In their article, “The Dental
Amalgam Controversy: A Review”, authors George Feuer and Stephen Injeyan
explore both sides of the dental amalgam controversy. The authors use a variety
of resources and information such as including information regarding studies
that have been done, the components of amalgam, and toxic effects of mercury.
Feuer and Injeyan try to put information out there in order to promote
awareness of dental amalgam. The authors provide a lot of technical information
on dental amalgam in order to appeal to their audience of mostly dental
professionals, but also to anyone who is concerned about the dental amalgam
controversy.
Feuer, George, and H. Stephen Injeyan.
"The Dental Amalgam Controversy: A Review." Journal Of The Canadian
Chiropractic Association 40.3 (1996): 169. Academic Search Premier. Web. 5 Feb.
2013.
In the article “Is Dental Amalgam
Safe for Humans? The Opinion of the Scientific Committee of the European
Commission” (2011), Joachim Mutter asserts that dental amalgam is the main
source of the mercury burden in the human body. Mutter identifies the fact that
autopsy studies have shown that dental amalgam causes toxic mercury levels in
the brain and kidneys of a consistent amount of test subjects. The author
examines this information in order to prove that dental amalgam is indeed
harmful to the human body. Mutter uses a very scientific, professional tone in
order to address health professionals and scientists.
Mutter, Joachim “Is Dental Amalgam Safe for
Humans? The Opinion of the Scientific Committee of the European Commission.” Journal of Ocupational Medicine and
Toxicology (2011): Google
Scholar. Web. 11 Feb. 2013.
In Dana G. Colson’s article “A
Safe Protocol for Amalgam Removal” (2011), the proper methods of safe amalgam
removal. The author uses examples from the practice of dentistry to support the
safe protocol methods. Colson does this in order to explain how safe removal of
amalgam can be done without any major absorption into the body. The author uses
a professional tone in order to appeal to her audience of professional
healthcare or scientists.
Colson, Dana G. “A Safe Protocol for Amalgam
Removal” Journal of Environmental and Public Health (2011): Google Scholar.
Web. 11 Feb. 2013.
In his article “Mercury Amalgams
for Dental Restorative Work: Safe or Not?” (2010), Jane M. Anderson asserts
that more research needs to be done in order to prove whether or not dental
amalgam can have adverse health effects. Anderson examines many different
studies and tests regarding dental
amalgam mercury exposure vs. occupational exposure to mercury, along with a
significant amount of other information related to mercury toxicity in general.
This is done in order to put the scientific information out there for the
reader. The author is stirctly attempting to inform his audience of healthcare
professionals, which is evident by his use of medical terminology and studies.
Anderson, Jane M. "Mercury Amalgams For Dental Restorative
Work: Safe Or Not? (Cover Story)." Journal Of Controversial Medical
Claims 17.1 (2010): 1-13. Academic Search Premier. Web. 5 Feb. 2013.
In her article “From Mad Hatters
to Dental Amalgams: Heavy Metals: Toxicity and Testing: (2007) Pamela Levin
argues that dental amalgam is a health concern and yet it is less likely to
have a warning about mercury than eating fish. Mercury toxicity along with
different sources of mercury are discussed. Levin presents research on mercury
toxicity in order to identify it as causing serious health risks. The author is
trying to reach a wide audience in this article, evident by simple examples and
terminology.
Levin, Pamela. "From Mad Hatters To Dental Amalgams: Heavy
Metals: Toxicity And Testing." MLO: Medical Laboratory Observer
39.12 (2007): 20-26. Academic Search Premier. Web. 5 Feb. 2013.
