De-tox with cilantro
- Ah, you're one of those people. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 18:46, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
- In my case it isn't a full-on loathing, just a preference for avoidance. In some contexts, where I expect it, I pretty much tolerate the stuff. Not sure I'm ready for cilantro pesto, though. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 19:14, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
This is from a funny bit by some sort comedian named Dara O'Brian. The term used in the article to a video in which O'Brien uses the term, but it's four minutes in. Does anybody know how to link to a specific time in a video? I know it's possible, I just don't know how. This is the video in question, and the term is mentioned at around 4:05. Thank you for any assistance provided--"Shut up, Brx." 17:29, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
 Reference ?
I came across this wiki and was interested to read what information you had about dental mercury fillings. The sentence below (from your article) stood out to me as not aligned with the science and it did not have a reference.
"It's important to note that mercury amalgam is not merely a mixture of mercury with silver and other substances, it's a chemical compound in which the mercury atoms are bound up in larger molecules, and these molecules behave very differently from standalone mercury atoms."
One would think if the statement above was true it would be widely published and acknowledged by health agencies. But, after reading documents on this subject published by the World health Organization (1991, 2003), The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR - 1999) I have never seen any reference to the claim made above. Further more, it is widely documented in the scientific literature that mercury vapor (which is considered more toxic than methylmercury - because the safety level is 10 times lower - see EPA's mercury RfC for these #'s) is released from mercury fillings. For a comprehensive overview, I'd suggest reading "Mercury exposure and risks from dental amalgam in the US population, post-2000", published in "Science of the total environment" by Mark Richardson PhD (who worked with FDA guidance on various aspects). The study (analyzing data from the CDC NHANES dataset) came to the conclusion that if one were to use the EPA RfC (which is close to 20 years old and is what FDA relies upon) then over 60 million receive more than the allowable safe dose of mercury from their amalgam fillings. But if one were to use an updated Rfc for mercury as published by the California-EPA, then all 120+ million people with amalgam would receive more than the safe dose from their fillings. An interview with Richardson discussing his study can be found here http://www.mercuryexposure.info/science/risk-assessment/item/452-amalgam-risk-assessment
For those who like to quote ADA spokesperson Rodney Mackert who claims it would take 400+ fillings to be toxic, I would say that out of all the risk assessments published on this issue (over 14) his findings are the absolute lowest and is the outlier. In addition, his study was published way back in 1991 and there has been a wealth of knowledge published on this issue with findings to the contrary. An overview of the flaws of his study can be found here. http://www.mercuryexposure.info/scandals/studies/mackert-mercury-vapor-levels/item/710-understanding-the-inherent-flaws-and-methodology-in-rodney-mackerts-mercury-exposure-claims
additionally, what are you trying to imply with the statement above ? how do those molecules behave differently from stand alone mercury atoms ? what are the implications of the effect on health ?