Add group to favorites
Back to post list
Send new message to group Search:
Post Subject:
Amalgam Potentials Measured in Absence of Saliva - In 1952!
Amalgam Potentials Measured in Absence of Saliva - In 1952!
It appears that some people still believe that in order for metal
amalgam dental fillings to generate electrical potentials in the mouth
the fillings must be involved in an electrolytic reaction with saliva.
However, experimental research studies reported by William Schriever
of the University of Oklahoma and Louis E. Diamond of the University
School of Medicine, Oklahoma City, and published in the Journal of
Dental Research as long ago as 1952 proved that this is not true.
see:
* jdr.iadrjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/31/2/205
These studies demonstrated that readings of electrical potentials from
amalgam fillings which had been dried and separated from all contact
with saliva in the mouths of the subjects were just as prominent as
those those taken when the fillings were wet.
Quote:
"Next one oral pack (or two if necessary) was put in place, the two
teeth were carefully swabbed with 95 per cent ethyl alcohol, and air
was blown on both teeth. The potential difference of the dry fillings
in the dry teeth was measured as described above. This potential
difference is designated V1 (Fig. 3)."
The authors went on to "deduce" from this fact that the measured
potentials "must" have been produced by the action on the fillings of
"bone fluid " contacting against the concealed surfaces of the
fillings inside/under the teeth.
Quote:
"Since the teeth were dry the potential difference V1 (Fig. 3) was the
e.m.f. (e) caused by the action of the bone fluid on the two fillings,
i.e., e = V1."
I wonder whether this "deduction" (presumtion?) made by Schriever and
Diamond that bone fluid must act as an electrolyte was based on the
false belief that the only way that metals, mixtures of metals and
dissimilar metals in contact with each other are able to generate
electrical potentials is by becoming involved in electrolytic
reactions.
Of course, those of us who understand thermoelectric and
electromagnetic phenomena (and particularly those who recognise the
way in which these two must interact in inhomogeneous mixtures of
metals) realise that this is simply not true.
But perhaps the explanation for the fact that Schriever and Diamond's
paper appears to have gone largely ignored for nearly sixty years is
because some of their peers maybe didn't quite believe the "bone
fluid" theory, and Schriever and Diamond were not able to verify it
positively. As a result, having proved that it is not necessary for
there to be any saliva in contact with the fillings to produce the
electrical potentials, the principal effect of the publication of this
paper was to confuse those involved as to just exactly how the amalgam
potentials are generated.
I have a suggestion.
Perhaps it is a combination of thermoelectric and electromagnetic
phenomena which has been the principal reason for amalgam fillings
generating electrical potentials all along (at least there's no strong
scientific evidence to indicate otherwise), and the contribution made
be electrolytic effects is either negligible or zero. And furthermore
the continued confusion over where these potentials come from is due
largely to the fact that the electromagnetic and thermoelectric
behaviors of dental amalgams have never been investigated
experimentally (or at least if they have then the results have not
been made public).
People keep telling me that the thermoelectric and/or electromagnetic
behaviors of typical dental amalgams should be easy to measure.
One of the first to do so was Professor D M Rowe of Cardiff University
in October 1988.
However, nearly 10 years later, and in spite of the continued lack of
any satisfactory explanation for the electrical potentials generated
by dental amalgams, it appers that the thermoelectric and/or
electromagnetic properties of amalgam fillings have not been measured
(or at least if they have then the results have not been made public).
Anyway one thing's for sure, we now know that it is not necessary for
metal amalgam dental fillings to be in contact with any saliva for
them to genetrate electrical potentials in people's mouths.
William Schriever and Louis E. Diamond's paper proved that.
So come on all you unscientific ridiculers at sci.med.dentistry and
sci.materials who were misled into believing otherwise, isn't it about
time you acknowledged your own ignorance?
Or are you still too arrogant to even recognise it?
Keith P Walsh
PS,
This message has been posted to google groups at:
sci.med.dentistry
sci.materials
misc.health.alternative
and to the Internetional Thermoelectric Society forum at:
* w w w . it s.org/ztforum
It appears that some people still believe that in order for metal
amalgam dental fillings to generate electrical potentials in the mouth
the fillings must be involved in an electrolytic reaction with saliva.
However, experimental research studies reported by William Schriever
of the University of Oklahoma and Louis E. Diamond of the University
School of Medicine, Oklahoma City, and published in the Journal of
Dental Research as long ago as 1952 proved that this is not true.
see:
* jdr.iadrjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/31/2/205
These studies demonstrated that readings of electrical potentials from
amalgam fillings which had been dried and separated from all contact
with saliva in the mouths of the subjects were just as prominent as
those those taken when the fillings were wet.
Quote:
"Next one oral pack (or two if necessary) was put in place, the two
teeth were carefully swabbed with 95 per cent ethyl alcohol, and air
was blown on both teeth. The potential difference of the dry fillings
in the dry teeth was measured as described above. This potential
difference is designated V1 (Fig. 3)."
The authors went on to "deduce" from this fact that the measured
potentials "must" have been produced by the action on the fillings of
"bone fluid " contacting against the concealed surfaces of the
fillings inside/under the teeth.
Quote:
"Since the teeth were dry the potential difference V1 (Fig. 3) was the
e.m.f. (e) caused by the action of the bone fluid on the two fillings,
i.e., e = V1."
I wonder whether this "deduction" (presumtion?) made by Schriever and
Diamond that bone fluid must act as an electrolyte was based on the
false belief that the only way that metals, mixtures of metals and
dissimilar metals in contact with each other are able to generate
electrical potentials is by becoming involved in electrolytic
reactions.
Of course, those of us who understand thermoelectric and
electromagnetic phenomena (and particularly those who recognise the
way in which these two must interact in inhomogeneous mixtures of
metals) realise that this is simply not true.
But perhaps the explanation for the fact that Schriever and Diamond's
paper appears to have gone largely ignored for nearly sixty years is
because some of their peers maybe didn't quite believe the "bone
fluid" theory, and Schriever and Diamond were not able to verify it
positively. As a result, having proved that it is not necessary for
there to be any saliva in contact with the fillings to produce the
electrical potentials, the principal effect of the publication of this
paper was to confuse those involved as to just exactly how the amalgam
potentials are generated.
I have a suggestion.
Perhaps it is a combination of thermoelectric and electromagnetic
phenomena which has been the principal reason for amalgam fillings
generating electrical potentials all along (at least there's no strong
scientific evidence to indicate otherwise), and the contribution made
be electrolytic effects is either negligible or zero. And furthermore
the continued confusion over where these potentials come from is due
largely to the fact that the electromagnetic and thermoelectric
behaviors of dental amalgams have never been investigated
experimentally (or at least if they have then the results have not
been made public).
People keep telling me that the thermoelectric and/or electromagnetic
behaviors of typical dental amalgams should be easy to measure.
One of the first to do so was Professor D M Rowe of Cardiff University
in October 1988.
However, nearly 10 years later, and in spite of the continued lack of
any satisfactory explanation for the electrical potentials generated
by dental amalgams, it appers that the thermoelectric and/or
electromagnetic properties of amalgam fillings have not been measured
(or at least if they have then the results have not been made public).
Anyway one thing's for sure, we now know that it is not necessary for
metal amalgam dental fillings to be in contact with any saliva for
them to genetrate electrical potentials in people's mouths.
William Schriever and Louis E. Diamond's paper proved that.
So come on all you unscientific ridiculers at sci.med.dentistry and
sci.materials who were misled into believing otherwise, isn't it about
time you acknowledged your own ignorance?
Or are you still too arrogant to even recognise it?
Keith P Walsh
PS,
This message has been posted to google groups at:
sci.med.dentistry
sci.materials
misc.health.alternative
and to the Internetional Thermoelectric Society forum at:
* w w w . it s.org/ztforum
Re: Amalgam Potentials Measured in Absence of Saliva - In 1952!
Keith P Walsh <keith.p.walsh@btinternet . com > wrote in news:9d905b53-1400-
4fa7-9b91-a2e5258985f1@a23g2000hsc.googlegroups . com :
> It appears that some people still believe that in order for metal
> amalgam dental fillings to generate electrical potentials in the mouth
> the fillings must be involved in an electrolytic reaction with saliva.
>
> However, experimental research studies reported by William Schriever
> of the University of Oklahoma and Louis E. Diamond of the University
> School of Medicine, Oklahoma City, and published in the Journal of
> Dental Research as long ago as 1952 proved that this is not true.
>
>
> see:
>
> * jdr.iadrjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/31/2/205
>
>
> These studies demonstrated that readings of electrical potentials from
> amalgam fillings which had been dried and separated from all contact
> with saliva in the mouths of the subjects were just as prominent as
> those those taken when the fillings were wet.
>
>
> Quote:
>
> "Next one oral pack (or two if necessary) was put in place, the two
> teeth were carefully swabbed with 95 per cent ethyl alcohol, and air
> was blown on both teeth. The potential difference of the dry fillings
> in the dry teeth was measured as described above. This potential
> difference is designated V1 (Fig. 3)."
>
>
> The authors went on to "deduce" from this fact that the measured
> potentials "must" have been produced by the action on the fillings of
> "bone fluid " contacting against the concealed surfaces of the
> fillings inside/under the teeth.
>
>
> Quote:
>
> "Since the teeth were dry the potential difference V1 (Fig. 3) was the
> e.m.f. (e) caused by the action of the bone fluid on the two fillings,
> i.e., e = V1."
>
>
> I wonder whether this "deduction" (presumtion?) made by Schriever and
> Diamond that bone fluid must act as an electrolyte was based on the
> false belief that the only way that metals, mixtures of metals and
> dissimilar metals in contact with each other are able to generate
> electrical potentials is by becoming involved in electrolytic
> reactions.
>
> Of course, those of us who understand thermoelectric and
> electromagnetic phenomena (and particularly those who recognise the
> way in which these two must interact in inhomogeneous mixtures of
> metals) realise that this is simply not true.
>
> But perhaps the explanation for the fact that Schriever and Diamond's
> paper appears to have gone largely ignored for nearly sixty years is
> because some of their peers maybe didn't quite believe the "bone
> fluid" theory, and Schriever and Diamond were not able to verify it
> positively. As a result, having proved that it is not necessary for
> there to be any saliva in contact with the fillings to produce the
> electrical potentials, the principal effect of the publication of this
> paper was to confuse those involved as to just exactly how the amalgam
> potentials are generated.
>
> I have a suggestion.
>
> Perhaps it is a combination of thermoelectric and electromagnetic
> phenomena which has been the principal reason for amalgam fillings
> generating electrical potentials all along (at least there's no strong
> scientific evidence to indicate otherwise), and the contribution made
> be electrolytic effects is either negligible or zero. And furthermore
> the continued confusion over where these potentials come from is due
> largely to the fact that the electromagnetic and thermoelectric
> behaviors of dental amalgams have never been investigated
> experimentally (or at least if they have then the results have not
> been made public).
>
> People keep telling me that the thermoelectric and/or electromagnetic
> behaviors of typical dental amalgams should be easy to measure.
>
> One of the first to do so was Professor D M Rowe of Cardiff University
> in October 1988.
>
> However, nearly 10 years later, and in spite of the continued lack of
> any satisfactory explanation for the electrical potentials generated
> by dental amalgams, it appers that the thermoelectric and/or
> electromagnetic properties of amalgam fillings have not been measured
> (or at least if they have then the results have not been made public).
>
> Anyway one thing's for sure, we now know that it is not necessary for
> metal amalgam dental fillings to be in contact with any saliva for
> them to genetrate electrical potentials in people's mouths.
>
> William Schriever and Louis E. Diamond's paper proved that.
>
> So come on all you unscientific ridiculers at sci.med.dentistry and
> sci.materials who were misled into believing otherwise, isn't it about
> time you acknowledged your own ignorance?
>
> Or are you still too arrogant to even recognise it?
>
> Keith P Walsh
>
>
> PS,
>
> This message has been posted to google groups at:
>
> sci.med.dentistry
> sci.materials
> misc.health.alternative
>
>
> and to the Internetional Thermoelectric Society forum at:
>
> * w w w . it s.org/ztforum
That's one experiment. The proof is of course if it is repeatable.
Keith P Walsh <keith.p.walsh@btinternet . com > wrote in news:9d905b53-1400-
4fa7-9b91-a2e5258985f1@a23g2000hsc.googlegroups . com :
> It appears that some people still believe that in order for metal
> amalgam dental fillings to generate electrical potentials in the mouth
> the fillings must be involved in an electrolytic reaction with saliva.
>
> However, experimental research studies reported by William Schriever
> of the University of Oklahoma and Louis E. Diamond of the University
> School of Medicine, Oklahoma City, and published in the Journal of
> Dental Research as long ago as 1952 proved that this is not true.
>
>
> see:
>
> * jdr.iadrjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/31/2/205
>
>
> These studies demonstrated that readings of electrical potentials from
> amalgam fillings which had been dried and separated from all contact
> with saliva in the mouths of the subjects were just as prominent as
> those those taken when the fillings were wet.
>
>
> Quote:
>
> "Next one oral pack (or two if necessary) was put in place, the two
> teeth were carefully swabbed with 95 per cent ethyl alcohol, and air
> was blown on both teeth. The potential difference of the dry fillings
> in the dry teeth was measured as described above. This potential
> difference is designated V1 (Fig. 3)."
>
>
> The authors went on to "deduce" from this fact that the measured
> potentials "must" have been produced by the action on the fillings of
> "bone fluid " contacting against the concealed surfaces of the
> fillings inside/under the teeth.
>
>
> Quote:
>
> "Since the teeth were dry the potential difference V1 (Fig. 3) was the
> e.m.f. (e) caused by the action of the bone fluid on the two fillings,
> i.e., e = V1."
>
>
> I wonder whether this "deduction" (presumtion?) made by Schriever and
> Diamond that bone fluid must act as an electrolyte was based on the
> false belief that the only way that metals, mixtures of metals and
> dissimilar metals in contact with each other are able to generate
> electrical potentials is by becoming involved in electrolytic
> reactions.
>
> Of course, those of us who understand thermoelectric and
> electromagnetic phenomena (and particularly those who recognise the
> way in which these two must interact in inhomogeneous mixtures of
> metals) realise that this is simply not true.
>
> But perhaps the explanation for the fact that Schriever and Diamond's
> paper appears to have gone largely ignored for nearly sixty years is
> because some of their peers maybe didn't quite believe the "bone
> fluid" theory, and Schriever and Diamond were not able to verify it
> positively. As a result, having proved that it is not necessary for
> there to be any saliva in contact with the fillings to produce the
> electrical potentials, the principal effect of the publication of this
> paper was to confuse those involved as to just exactly how the amalgam
> potentials are generated.
>
> I have a suggestion.
>
> Perhaps it is a combination of thermoelectric and electromagnetic
> phenomena which has been the principal reason for amalgam fillings
> generating electrical potentials all along (at least there's no strong
> scientific evidence to indicate otherwise), and the contribution made
> be electrolytic effects is either negligible or zero. And furthermore
> the continued confusion over where these potentials come from is due
> largely to the fact that the electromagnetic and thermoelectric
> behaviors of dental amalgams have never been investigated
> experimentally (or at least if they have then the results have not
> been made public).
>
> People keep telling me that the thermoelectric and/or electromagnetic
> behaviors of typical dental amalgams should be easy to measure.
>
> One of the first to do so was Professor D M Rowe of Cardiff University
> in October 1988.
>
> However, nearly 10 years later, and in spite of the continued lack of
> any satisfactory explanation for the electrical potentials generated
> by dental amalgams, it appers that the thermoelectric and/or
> electromagnetic properties of amalgam fillings have not been measured
> (or at least if they have then the results have not been made public).
>
> Anyway one thing's for sure, we now know that it is not necessary for
> metal amalgam dental fillings to be in contact with any saliva for
> them to genetrate electrical potentials in people's mouths.
>
> William Schriever and Louis E. Diamond's paper proved that.
>
> So come on all you unscientific ridiculers at sci.med.dentistry and
> sci.materials who were misled into believing otherwise, isn't it about
> time you acknowledged your own ignorance?
>
> Or are you still too arrogant to even recognise it?
>
> Keith P Walsh
>
>
> PS,
>
> This message has been posted to google groups at:
>
> sci.med.dentistry
> sci.materials
> misc.health.alternative
>
>
> and to the Internetional Thermoelectric Society forum at:
>
> * w w w . it s.org/ztforum
That's one experiment. The proof is of course if it is repeatable.
Re: Amalgam Potentials Measured in Absence of Saliva - In 1952!
On 28 Apr, 09:19, "I'll Always Be Here" <aussiess...@invalid.invalid>
wrote:
>
> That's one experiment. The proof is of course if it is repeatable.- Hide quoted text -
>
Thank you for your reply.
You are of course perfectly correct.
When a potentially controversial result such as this crops up there
are generally three ways to react:
1) Dismiss it out of hand and refuse to believe it because you don't
like the sound of it.
2) Accept it without question.
3) Accurately reconstruct the experiment in order that the results can
be confirmed or not.
I believe that only one of these responses is a scientific one, and I
also think that you have identified which one it is.
I had meant to quote the title of Schriever and Diamond's report in my
initial message, but I forgot, so here it is:
"ELECTROMOTIVE FORCES AND ELECTRIC CURRENTS CAUSED BY METALLIC DENTAL
FILLINGS "
The thing to note about this report is that it was published in 1952,
and some dentists STILL insist that amalgam dental fillings must be in
contact with saliva in order to generate electrical potentials, almost
60 years after these studies appear to have demonstrated
experimentally that this is not true.
Do you know of any subsequent experimental investigations whose
results may have contradicted the results reported by Schriever and
Diamond?
Keith P Walsh
PS, in my initial post I wrote that Professor D M Rowe of Cardiff
University in Wales had first suggested that the thermoelectric and/or
electromagnetic behaviors of typical dental amalgams should be easy to
measure in October of 1988. This was a typing error. It was in fact in
October 1998.
On 28 Apr, 09:19, "I'll Always Be Here" <aussiess...@invalid.invalid>
wrote:
>
> That's one experiment. The proof is of course if it is repeatable.- Hide quoted text -
>
Thank you for your reply.
You are of course perfectly correct.
When a potentially controversial result such as this crops up there
are generally three ways to react:
1) Dismiss it out of hand and refuse to believe it because you don't
like the sound of it.
2) Accept it without question.
3) Accurately reconstruct the experiment in order that the results can
be confirmed or not.
I believe that only one of these responses is a scientific one, and I
also think that you have identified which one it is.
I had meant to quote the title of Schriever and Diamond's report in my
initial message, but I forgot, so here it is:
"ELECTROMOTIVE FORCES AND ELECTRIC CURRENTS CAUSED BY METALLIC DENTAL
FILLINGS "
The thing to note about this report is that it was published in 1952,
and some dentists STILL insist that amalgam dental fillings must be in
contact with saliva in order to generate electrical potentials, almost
60 years after these studies appear to have demonstrated
experimentally that this is not true.
Do you know of any subsequent experimental investigations whose
results may have contradicted the results reported by Schriever and
Diamond?
Keith P Walsh
PS, in my initial post I wrote that Professor D M Rowe of Cardiff
University in Wales had first suggested that the thermoelectric and/or
electromagnetic behaviors of typical dental amalgams should be easy to
measure in October of 1988. This was a typing error. It was in fact in
October 1998.
Re: Amalgam Potentials Measured in Absence of Saliva - In 1952!
On 28 Apr, 09:19, "I'll Always Be Here" <aussiess...@invalid.invalid>
wrote:
>
> That's one experiment. The proof is of course if it is repeatable.- Hide quoted text -
>
Thank you for your reply.
You are of course perfectly correct.
When a potentially controversial result such as this crops up there
are generally three ways to react:
1) Dismiss it out of hand because you don't like the sound of it.
2) Accept it without question.
3) Accurately reconstruct the experiment in order that the reported
results can be either confirmed or not.
I believe that only one of these responses is a scientific one, and I
also think that you have correctly identified which one it is.
I had meant to quote the title of Schriever and Diamond's report in my
initial message, but I forgot, so here it is:
"ELECTROMOTIVE FORCES AND ELECTRIC CURRENTS CAUSED BY METALLIC DENTAL
FILLINGS"
The thing to note about this report is that it was published in 1952,
and some dentists STILL insist that amalgam dental fillings must be in
contact with saliva in order to generate electrical potentials, almost
60 years after these results appear to have demonstrated
experimentally that this is not true.
Do you know of any subsequent investigations whose results have
contradicted those reported in 1952 by Schriever and Diamond?
Keith P Walsh
PS, In my initial message I wrote that Professor D M Rowe of Cardiff
University in Wales first told me that the thermoelectric behaviors of
typical dental amalgams should be easy to measure in October 1988.
This was a typing error. It was in fact in 1998.
On 28 Apr, 09:19, "I'll Always Be Here" <aussiess...@invalid.invalid>
wrote:
>
> That's one experiment. The proof is of course if it is repeatable.- Hide quoted text -
>
Thank you for your reply.
You are of course perfectly correct.
When a potentially controversial result such as this crops up there
are generally three ways to react:
1) Dismiss it out of hand because you don't like the sound of it.
2) Accept it without question.
3) Accurately reconstruct the experiment in order that the reported
results can be either confirmed or not.
I believe that only one of these responses is a scientific one, and I
also think that you have correctly identified which one it is.
I had meant to quote the title of Schriever and Diamond's report in my
initial message, but I forgot, so here it is:
"ELECTROMOTIVE FORCES AND ELECTRIC CURRENTS CAUSED BY METALLIC DENTAL
FILLINGS"
The thing to note about this report is that it was published in 1952,
and some dentists STILL insist that amalgam dental fillings must be in
contact with saliva in order to generate electrical potentials, almost
60 years after these results appear to have demonstrated
experimentally that this is not true.
Do you know of any subsequent investigations whose results have
contradicted those reported in 1952 by Schriever and Diamond?
Keith P Walsh
PS, In my initial message I wrote that Professor D M Rowe of Cardiff
University in Wales first told me that the thermoelectric behaviors of
typical dental amalgams should be easy to measure in October 1988.
This was a typing error. It was in fact in 1998.
Re: Amalgam Potentials Measured in Absence of Saliva - In 1952!
Keith P Walsh wrote:
> <snip>
>
>
> However, nearly 10 years later, and in spite of the continued lack of
> any satisfactory explanation for the electrical potentials generated
> by dental amalgams, it appers that the thermoelectric and/or
> electromagnetic properties of amalgam fillings have not been measured
> (or at least if they have then the results have not been made public).
>
> <snip>
>
> Or are you still too arrogant to even recognise it?
>
> Keith P Walsh
>
> <snip>
>
Yawn.... Do the experiment and make your own measurements...
--
Paul D Oosterhout
I work for SAIC (but I don't speak for SAIC)
Keith P Walsh wrote:
> <snip>
>
>
> However, nearly 10 years later, and in spite of the continued lack of
> any satisfactory explanation for the electrical potentials generated
> by dental amalgams, it appers that the thermoelectric and/or
> electromagnetic properties of amalgam fillings have not been measured
> (or at least if they have then the results have not been made public).
>
> <snip>
>
> Or are you still too arrogant to even recognise it?
>
> Keith P Walsh
>
> <snip>
>
Yawn.... Do the experiment and make your own measurements...
--
Paul D Oosterhout
I work for SAIC (but I don't speak for SAIC)
Re: Amalgam Potentials Measured in Absence of Saliva - In 1952!
On 28 Apr, 14:45, Paul O <first.d.l...@company . com > wrote:
>
> Yawn.... Do the experiment and make your own measurements...
>
"Yawn"?
A few years ago the organisation "Health Canada" issued the following
statement via the website of the Canadian Dental Association with
regard to the placement of metal amalgam dental fillings:
"It should be noted that Health Canada has taken the position that new
amalgam fillings should not be placed in contact with existing metal
devices in the mouth"
I wrote to the Canadian Dental Association regarding this statement
with the following query:
"Is this recommendation intended to apply to metal alloy retaining
pins screwed into the root sockets of a patient's tooth?"
And I received the following reply from Dr Philip Neufeld of Health
Canada:
"Dear Mr. Walsh:
... it is unlikely that a metal retaining pin implanted into the
tooth or the jaw bone would cause galvanic currents. In order for
galvanic currents to be created, the pin would have to be in contact
with an electrolyte such as saliva or extracellular fluids, and such
retaining pins are usually not exposed. ...
Yours sincerely,
Philip Neufeld, Ph.D."
(you can read the complete reply at: * w w w . it s.org/node/5212)
That was in 2002.
But now it appears that as long ago as 1952 in their paper
"ELECTROMOTIVE FORCES AND ELECTRIC CURRENTS CAUSED BY METALLIC DENTAL
FILLINGS", Schriever and Diamond "deduced" that electrical potentials
can be generated by the action of "bone fluid" on the UNEXPOSED
surfaces of metallic dental restorations, and that this may occur in
the complete absence of contact with saliva or any other fluid on the
exposed surfaces.
Do you know if any subsequent scientific investigation has ever
disproved the "bone fluid" theory?
Or do you think that Philip Neufeld is just not very well read in his
subject?
Feel free to wake up and attempt an intelligent reply.
Keith P Walsh
On 28 Apr, 14:45, Paul O <first.d.l...@company . com > wrote:
>
> Yawn.... Do the experiment and make your own measurements...
>
"Yawn"?
A few years ago the organisation "Health Canada" issued the following
statement via the website of the Canadian Dental Association with
regard to the placement of metal amalgam dental fillings:
"It should be noted that Health Canada has taken the position that new
amalgam fillings should not be placed in contact with existing metal
devices in the mouth"
I wrote to the Canadian Dental Association regarding this statement
with the following query:
"Is this recommendation intended to apply to metal alloy retaining
pins screwed into the root sockets of a patient's tooth?"
And I received the following reply from Dr Philip Neufeld of Health
Canada:
"Dear Mr. Walsh:
... it is unlikely that a metal retaining pin implanted into the
tooth or the jaw bone would cause galvanic currents. In order for
galvanic currents to be created, the pin would have to be in contact
with an electrolyte such as saliva or extracellular fluids, and such
retaining pins are usually not exposed. ...
Yours sincerely,
Philip Neufeld, Ph.D."
(you can read the complete reply at: * w w w . it s.org/node/5212)
That was in 2002.
But now it appears that as long ago as 1952 in their paper
"ELECTROMOTIVE FORCES AND ELECTRIC CURRENTS CAUSED BY METALLIC DENTAL
FILLINGS", Schriever and Diamond "deduced" that electrical potentials
can be generated by the action of "bone fluid" on the UNEXPOSED
surfaces of metallic dental restorations, and that this may occur in
the complete absence of contact with saliva or any other fluid on the
exposed surfaces.
Do you know if any subsequent scientific investigation has ever
disproved the "bone fluid" theory?
Or do you think that Philip Neufeld is just not very well read in his
subject?
Feel free to wake up and attempt an intelligent reply.
Keith P Walsh
Re: Amalgam Potentials Measured in Absence of Saliva - In 1952!
Keith P Walsh wrote:
> <snip>
> Do you know if any subsequent scientific investigation has ever
> disproved the "bone fluid" theory?
>
> Or do you think that Philip Neufeld is just not very well read in his
> subject?
>
> Feel free to wake up and attempt an intelligent reply.
>
> Keith P Walsh
>
Keith,
Do the required experiments yourself, and then you will know of at least
one scientific investigation that has (or has not) disproved the "bone
fluid" theory.
I think its time for breakfast...
--
Paul D Oosterhout
I work for SAIC (but I don't speak for SAIC)
Keith P Walsh wrote:
> <snip>
> Do you know if any subsequent scientific investigation has ever
> disproved the "bone fluid" theory?
>
> Or do you think that Philip Neufeld is just not very well read in his
> subject?
>
> Feel free to wake up and attempt an intelligent reply.
>
> Keith P Walsh
>
Keith,
Do the required experiments yourself, and then you will know of at least
one scientific investigation that has (or has not) disproved the "bone
fluid" theory.
I think its time for breakfast...
--
Paul D Oosterhout
I work for SAIC (but I don't speak for SAIC)
Re: Amalgam Potentials Measured in Absence of Saliva - In 1952!
