Review of Robert Baratz Testimony Before the Florida Dental Board by
Two Distinguished Chemistry Professors and Researchers



Review of Dr. Baratz testimony before the Florida Dental Board

By Dr. Ralph Dougherty

Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry

Florida State University

Telephone: 850-644-5725

"I have qualified as an expert witness in chemistry and toxicology in
both federal and state courts. I have conducted extensive research in
analytical toxicology. I have more than 100 papers published in
refereed journals."

"To allege that there is no mercury in mercury amalgam as Dr. Baratz
has done in his sworn testimony before the Florida Dental Board is
either a reflection of ignorance, or intent to deceive."

Sincerely,

Ralph Dougherty



Dr. Boyd E. Haley

Chair, Department of Chemistry

University of Kentucky

3 January 2002

The following is my comments on the content and specific statements
made in the Sept. 29th Florida Dental Board where the FDA
presented "Amalgam Related Material" to support their proposed rule.
Please feel free to share it with whomever you wish and especially
the Florida Dental Board (FDA).

Sincerely,

Boyd Haley

With regards to statements made by Dr. Baratz. First, to be an
esteemed academic as claimed one should hold an academic position and
publish articles in refereed journals on his subject of expertise. I
have been unable to find a single research article on mercury or
amalgams or about anything authored by Dr. Baratz. I further could
not find any source of academic appointments in tenure leading
positions. With my personal knowledge of numerous outstanding and
productive academic research scientists available to the FDA for
consultation I am somewhat perplexed that they would select someone
with such weak credentials---unless they were searching for someone
who would adamantly support their preconceived position of amalgams
being totally safe. Dr. Baratz is evidently well known for taking
that position. Finally, statements made by Dr. Baratz concerning
amalgams and chemistry in general are so pathetic that they almost
defy sensible analysis. I WOULD CHALLENGE THE FDA TO TRY TO GET THE
DEPARTMENT CHAIRS OF CHEMISTRY AT THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA AND
FLORIDA STATE UNIVERSITY TO AGREE WITH DR. BARATZ'S COMMENTS
REGARDING THE CHEMISTRY OF AMALGAMS AND MERCURY. However, knowing
this is unlikely I will deal as best I can with Dr. Baratz's
statements one at a time in order of presentation.

Page 6, line 27-28. Dr. Baratz has no published basis for making this
statement. Absence of proof is not proof of absence. How can Dr.
Baratz say that a patient on a kidney dialysis program is not further
injured by additional mercury (a potent kidney toxicant) exposure
from their amalgams? I don't think such a study has ever been
undertaken. When exposing a person to years of a chronic level of
toxic mercury it is the responsibility of the pro-amalgam group to
prove it does no harm, not vice-versa. Can Dr. Baratz or the FDA
confirm that the 22,000-fold increased mercury levels in the hearts
of inter-city young men who die of Idiopathic Dialated Cardiomyopthy
did not come from dental amalgams? { Frustaci, A., Magnavita, N.,
Chimenti, C., Caldarulo, M., Sabbioni, E., Pietra, R., Cellini. C.,
Possati, G. F. and Maseri, A. Marked Elevation of Myocardial Trace
Elements in Idiopathic Dilated Cardiomyopathy Compared With Secondary
Dysfunction. J. of the American College Cardiology v33(6) 1578-1583,
1999,}

Page 6, lines 31-32. One grain of standard sucrose does not weigh
near one milligram. Therefore his visual aid is totally misleading
and indicates that he has not, or does not, remember experiments
where weighing small amounts was involved.

Page 6, lines 37-41. Sodium metal when added to water burns
violently, but it does not explode when added to a glass of water. I
have done this as a demonstration so I know the results first-hand.
No one would be killed or even injured unless they touched the
burning metallic sodium. Yes, chlorine gas is toxic and is a man-made
material (as is metallic sodium) that does not exist naturally. Dr.
Baratz wants to claim that metallic sodium and chlorine gas are toxic
but become non-toxic on conversion to a compound, sodium chloride,
and therefore, mercury in an amalgam is not toxic because it is
surrounded by other (toxic) metals that he feels produces something
that is not mercury. This is banal.

Reactivity and biological compatibility is the essence of the amalgam
issue. Human blood contains about 140 millimolar chloride anion and
124 millimolar sodium cation. This ions are not toxic because they
are not very reactive with biomolecules. These ions are used to
perform many biological functions necessary for life, including
maintaining the ionic gradient and electrical potential across cell
membranes. However, mercury is not found to serve any useful purpose
in human tissues and is a well known inhibitor of many enzymes,
including the enzyme that transports sodium across cell membranes. In
contrast to sodium cation, mercury cation, produced from mercury
vapor by a blood enzyme, is very reactive and inhibits almost every
biological pathway or enzyme driven function in man. To compare
amalgam material to sodium chloride in the manner Dr. Baratz has
chosen to reveals a total misunderstanding of chemistry and
biochemistry of heavy metal toxicity.

