The European Union's decision to ban mercury dental fillings (amalgams) by January 2025 marks a significant step in public health and environmental safety. Justin Silverman covered some aspects of the ban in The New York Times on September 17, 2024, in an article called Mercury Dental Fillings and a New E. U. Ban. The author mentioned that removing mercury-containing fillings would cause further mercury toxicity. However, he neglected to tell readers that mercury-containing fillings, called amalgams, can be safely removed, leaving readers to believe they are stuck with their fillings. I will cover the ban, provide information on amalgams, explain the reasons for removing them, and explain how to do it safely.

Gell-Mann

Nobel Prize-winning physicist Murray Gell-Mann, who discovered the quark, noticed that when he read a news article about his area of expertise, he found the information to be erroneous. He then wondered whether the other articles he read in the same publication that were beyond his area of expertise were also false. In essence, we turn the page and forget the lies we just read and find credibility in the rest of what we read. Murray's friend and famous author, Michael Crichton, coined the term Gell-Mann Amnesia to explain the phenomenon. If one news item is wrong, why believe the others are true? Read my post on Gell-Mann amnesia here.

Fortunately, I am an expert in dental mercury fillings and their safe removal. It is true that if the fillings were removed without precaution, worse toxicity would be the result. However, the article leaves out safe mercury removal, a glaring omission, giving the reader the opposite viewpoint that mercury-containing fillings should be left as-is; otherwise, removing them would cause more toxicity, not less. Hence, I generally don't believe much of what is reported in many publications, especially The New York Times.

Who Believes Mercury is Safe?

Mercury, a known neurotoxin, accumulates in the body over time, making it particularly hazardous to long-term health. Despite documented studies concluding that amalgams are not harmful in children, these studies often overlook the cumulative nature of mercury exposure, making adult models more suitable for understanding long-term risks. Mercury in the body increases with age, and adults with amalgam fillings consistently show higher levels of mercury than those without, an undisputed scientific fact.

In the United States, the FDA, which receives significant funding from pharmaceutical companies, has reviewed over 100 studies on amalgam fillings, concluding that they have no harmful effects. However, these studies remain controversial, as no serious scientist doubts the toxicity of mercury. The real issue lies in the methodology used in such reviews, which downplays the long-term effects of mercury accumulation. This controversy underscores the need for a critical and engaged approach to understanding the risks associated with amalgam fillings.

Removing Amalgams Can be Done Safely

One of the arguments against removing amalgam fillings is the risk of increased mercury exposure during the procedure. Therefore, the article leaves the reader believing that it is better to keep a mercury filling because it is more toxic to have it removed, which is far from the truth. The author did not do his research properly because a technique exists that mitigates exposure during removal, which is known as the SMART technique (Safe Mercury Amalgam Removal Technique). The SMART approach uses special equipment to protect the patient from mercury vapor during removal, such as high-volume suction, rubber dams, and oxygen for the patient to breathe safely. You can read more about the SMART technique in my previous post. I use this method in my practice, and when performed correctly, the technique minimizes any potential mercury release, making the process much safer.

It's important to note that the decision to remove amalgam fillings should not be solely based on their mercury content. They should only be removed when necessary, such as when the fillings are worn, fractured, or decayed or when cosmetic concerns arise. This functional basis for removal reassures patients that the procedure is not undertaken lightly but rather in response to specific dental health needs.

Conclusion

Although the article is informative, it is disappointingly misleading people that they are helpless if they need mercury fillings removed. This omission will lead to countless unwitting victims of mercury toxicity who believe they have no options. This article, in my opinion, is a blatant example of poor journalism due to this one omission. Hopefully, you know better after reading this post. Encouragingly, the American Dental Association (ADA) is leaning towards a gradual phasing out of amalgams, a sentiment echoed by environmental public health experts. A complete ban, similar to the EU's, is a potential next step for the future of dental health in the United States. This movement represents progress toward safer, healthier, and environmentally friendly dental practices globally.