![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 1 to 13 of 13. This is the beginning of the thread.
Posted by Wolf Dreamer on October 11, 2003, at 7:27:23
Computer monitors, televisions, fluorescent lights... all have mercury in them.
I read about how the American Dental Association admited mercury leaks slowly from your fillings, and how they also admited that being near high voltage lines caused it to leak at a higher rate. People that reported high voltage lines causing them to get sick, really should've just been blaming their mercury fillings.
I'm wondering now if mercury is leaking through various electronics we own.
I remember hearing how gasses are vented continously from most computer monitors, and how that affects some people with allergies... I just did a google search and found this:
http://allergies.about.com/library/weekly/aa092500a.htmI'm wondering what else is leaking out of it.
Posted by Larry Hoover on October 11, 2003, at 14:49:42
In reply to Mercury in everything... electricity makes it vent, posted by Wolf Dreamer on October 11, 2003, at 7:27:23
> Computer monitors, televisions, fluorescent lights... all have mercury in them.
....and, unless the glass breaks, the mercury stays inside. All of it.
> I read about how the American Dental Association admited mercury leaks slowly from your fillings, and how they also admited that being near high voltage lines caused it to leak at a higher rate. People that reported high voltage lines causing them to get sick, really should've just been blaming their mercury fillings.
>
> I'm wondering now if mercury is leaking through various electronics we own.Mercury from dental amalgam is a real risk. Mercury from computers, TVs and fluorescent lights is not, unless they break.
> I remember hearing how gasses are vented continously from most computer monitors, and how that affects some people with allergies... I just did a google search and found this:
> http://allergies.about.com/library/weekly/aa092500a.htm
>
> I'm wondering what else is leaking out of it.Lots of different things. The process is known as out-gassing. I'm not sure there's much you can do about it, though, unless you want to live in a cave in Alaska, or something.
There are some things you can control, like what's in the water you drink (as in the other thread). But, I don't know a way to control what's in the air you breathe.
Lar
Posted by Wolf Dreamer on October 11, 2003, at 15:55:21
In reply to Re: Mercury in everything... electricity makes it vent » Wolf Dreamer, posted by Larry Hoover on October 11, 2003, at 14:49:42
http://home.earthlink.net/~berniew1/damspr15.html
5. Most people get significant exposures to Electromagnetic Fields(EMF) from computer monitors, televisions, microwaves, other appliances, and power lines. These exposures have been found to significantly increase release and excretion of mercury in those with amalgam fillings.There is more about that in the link.
There is something people take which apparently helps the body filter out mercury.
Does anyone know why with so many building materials around, they don't have something they could use to make decent artificial teeth? It seems to me that you have too few options for teeth fillings. I'd prefer to have my mercury infested teeth removed entirely, and then replaced with artificial ones if possible. Much safer than any drill and removal nonsense.
----
I was worried about computers and such because if the electromagnetic field caused mercury to leak from tooth fillings, then wouldn't it cause some venting from electronics? Don't some people get sick from fluorescent lights?
Posted by Larry Hoover on October 12, 2003, at 9:21:08
In reply to Re: Mercury in everything... electricity makes it vent » Larry Hoover, posted by Wolf Dreamer on October 11, 2003, at 15:55:21
> http://home.earthlink.net/~berniew1/damspr15.html
> 5. Most people get significant exposures to Electromagnetic Fields(EMF) from computer monitors, televisions, microwaves, other appliances, and power lines. These exposures have been found to significantly increase release and excretion of mercury in those with amalgam fillings.I have extensively researched amalgam dental materials, and they leak anyway, all the time. Whether or not electrical fields increase that rate isn't of much consequence, in my mind. They're already bad.
> There is more about that in the link.
>
> There is something people take which apparently helps the body filter out mercury.The most effectively way to manage mercury exposure is to ensure that you have enough selenium in your body. It binds irreversibly to mercury, and although the mercury remains in your body, it can do no further harm (unless, and until, your body is cremated).
> Does anyone know why with so many building materials around, they don't have something they could use to make decent artificial teeth?There are safe forms of artificial teeth. They're made from ceramics.
> It seems to me that you have too few options for teeth fillings. I'd prefer to have my mercury infested teeth removed entirely, and then replaced with artificial ones if possible.
That's certainly possible. It may well improve your health significantly. If you're serious, you can get permanently implanted artificial teeth. They set metal (titanium, I think) posts into your bone structure, and then mount the teeth onto those posts.
> Much safer than any drill and removal nonsense.
There are safety precautions during amalgam removal procedures that minimize exposure, but you're stuck with having to fill the holes with something else. And all the alternatives have their own risks. Everything has pros and cons, ya know?
> ----
> I was worried about computers and such because if the electromagnetic field caused mercury to leak from tooth fillings, then wouldn't it cause some venting from electronics?Totally different situations. Your mouth isn't sealed. The electronic components with mercury in them are.
> Don't some people get sick from fluorescent lights?
>Do you have more details?
Lar
Posted by Wolf Dreamer on October 12, 2003, at 17:05:03
In reply to Re: Mercury in everything... electricity makes it vent » Wolf Dreamer, posted by Larry Hoover on October 12, 2003, at 9:21:08
Wolf Dreamer: "Don't some people get sick from fluorescent lights?"
Lar: "Do you have more details?"I checked the net last night, scanning google for fluorescent and harmful.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=ISO-8859-1&q=fluorescent+harmfulThey have a condition that affects babies called Retinopathy of Prematurity, which only exist in areas where they use blue fluorescent lights in the maternity wards. The UV light causes damage to their eyes, sometimes resulting in blindness.
Museems put protective coverings over their fluorescent lights, to keep them from damaging their exibits.
[quote]The ultraviolet rays from sunlight and fluorescent tubes will cause structural damage and oxidative reactions. Limiting light exposure protects paper and pigments from chemical and physical deterioration.
All light, particularly that in the ultraviolet (UV) and infrared (IR) regions of the spectrum, induces chemical changes which age materials by degrading them. The most pernicious photochemical damage is caused by UV rays. IR radiation will cause chemical changes, and it accelerates the destructive effect of both UV light and visible radiation. Although not as profound in its destructive capacity as IR or UV, visible light can cause fading or darkening of some pigments. Photochemical deterioration, which occurs in organic objects such as works on paper and textiles, is cumulative and cannot be reversed.[/quote]
Here is a great webpage I just found.
http://www.macular.org/bluelite.htmlSo its the UV radiation causing problems, nothing else.
Various things cause your body to be weaker in dealing with UV radiation, including some medications, thus some people really need protection badly.
I'm going to try to find some decent viser to buy.
Posted by joebob on October 13, 2003, at 21:41:38
In reply to Re: Mercury in everything... electricity makes it vent » Wolf Dreamer, posted by Larry Hoover on October 12, 2003, at 9:21:08
i have a 5 year old son who was raised totally organic, filter r/o water, supps the whole bit, since we bacame pregant with him....we had the heavy duty air purifier in his bedroom throughout the pregancy and thereafter
sometime in the first year of his life, i decided to do a hair analysis for him, cheap for me to do, my homepath is an expert, create a baseline, etc....
so guess what..... very high toxic levels of mercury and arsenic...........we live in the republic of santa monica
Posted by Larry Hoover on October 14, 2003, at 8:00:45
In reply to fluorescent lights are evil.. UV radiation bad! » Larry Hoover, posted by Wolf Dreamer on October 12, 2003, at 17:05:03
> Wolf Dreamer: "Don't some people get sick from fluorescent lights?"
> Lar: "Do you have more details?"
>
> I checked the net last night, scanning google for fluorescent and harmful.
> http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=ISO-8859-1&q=fluorescent+harmful
>
> They have a condition that affects babies called Retinopathy of Prematurity, which only exist in areas where they use blue fluorescent lights in the maternity wards. The UV light causes damage to their eyes, sometimes resulting in blindness.That's not true. Infants with retinopathy must be protected from UV light, but fluorescents don't cause the disorder.
J Trop Pediatr. 1996 Dec;42(6):355-8.
Risk factors associated with retinopathy of prematurity: a study from Oman.
Bassiouny MR.
Department of Pediatrics, Mansoura University, Mansura, Egypt.
In a prospective study at Sultan Qaboos University Hospital, out of 73 premature infants screened for retinopathy of prematurity (ROP), 25 (34 per cent) developed the disease. Nine significant risk factors were found to be associated with the development of ROP. These factors were lower birth weight, shorter gestational age, apnoea, top-up blood transfusion, mechanical ventilation, receiving sodium bicarbonate for correction of metabolic acidosis, total parenteral nutrition, intraventricular haemorrhage, and sepsis. However, with stepwise logistic regression analysis, only birth weight, gestational age, and total parenteral nutrition were found to be independently associated with the development of ROP. The severity of ROP was significantly inversely proportional to both birth weight and gestational age. The tendency for the association of some risk factors to disappear when subjected to more stringent analysis (logistic regression) suggests that this association is more likely to be due to the length of treatment (particularly oxygen exposure and mechanical ventilation) and the overall severity of initial illness.