Page 6 line 42 to page 7 line 2. Since all of the metal components of
amalgam are basic metallic elements with no charge how can someone
make the inept statement that there is no mercury in amalgams. It is
an "element" and the fact that elements cannot be broken down or
changed is a basic tenant of chemistry. The metals in amalgams have
no net charge and therefore form only metallic bonds. Mercury is a
liquid at room temperature and quite volatile because it forms weak
metallic bonds with itself. This makes mercury unlike all other
metals. The metallic bonds formed between mercury and other metals in
amalgams are stronger and a solid phase is produced---but the bonds
between mercury and, say silver, are weaker than silver-silver metal
bonds and therefore break easier releasing elemental mercury vapor at
a regular rate. This is why you can heat a gold ring covered with
mercury and rapidly make it gold again and why dimes made silvery
with mercury soon resort to their old form. The bottom line is that
inclusion of mercury into an amalgam reduces its vapor pressure but
it does not reduce it to the point that mercury cannot be
significantly emitted.

Dr. Baratz states that if you detect traces of mercury from amalgams
it is because that material has been decomposed by heat and friction.
How does he explain the observations of the release of 43.5
micrograms mercury per cm2 surface area per day for two years
straight in a test tube without additional heat and no friction?
{Chew, C. L., Soh, G., Lee, A. S. and Yeoh, T. S. Long-term
Dissolution of Mercury from a Non-Mercury-Releasing Amalgam. Clinical
Preventive Dentistry 13(3): 5-7, May-June (1991).} Bottom line is
that it is quite easy to demonstrate mercury release from a dental
amalgam. I suggest the FDA not believe either Dr. Baratz or myself
but instead make 20-30 amalgams and send them to the state
universities in Florida and have them determine how long a single
amalgam must be in a gallon of water before the water is considered
unsafe to drink by OSHA or EPA standards. Then the FDA can then make
a decent decision on the mercury release and toxicity of amalgams
using data from an unbiased source.

Page 7, lines 10-13. Sodium chloride intake is necessary for life.
Mercury is toxic to every type of cell. Dr. Baratz's comparison
amalgams to sodium chloride is ridiculous. Amino acids contain
carbon, hydrogen and nitrogen and so does cyanide but the difference
is how these molecules react in the body---one is a food and the
other a lethal toxin. Amalgams release mercury and other metal ions
and solutions in which amalgams are soaked are cytotoxic! { Wataha,
J. C., Nakajima, H., Hanks, C. T., and Okabe, T. Correlation of
Cytotoxicity with Element Release from Mercury and Gallium-based
Dental Alloys in vitro. Dental Materials 10(5) 298-303, Sept. (1994)}

Page 7, lines 15-18. Yes, everything is toxic if an overdose is
obtained---that is common sense. However, mercury has no food or
biological function and is toxic at concentrations much lower than
even most other toxicants. Low levels of mercury have been shown to
inhibit the same enzymes/proteins that are found inhibited in
Alzheimer's diseased brain. { Pendergrass, J.C. and Haley, B.E.
Mercury-EDTA Complex Specifically Blocks Brain -Tubulin-GTP
Interactions: Similarity to Observations in Alzheimer"s Disease. pp98-
105 in Status Quo and Perspective of Amalgam and Other Dental
Materials (International Symposium Proceedings ed. by L. T. Friberg
and G. N. Schrauzer) Georg Thieme Verlag, Stuttgart-New York (1995).
Pendergrass, J. C., Haley, B.E., Vimy, M. J., Winfield, S.A. and
Lorscheider, F.L. Mercury Vapor Inhalation Inhibits Binding of GTP to
Tubulin in Rat Brain: Similarity to a Molecular Lesion in Alzheimer's
Disease Brain. Neurotoxicology 18(2), 315-324 (1997). Pendergrass,
J.C. and Haley, B.E. Inhibition of Brain Tubulin-Guanosine 5'-
Triphosphate Interactions by Mercury: Similarity to Observations in
Alzheimer's Diseased Brain. In Metal Ions in Biological Systems V34,
pp 461-478. Mercury and Its Effects on Environment and Biology,
Chapter 16. Edited by H. Sigel and A. Sigel. Marcel Dekker, Inc. 270
Madison Ave., N.Y., N.Y. 10016 (1996)}

