The World Health Organization has just published a report entitled Future Use of Materials for Dental Restoration ie Future Use of Materials for Dental Fillings that "dental amalgam is the material dental fillings to choose from, in the absence of an ideal alternative and the evidence of better alternatives. "
Remember that dental'amalgama contains 50% mercury which is used as a binder to hold together a powder other metals including copper, zinc and tin and is the subject of bitter controversy for decades because of its potential toxicity to human health and environmental pollution that entails.
The report Future Use of Materials Dental Fillings is the record of a meeting of the WHO Oral Health Programme which was held last November in Geneva where they discussed the scientific evidence alternative materials to amalgam for dental fillings and the implications of these alternatives. According to the report the meeting would end with the assessment that the complete banning of amalgam would be "unrealistic, impractical and unattainable."
These findings have already appeared in two sites pro-amalgam ( http://www.ada.org/news/5082.aspx and http://www.adavb.net/ # zomaUQ6HCSLv ) and broke a huge international controversy that is animating and lawyers' associations around the world.
The meeting in Geneva was attended, in fact, even representatives of associations Group Zero Mercury (which is also part AMICA ) that are fighting for years for the reduction and abolition of the use of mercury in all sectors, but particularly in the health sector and representatives from these groups complain the fact that the conclusions set out in the report do not match what actually happened at that meeting.
Coordinators of the Group Zero Mercury - Michael Bender, Director of the Mercury Policy Project and Elena Lymberidi-seventh of the European Environmental Bureau - have written, in fact, a letter to WHO just to reiterate that the conclusions presented by this report do not represent the plurality of positions that have emerged in the meeting.
In particular, they write: "Although the report is written that 'the WHO has taken all possible precautions to verify the information in the publication', the most simple precaution, which is to circulate the draft report to those who had participated in the meeting has not been done. We question, therefore, the full validity of this report because we consider it misleading in the way it was presented and for its contents as many points missing from the description and from the discussions, including facts that may interest the reader about what is happening in other regions. We believe, therefore, directly responsible to the WHO and judged to have helped to guide informed of the meeting clearly and deliberately misleading. "
The report would be misleading to quote from a" consensus on amalgam dental "on a total safety of this material for your health. In fact, it refers to the ratio of the 1997 WHO report Dental Amalgam and Alternative Restorative Materials Direct was not a policy document of the WHO, but it was one of the many documents promoted by the WHO and outside experts, whose conclusions have only the value of advice to management of WHO, then the Police should develop and guidelines. In the letter, two representatives of the Zero Mercury also argue that the Geneva meeting had been submitted several proposals for reducing the use of dental mercury. "Even if you have not taken any vote, the meeting ended without any objection to the fact that it is necessary to reduce the use of amalgam."
The report WHO report Dental Amalgam and Alternative Restorative Materials Direct clearly explains that "The views expressed by the authors in this document are the responsibility of the authors only. This means that there is no question of the positions taken by the WHO. It should be noted, however, that this relationship is constantly cited by lawyers in courts and public agencies to deny the toxicity of amalgam. The two activists Zero Mercury note, however, that this report would not have even been cited in the WHO meeting last November.
In their letter to the WHO list views that emerged at the meeting, however, have been reported
- Your continued use and subsequent release of mercury from dental amalgams is a major source of pollution. Mr. Bakken of UNEP, Dr. Narvaez UNEP.
- pollution from mercury dental not limited to the losses that come from dental practices, because most of that mercury in fillings is implanted and subsequently enter the environment in different ways, such as cremation (Professor Hylander).
- amalgam, whose fumes are dangerous especially for dental professionals are a primary theme of job security (Phantumvanit Professor, Dr. Meyer).
- amalgam dental material alone destroys the good, while the composite and the technique "ART" "maintain the tooth structure." (Dr. McConnell, Dr. Dahl).
- amalgam involves externalized costs for governments and society as a whole due to pollution from mercury, which creates and the costs involved in terms of environmental health (Mr. Maxson, Dr. Van den Heuvel).
- The world is working on a binding treaty on mercury and should be to limit all types of use of mercury (Dr. Narvaez, Mr. Bakken).
- Un'odontoiatria free or virtually free amalgam bonding is prevalent in Norway, Indonesia and Japan. Have produced the evidence in the present that the mercury-free dentistry is increasing in developing countries.
Some participants at the meeting in Geneva from developing countries have expressed support for a ban on amalgam and wondered what keeps the rich countries from doing so (Phantumvanit Professor, Dr. Sudeshna).
Among the proposals are related:
- End the use of amalgam as a routine and continue to use it only for unusual cases (Dr. Van den Heuvel).
- providers of health services must contribute to the decrease in the use of amalgam (Dr. Petersen).
- Teaching the risks and benefits to dental amalgam (Mrs. Lymberidi-seventh).
- Passing, in low-income countries, the use of amalgam in the ART technique that is both cheaper and requires less user experience (Dr. Williams, Dr. Honkala, Dr. Soucy,).
- Amalgam is not necessarily less expensive than composites - these are cheaper in some markets (Mr. Maxson), and when it begins restricting the price of mercury and thus increase the price of amalgam (Mrs. Lymberidi Seventh-).
- Banning the use for children (Dr. Soucy, Professor Jin Bian You, Mr. Maxson, Mrs.Lymberidi-seventh).
- for reducing the use of amalgam is necessary to set a time limit (Dr. Meyer).
The meeting also talked about the experiences of reducing the use of mercury fillings in several countries. In Sweden, for example, in 1978-79 the amalgam was used in 74% of cases today, both Sweden and Norway have banned this material and are at the forefront to demand the total ban at UN United.
Why the WHO allows the publication of reports are not reviewed by the participants in its meetings and does not accept responsibility for branch real health policy documents rather than continue to publish reports of others who have no legal value, but only advisory? And this is not just about the amalgam, but also the electromagnetic fields, as stated clearly in the book.
0 comments:
Post a Comment