> Museems put protective coverings over their fluorescent lights, to keep them from damaging their exibits.
The plastic diffusers commonly seen on fluorescent lights absorb the UV. Believe me, sunshine is a far greater UV risk than fluorescent lights.
> [quote]The ultraviolet rays from sunlight and fluorescent tubes will cause structural damage and oxidative reactions. Limiting light exposure protects paper and pigments from chemical and physical deterioration.
>
> All light, particularly that in the ultraviolet (UV) and infrared (IR) regions of the spectrum, induces chemical changes which age materials by degrading them. The most pernicious photochemical damage is caused by UV rays. IR radiation will cause chemical changes, and it accelerates the destructive effect of both UV light and visible radiation. Although not as profound in its destructive capacity as IR or UV, visible light can cause fading or darkening of some pigments. Photochemical deterioration, which occurs in organic objects such as works on paper and textiles, is cumulative and cannot be reversed.[/quote]All light is electromagnetic radiation. As the frequency varies, so does the effect. We happen to have evolved with electromagnetic radiation sensors that are frequency sensitive (colour vision). The distinction between the different wavelengths is arbitrary (e.g infrared versus ultraviolet). All light causes chemical reactions to occur.
> Here is a great webpage I just found.
> http://www.macular.org/bluelite.html
>
> So its the UV radiation causing problems, nothing else.If you read that page, you'll see that blue light is a problem, too. Bright light of any frequency (i.e. colour) will cause injury. UV light from the sun is a huge influence on health, depending on exposure, because it has higher intensities (it's brighter) in the UV spectrum. To put fluorescent lights in perspective, have you ever heard of anyone getting a suntan from working indoors under fluorescent lights? No. Quite the contrary. The pasty, "don't get out much" look, despite fluorescent lights, eh?
> Various things cause your body to be weaker in dealing with UV radiation, including some medications, thus some people really need protection badly....depending on exposure.
> I'm going to try to find some decent viser to buy.
....for outdoor use.
Lar
Posted by Wolf Dreamer on October 14, 2003, at 8:09:48
In reply to Re: fluorescent lights are evil.. UV radiation bad! » Wolf Dreamer, posted by Larry Hoover on October 14, 2003, at 8:00:45
http://www.rdcbraille.com/pbpb-c.html
ROP did not exist prior to the introduction of fluorescent lamps into intensive care nurseries. In fact, ROP began and spread in this country and abroad, together with the introduction and spread of fluorescent lamps into intensive care nurseries.The fluorescent lamps in the nurseries emit high-energy blue wavelengths in a laser-like concentration. Research shows that much of the nursery lamps' energy is concentrated in precisely the wavelength that is known to cause the most damage to the retina.
The lighting level which the American Academy of Pediatrics currently recommends for intensive care nurseries exceeds the occupational safety standards for adults. In fact, a preemie's retinas receive, in less than three hours, more than 11 times the amount of irradiation recognized as the industrial danger limit for adult workers.
A preemie's retinas are much more vulnerable to damage than an adult's. And to make matters worse, the preemies cannot turn their heads away from the light, they do not yet know how to blink (that mechanism develops at about six months), and their paper-thin eyelids and clear lenses allow virtually all of the blue and ultraviolet light to enter uninhibited so that the babies are, in effect, left staring into the lights.
Studies show that damage to the retina from light and damage from ROP look identical under the electron microscope.
The studies that supposedly prove that fluorescent lighting is safe, in fact, all suffer from the same basic flaw: that babies' eyes were protected only after the first day of their life, after the damage had been done.
Posted by Larry Hoover on October 14, 2003, at 8:10:52
In reply to fyi....mercury and arsenic in environment, posted by joebob on October 13, 2003, at 21:41:38
> i have a 5 year old son who was raised totally organic, filter r/o water, supps the whole bit, since we bacame pregant with him....we had the heavy duty air purifier in his bedroom throughout the pregancy and thereafter
>
> sometime in the first year of his life, i decided to do a hair analysis for him, cheap for me to do, my homepath is an expert, create a baseline, etc....
>
> so guess what..... very high toxic levels of mercury and arsenic...........we live in the republic of santa monicaIf I had seen unexpected results like that, I'd have looked for an independent confirmation elsewhere (another lab, same sample, and a new sample for comparison).....not that you don't trust the source, but it's a significant finding, if verified.
Given what you say about how you're protected your son, there are limited routes of exposure. One, prenatally. What's your wife's baseline? I doubt this is a significant route. Two, shampoos/untreated water exposure. Water for bathing stays outside the body, but it can still contaminate hair, as can e.g. shampoo. Still, I cannot see either of these having a significant impact. A third is airborne contamination. Deteriorating paint, or pesticide residue are possibilities, carried by dust. The air purifier should have helped there, but you'd still need significant point-sources in the environment. Even less likely, I'd imagine, would be dermal or oral exposure to e.g. pesticides. Frankly, I'd be questioning the hair test itself, first. Or, maybe it's the interpretation of the levels that is questionable (what's high toxic defined as?).
Just doing a stream-of-consciousness thingie on your post.
Lar
Posted by Wolf Dreamer on October 14, 2003, at 8:27:56
In reply to Re: fluorescent lights are evil.. UV radiation bad! » Wolf Dreamer, posted by Larry Hoover on October 14, 2003, at 8:00:45
When you are outside, you aren't standing directly out in the sun, but usually in shade. Also, you aren't staring up at the sun directly the way you are looking at a computer monitor.
I believe being close to a computer monitor must have some effects. Hmm... I'm reading various webpages... the ones that aren't trying to sell anything say there isn't anything harmful coming from my computer screen, while those who wish to sell something say all sorts of horrible things will happen if I don't protect myself from it. Oh well.
Fluorescent lights have less UV radiation than the sun does, but it is still enough to cause problems in some people perhaps. I don't use the things, so I don't really care to read too much more about them. To many differant reports saying differant things.
The flicker of a computer screen does give eye strain and headaches to people, but that is something unrelated to UV radiation apparently. Nevermind then. I just got my initial information from the wrong webpages.
Except of course the thing about the infants going blind. The research I linked to sounds more convincing than the stuff you linked to.
Posted by Larry Hoover on October 14, 2003, at 8:57:25
In reply to Re: fluorescent lights are evil.. UV radiation bad! » Larry Hoover, posted by Wolf Dreamer on October 14, 2003, at 8:09:48
Before I state my criticisms of the piece you quote, I want to emphasize that just because something is on the 'net, and seems to be referenced, it doesn't make it true.
> http://www.rdcbraille.com/pbpb-c.html
> ROP did not exist prior to the introduction of fluorescent lamps into intensive care nurseries.??? Where's the evidence for that? ROP did not exist before premature babies were prevented from dying. Artificial lighting was developed about the same time we learned to give premature babies oxygen, but we didn't know that too much oxygen would blind premature babies. High oxygen saturation causes ROP, in susceptible babies.
> In fact, ROP began and spread in this country and abroad, together with the introduction and spread of fluorescent lamps into intensive care nurseries.
At the same time the technology of incubators and oxygen therapy was introduced, by chance? What a coincidence.
> The fluorescent lamps in the nurseries emit high-energy blue wavelengths in a laser-like concentration.
That is simply absurd. Blue light is not high-energy. It is higher energy than e.g. red light, but high-energy light is e.g. x-rays. Secondly, lasers are many many times more intense than fluorescent lights. Even red lasers can blind you (stare at a laser pointer, and you'll find out), and they're lower energy than blue wavelengths, anyway. There is no valid comparison between fluorescents and lasers. No way.
> Research shows that much of the nursery lamps' energy is concentrated in precisely the wavelength that is known to cause the most damage to the retina.
No, in fact, it's not. It's concentrated in the visible spectrum, which eyes are quite capable of absorbing safely. UV light is a minor emission of fluorescents.
> The lighting level which the American Academy of Pediatrics currently recommends for intensive care nurseries exceeds the occupational safety standards for adults. In fact, a preemie's retinas receive, in less than three hours, more than 11 times the amount of irradiation recognized as the industrial danger limit for adult workers.Where did that come from? Evidence?
> A preemie's retinas are much more vulnerable to damage than an adult's. And to make matters worse, the preemies cannot turn their heads away from the lightYes, they can.
> , they do not yet know how to blink
Yes, they can.
> (that mechanism develops at about six months),
Wrong.
> and their paper-thin eyelids and clear lenses allow virtually all of the blue and ultraviolet light to enter uninhibited so that the babies are, in effect, left staring into the lights.
....which is only significant if all the other risk factors exist, especially oxygen therapy.
> Studies show that damage to the retina from light and damage from ROP look identical under the electron microscope.
So?
> The studies that supposedly prove that fluorescent lighting is safe, in fact, all suffer from the same basic flaw: that babies' eyes were protected only after the first day of their life, after the damage had been done.Does this suggest that all the supposed damage was done in the first day? Bizarre.
The page you linked is not credible science. Please take my word for that.
If you want to look at the sun, you need to filter the light through welder's glass. If you want to look at welding, same thing. You can get "sunburn" from welding. However, you don't need welder's glass to work in fluorescent light. You don't need sunblock to work in fluorescent light. The fact that you can't get a tan from being exposed to fluorescent light even 24 hours a day seven days a week is proof that UV exposure from fluurescent lights is trivial.
Posted by joebob on October 14, 2003, at 11:57:44
In reply to Re: fyi....mercury and arsenic in environment » joebob, posted by Larry Hoover on October 14, 2003, at 8:10:52
i had a hair test for myself with similar results, and so i did the 24 hour urine collection w/dmps challenge and it verified high/ toxic levels of both mercury and arsenic
i will get my son's hair analysis done again, but most of the points you mention don't apply, like shampoo etc
my concern is not only for my son and myself but that these sorts of toxins are everywhere in the environment and we are not being told the full,ugly truth about it
you may remember the clinton proposal to lower the levels of arsenic permissable in muni water supplies, which was sqaushed by bush, but if you followed closely you will recall that arsenic was mentioned as a major long-term carcinogen
and since you may read this whole thing through, i am wondering what you think about switching from depakote to lithium....you may remember that i did some posts about lith orotate and, after reading barbara cats experience, what it looked like to me was that it just didn't work in her case, but i have not been able to find any reports of kidney failure or anything serious
mostly i am thinking about the long term cost of lithium versus depakote er, and the long term toxicity profile, i am not m/d but my neurologist gave me a dx of bp2 in order to get more money for herself....i am currently using 750 to 1000 mg /day of the depakote as a stabilizer for the lexapro which i take at 15mg/day
so what do ya' think, which is more toxic dep or lith and which form of lith? i guess i should ask too which is more effective
Posted by Larry Hoover on October 17, 2003, at 10:20:30
In reply to thanks, lar, and furthermore, posted by joebob on October 14, 2003, at 11:57:44
> i had a hair test for myself with similar results, and so i did the 24 hour urine collection w/dmps challenge and it verified high/ toxic levels of both mercury and arsenic
You need to identify the route of exposure. It's critical.
> i will get my son's hair analysis done again, but most of the points you mention don't apply, like shampoo etc
I was doing a "stream of consciousness" thingie. Possible routes of exposure. You need to figure this out. Get a sample of house dust. Straight from the vacuum. Get it tested.
> my concern is not only for my son and myself but that these sorts of toxins are everywhere in the environment and we are not being told the full,ugly truth about itThe full ugly truth would needlessly alarm people. Panic won't help anybody, or change anything. When they studied ice cores from Greenland, they discovered massive soot deposits from the time of the ancient Romans. From lead smelting, half a world away. Lead may have been the downfall of the Roman Empire, but it affected the whole world. One man's sewage is the next man's drinking water source.
> you may remember the clinton proposal to lower the levels of arsenic permissable in muni water supplies, which was sqaushed by bush, but if you followed closely you will recall that arsenic was mentioned as a major long-term carcinogenI don't know much about the politics of pollution in America. I'm a Canuck.
Arsenic is carcinogenic, and it's dose-related.
> and since you may read this whole thing through, i am wondering what you think about switching from depakote to lithium....you may remember that i did some posts about lith orotate and, after reading barbara cats experience, what it looked like to me was that it just didn't work in her case, but i have not been able to find any reports of kidney failure or anything seriousI don't know why the use of lithium orotate was not continued, while lithium carbonate and citrate were. The research was done thirty years ago, but I can't find any evidence for the decision to discontinue the orotate. That said, the rationale for substituting a tiny amount of lithium orotate for more substantial sources of lithium ions (e.g. carbonate and citrate) is, a-hem, underwhelming.
> mostly i am thinking about the long term cost of lithium versus depakote er, and the long term toxicity profile, i am not m/d but my neurologist gave me a dx of bp2 in order to get more money for herself....Diagnosis guides treatment. That's the medical model. I don't think it was about money.
> i am currently using 750 to 1000 mg /day of the depakote as a stabilizer for the lexapro which i take at 15mg/day
>
> so what do ya' think, which is more toxic dep or lith and which form of lith? i guess i should ask too which is more effectiveThe answers to those latter questions can only be answered by you. Statistics don't apply to individuals. I can't predict your response to drugs.
Lar
This is the end of the thread.
Psycho-Babble Alternative | Extras | FAQ
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.org
Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.