Later research with neurons in culture nanomolar (10-9M) levels of
mercury caused cell destruction and formation of three of the widely
accepted diagnostic hallmarks of Alzheimer's disease. { Olivieri, G.,
Brack, Ch., Muller-Spahn, F., Stahelin, H.B., Herrmann, M., Renard,
P; Brockhaus, M. and Hock, C. Mercury Induces Cell Cytotoxicity and
Oxidative Stress and Increases -amyloid Secretion and Tau
Phosphorylation in SHSY5Y Neuroblastoma Cells. J. Neurochemistry 74,
231-231, 2000. Leong, CCW, Syed, N.I., and Lorscheider, F.L.
Retrograde Degeneration of Neurite Membrane Structural Integrity and
Formation of Neruofibillary Tangles at Nerve Growth Cones Following
In Vitro Exposure to Mercury. NeuroReports 12 (4):733-737, 2001.}
Therefore, being unnecessarily exposed to continuous low doses of
mercury for scores of years is an unhealthy situation. Does the FDA
operate with the mantra of allowing itself to do this and eliminate
any disagreement by posturing that no one has proven mercury toxic
when indeed this has been done over and over. Due to the overall
difficulty and complexity there is not one epidemiological study
showing any major negative effects of mercury from amalgams, but
there are none showing it to be safe either. With all of the data on
animal cell culture studies showing mercury toxicity showing concern
and eliminating all long-term exposures to mercury is justified.

Page 7 lines 15-34. This paragraph should convince everyone that Dr.
Baratz is way off base. I had to replace all of the mercury
thermometers in the teaching labs in our department of chemistry
because of the OSHA/EPA restrictions where the spill of one
thermometer could create a toxic in-building situation and the
possible wash-out into the sewage stream caused an unacceptable
environmental hazard. Dr. Baratz seems unaware of the long-term
affects of mercury accumulation. Sure, he could ingest liquid mercury
a single time and walk away but how many industrial workers have been
seriously injured by less severe but continuous mercury exposures?
Also, if he did ingest liquid mercury then he could pay a severe
price later on in his life but he doesn't seem to know this. Why does
he think the government has outlawed the sale of mercury thermometers
to the general public?

In this paragraph Dr. Baratz states that mercury is not absorbed from
the gut. This is totally incorrect. Mercury vapor is rapidly absorbed
into all hydrophobic areas of the body. Where is the publication to
support his absurd contention? He is further incorrect in his
statement that the amount that comes off of an amalgam is equivalent
to the amount you get every day by breathing air, drinking water and
eating food. In a 1998 NIH study on 1,127 US military personnel it
was shown that the blood/urine mercury levels were much higher in
individuals with dental amalgams and the amount of mercury was
correlated with the number of amalgams surfaces. The average amalgam
bearer had 4.5 times the urine mercury level of individuals who were
amalgam free. { Kingman, A., Albertini, T. and Brown, L.J. Mercury
Concentrations in Urine and Whole Blood Associated with Amalgam
Exposure in a US Military Population. J. of Dental Research v77(3):
461-471, 1998.}

Dr. Baratz states that even the most ardent anti-amalgamist have
virtually the same amount of mercury in their bodies as does the
members of the Florida Board of Dentistry. That would be true only if
all of them are free of amalgams. In a published report removing
amalgam fillings dropped the level of mercury in the urine in the
patients by about 5-fold at a subsequent date. { Begerow, J., Zander,
D., Freier, I. And Dunemann, L. Long-term Mercury Excretion in Urine
after Removal of Amalgam Fillings. Int. Arch. Occup. Environ. Health
v66 (3), 209-212, 1994.}

Neither Dr. Baratz nor I have the right to make sweeping statements
without providing the scientific literature on the subject that backs
up our statements. Under adjudication many of his statements, now on
record, such as given on page 7 line 19, "So to say that dental
amalgam has mercury in it is false. It has what used to be mercury."
will provide a feast for the opposing lawyers. I am very surprised
that Dr. Baratz has chosen to pass himself off as an amalgam expert
with no publications in the area and this is compounded by what
appears to be total ignorance of the relevant literature.

Page 8 lines 1 to 10. My comment is that the EPA and OSHA government
units don't think the amount of mercury released from amalgams is
safe. If indeed the groups listed by Dr. Baratz say amalgams are safe
(are amalgams listed on the Food and Drug Administration list of safe
dental materials?) where are the scientific studies that back their
claims. Who represents the NIH and says amalgams are safe? I
challenge Dr. Baratz to find a single research article where
experimental protocols are used that provide proof of safety of
dental amalgams. It is easy to compose a "committee mainly pro-
amalgam dentists" and have them proclaim amalgams safe, but have them
show the relevant basic research that proves this is another thing.
Does he really have publications from the Multiple Sclerosis and
Alzheimer's Associations that claim amalgams are safe? I would really
like to see him produce these documents.

Page 8, line 30. Keeping or bringing science into the dental
profession is my goal also. This means both Dr. Baratz and I have to
back our statements with refereed scientific publications, not wild,
unjustified claims or opinions. I would like to challenge Dr. Baratz
to produce the research papers that back his many claims.


http://www.altcorp.com/baratztestimony.htm