Toxicity of various forms of Hg

Since we're discussing the critical issue of mercury removal, I
thought some might find value from information I recently received
about the toxicity of mercury in various forms since it might have
some bearing on which chelation protocol to follow. After reading
mixed writings on this topic by Drs. Ziff, Huggins, Mercola, and
Cutler, I was concerned by the difference in their stances. I decided
to contact Dr. Boyd Haley for his understanding of the issue. For
those of you not familiar with Dr. Haley I'll outline some of his
credentials before I give his reply.

Dr. Haley, Professor and Chair, Chemistry Dept., Univ. of Kentucky,
has been very active in proving the toxicity of mercury amalgam
through research and testifying before the US Congress about it. (See
his rebut of the ADA's propaganda at
http://www.cfsn.com/ADArebut.html) He also co-founded ALT, Inc. with
Drs. Curt Pendergrass and Anjan Bhattacharyya. From the ALT, Inc.
website: "These scientists have over 50 years combined research
experience in the synthesis and use of photoaffinity nucleotide
analogs in the study of protein biochemistry, heavy metal
neurotoxicology and neurodegenerative diseases. The technique of
nucleotide photoaffinity labeling has been largely pioneered by Dr.
Haley over the past 30 years and continuously supported by the
National Institutes of Health." ALT, Inc. has also created the TEST
Foundation, a nonprofit research trust foundation devoted to the study
of environmental toxins and their potential role in human health and
disease including mercury in dental amalgam fillings and mercury in
vaccines.


*****************************
Here is the text of my query:

Dear Dr. Haley,

As a person who is quite possibly dealing with the effects of mercury
from dental amalgam and thimerisol, I am trying to determine the
presently understood toxicity of the various forms of mercury. I
frequently read in books (e.g., Dr. Huggins' writings) and websites
(e.g. Dr. Mercola) covering the issue of dental amalgam that
methylmercury is much more toxic than inorganic mercury. More
recently, I've been reading Dr. Andrew Cutler's book "Amalgam Illness"
in which he claims the exact opposite.

I've been trying to reconcile what appears contradictory on the
surface, so maybe toxicity can be classified in different ways. Is it
the ability of methylmercury to cross barriers much more readily than
inorganic mercury that causes some to classify it as more toxic? And
is it only when the body's processes convert methylmercury in back to
inorganic mercury that damage is possible?

If you have the time, I hope you can comment and clarify this
difficult issue for me.

**************************
Here is Dr. Haley's reply:

The questions you pose regarding the inorganic (from dental amalgam)
versus the organic mercury (methyl mercury) are not answerable with
simple yes or no responses.

For example, mercury vapor from dental amalgams readily crosses the
blood brain barrier where it is converted to Hg2+, the reactive form
of inorganic mercury that inhibits cellular processes. Inhaled
mercury vapor (non-reactive with proteins) is much more neurotoxic to
humans than an equal amount of ingested Hg2+ since the vapor can
easily cross the blood brain barrier where it is oxidized to Hg2+
which is reactive and toxic. However, ingested the Hg2+ does not
leave the blood and cross the blood brain barrier as well due to the
charge and the fact that blood proteins will bind it before it reaches
the blood brain barrier. Therefore, when talking about toxicity of
inorganic mercury you have to separate the uncharged mercury vapor
from Hg2+ in your reasoning. Bottom line, I would rather eat Hg2+
than breath Hg vapor.

With regards to methyl mercury you have to identify the source of this
organic form of mercury. If you are ingesting a fungicide that
releases methyl mercury (or ethyl mercury from thimerosal) this is
what I call "virgin mercury" in that it has not been in a living
organism and is the pure chemical compound. Such methyl mercury
easily crosses the blood brain barrier, most likely bound to cysteine
and carried across by an amino acid transporter as reported in the
literature. The ability to enter cells and cross the blood brain
barrier makes methyl mercury very toxic. However, most human exposure
to methyl mercury comes from eating fish---and this methylmercury is
not virgin----that is the fish had to contend with it in their bodies
and methyl mercury is toxic to them also. The fish (sea fish)
decrease the toxicity of all mercury exposure by also ingesting
selenium (Se2-) which binds methyl mercury (CH3S-Se-SCH3) and Hg2+
(HgSe), as well as binding these compounds with certain protective
proteins. All mercury compounds as mentioned are much less toxic when
bound to selenium as these mercury-selenium compounds are very stable
and prevent the bound mercury compounds from reacting with proteins,
and make them easier to excrete, which reduces their toxicity.
Therefore, "virgin" methyl mercury is much more toxic than an
equivalent amount of ingested "fish" methyl mercury. However, in
certain situations, like the Minamata Bay disaster, where mercury was
dumped into the bay at high levels and this mercury concentrated in
the fish at levels higher than the fish could compensate for by the
selenium available and this made eating these fish a very toxic event.
Bottom line, (my opinion) organic mercury exposure from fish is less
toxic than an equivalent exposure to organic mercury exposure from
direct ingestion or injection of organic mercury compounds. Usually,
mercury exposure from eating fish does not add to the mercury body
burden of an individual as this mercury is mostly excreted very
effectively as it is not reactive when bound to selenium which happens
to a significant extent while in the fish.

Methylmercury and ethylmercury do not have to break down to Hg2+ to be
toxic according to experiments we have done in our laboratory. With
enzymes in a test tube ethylmercury was considerably more toxic than
Hg2+. However, both are very toxic so it is oink versus oink-oink.

Finally, the most deadly mercury compounds are organic mercurials like
dimethylmercury. But the best approach is to eliminate exposures to
all forms.

I hope this helps.

Boyd Haley

Does anyone have any information on how much radiation is coming from
Satellites. How do satellite phones and TV dishes work? Do they blast a
bunch of radiation toward the satellite to get a connection?

Do TV, Radio and weather satellites blast us with radiation?

Andrew

This is a good question. Arthur Firstenberg used to research this, and
knew which companies had how many satellites in action at any given
time. I'm not sure how many are in orbit at the moment - but it cold
well be close to a thousend - probably more. They operate on three
levels - the closet known as Low Earth Orbit. Yes they are irradiating
the planet continuously. The power levels are low by the time the beam
reaches the earth; nevertheless the frequency is active enough to power
machines and therefore active enough to affect people. I'll find out
and post info.

Sarah


-----Original Message-----
From: Andrew McAfee [mailto:[hidden email]]
Sent: Saturday, 30 October 2004 1:21 AM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: [eSens] Satellite Radiation



Does anyone have any information on how much radiation is coming from
Satellites. How do satellite phones and TV dishes work? Do they blast a
bunch of radiation toward the satellite to get a connection?

Do TV, Radio and weather satellites blast us with radiation?

Andrew




 
Yahoo! Groups Links



 

> Yes they are irradiating
> the planet continuously. The power levels are low by the time the beam
> reaches the earth; nevertheless the frequency is active enough to power
> machines and therefore active enough to affect people.

I don't know how much satellites affect people, but there sure are a lot
of them these days beaming stuff down to earth -- you've got your GPS
signals, your satellite TV signals, your satellite radio signals,
your cable & network TV stations broadcasting their programs to your
local TV stations and cable providers... I suspect that close-range EMF
exposures (computers, TV, cellphones) are a bigger health problem than
satellites, but I don't really know...

Marc

Thank you for your reply Sarah. I look forward to any info you can
supply regarding Direct TV dishes as well as the satellites in orbit.
gratefully,
Andrew
On Oct 30, 2004, at 3:39 AM, Benson, Sarah (Sen L. Allison) wrote: