Reply #27: Good and valid questions

[Orrex]

My "dog in this fight" (an expression that's new to me but which I will steal) is that I've had a great interest in the claims of pseudoscience and holistic medicine for over a decade. I'm not in the medical field (I work in the finance industry), but matters of science and biology fascinate me. I am fairly well-schooled in critical thought and inquiry, so the nature of this particular debate is right up my alley.

It was not my intent to ridicule you or the original poster, so I apologize for that. However, I find the claims of "anti-amalgamists" (a term I've culled from websites on the subject) to be dangerous and potentially harmful. In addition, I bristle when I hear of some crusader against amalgam who happens to profit nicely from his crusade. Of course, that isn't in itself an invalidating argument, but it's often significant.

The "straw man" of corporations admittedly addresses issues outside of the current debate, but I've been in enough of these discussions (Thimerosal/autism, for example) to know that someone will eventually accuse me of being in league with Big Pharma or some other corporate interest. My comment was, therefore, an attempt to head that baseless accusation off at the pass.

And as far as the imprecision of the term "silver amalgam," I should reveal that my own dentists, to the extent of my recollection, have called it "dental amalgam," which is, I think, the correct designation. It's a combination of several components, chiefly mercury, but it's an amalgamation rather than separate quantities of mercury, silver, copper, etc.

It's also technically correct but imprecise to claim that using dental amalgam is "putting mercury in your mouth," just as it would be imprecise to say that you're putting raw sodium in your mouth whenever you eat french fries.