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 |
Administrator
|
> 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 |
In reply to this post by Benson, Sarah (Sen L. Allison)
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: > > 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 > > > > > > > > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > > > > |
Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |