poisoning from dental fillings, had them removed properly and experienced health improvement and recovery. Chronic exposure to mercury from fillings creates chronic health conditions.

Murlene Brake
Madison, Ala.

Thank you for publishing the story "Biting Back." Your reporter Juliet Fletcher, is to be commended for writing such a wonderful article. As someone who is personally dealing with the serious health issues caused by amalgam illness, and because of the lack of awareness of family and friends as well as the denial of the medical community at large, I am grateful that you have printed a story that I can share with people I care about.

Dan Bermingham
Dublin, Calif.

The stories about the supposed danger of modern dental amalgam have been done. And none of them have amounted to anything.

Journalism, like an incisor, gets more yellow as it is exposed to pollutants. Your article did little to educate your readership regarding this important issue. You cited no definitive scientific literature to back up the claims of the "local activists" who are "fighting the ADA." These folks are not John Dean criticizing the Nixon administration, and the City Paper is not the Washington Post.

The vast majority of dentists walk a difficult ethical tightrope regarding this issue. We know that all health care decisions must be made by evaluating risk vs. benefit for our patients. Modern silver amalgam (not the old-fashioned kind mixed with a mortar and pestle using eye droppers of mercury; that stuff has been obsolete since before I started dental school in 1979) is inexpensive for the patient. It lasts for many years, and when it fails we usually see only moderate damage to the tooth. White composite restorations cost nearly twice as much, take much longer to place in the mouth, and don't last nearly as long. When they fail, the tooth is usually fairly well-destroyed. This leads to more discomfort and expense for our patients. Gold or porcelain cast restorations are ideal. They are stronger, last longer and do not degrade in the mouth. They also cost 10 times more than silver amalgam.

I've been a part-time teacher at both Philadelphia dental schools, and part of that time has been spent teaching the difficult task of treatment planning (deciding what to recommend to our patients). Within the dental community there are many opinions regarding the "best" restorative materials. White composite is getting better every year. In certain situations, I recommend it wholeheartedly over amalgam, but never because amalgam is unhealthy.

These decisions should be between a patient and his or her doctor, based on sound scientific research and professional judgment. Sensationalism needlessly confuses the issue.

Shame on you.

Richard Tananis, D.D.S.
Old City

Correction

In Maxine Keyser's review of Illuminare ("New York State of Mind," May 16), the restaurant's phone number was printed incorrectly. The correct phone number is 215-765-0202.

Browse The
September 21, 2006
Issue

Join the
City Paper
Mailing List

24th Annual Writing Contest