Paul O wrote:
> Keith P Walsh wrote:
>> <snip>
>> Do you know if any subsequent scientific investigation has ever
>> disproved the "bone fluid" theory?
>>
>> Or do you think that Philip Neufeld is just not very well read in his
>> subject?
>>
>> Feel free to wake up and attempt an intelligent reply.
>>
>> Keith P Walsh
>>
> Keith,
> Do the required experiments yourself, and then you will know of at least
> one scientific investigation that has (or has not) disproved the "bone
> fluid" theory.
>
> I think its time for breakfast...
>
Stay away from the bone fluid; it is past its prime.
Steve
Paul O wrote:
> Keith P Walsh wrote:
>> <snip>
>> Do you know if any subsequent scientific investigation has ever
>> disproved the "bone fluid" theory?
>>
>> Or do you think that Philip Neufeld is just not very well read in his
>> subject?
>>
>> Feel free to wake up and attempt an intelligent reply.
>>
>> Keith P Walsh
>>
> Keith,
> Do the required experiments yourself, and then you will know of at least
> one scientific investigation that has (or has not) disproved the "bone
> fluid" theory.
>
> I think its time for breakfast...
>
Stay away from the bone fluid; it is past its prime.
Steve
Re: Amalgam Potentials Measured in Absence of Saliva - In 1952!
On 29 Apr, 22:47, Steven Bornfeld <dentaltwinm...@earthlink . net >
wrote:
>
> Stay away from the bone fluid; it is past its prime.
>
Steven,
Do you think that the "bone fluid" theory deduced by Schriever and
Diamond is correct?
And if so, would you say that Dr Philip Neufeld's suggestion that it
is only necessary to avoid the placement of amalgams in contact with
other metals when the surfaces of the contacting metals are exposed
might therefore be inaccurate?
Or would you say that the "bone fluid" theory is wrong? In which case,
is there any established scientific explanation for the fact that
amalgam fillings are able to generate electrical potentials when they
are free from contact with saliva?
Feel free to attempt a reply which demonstrates your ability to be
honest and intelligent, rather than the dismal combination of
indolence and cynicism implied by your previous contribition.
Remember you're supposed to be a bright guy.
Keith P Walsh
On 29 Apr, 22:47, Steven Bornfeld <dentaltwinm...@earthlink . net >
wrote:
>
> Stay away from the bone fluid; it is past its prime.
>
Steven,
Do you think that the "bone fluid" theory deduced by Schriever and
Diamond is correct?
And if so, would you say that Dr Philip Neufeld's suggestion that it
is only necessary to avoid the placement of amalgams in contact with
other metals when the surfaces of the contacting metals are exposed
might therefore be inaccurate?
Or would you say that the "bone fluid" theory is wrong? In which case,
is there any established scientific explanation for the fact that
amalgam fillings are able to generate electrical potentials when they
are free from contact with saliva?
Feel free to attempt a reply which demonstrates your ability to be
honest and intelligent, rather than the dismal combination of
indolence and cynicism implied by your previous contribition.
Remember you're supposed to be a bright guy.
Keith P Walsh
Re: Amalgam Potentials Measured in Absence of Saliva - In 1952!
Keith P Walsh wrote:
>>
>
> Steven,
>
> Do you think that the "bone fluid" theory deduced by Schriever and
> Diamond is correct?
Sorry--I am unfamiliar with the term "bone fluid". Not a term I
believe we ever used in physiology. Can you define precisely what
Schriever and Diamond mean by "bone fluid"?
>
> And if so, would you say that Dr Philip Neufeld's suggestion that it
> is only necessary to avoid the placement of amalgams in contact with
> other metals when the surfaces of the contacting metals are exposed
> might therefore be inaccurate?
>
> Or would you say that the "bone fluid" theory is wrong? In which case,
> is there any established scientific explanation for the fact that
> amalgam fillings are able to generate electrical potentials when they
> are free from contact with saliva?
>
> Feel free to attempt a reply which demonstrates your ability to be
> honest and intelligent, rather than the dismal combination of
> indolence and cynicism implied by your previous contribition.
>
> Remember you're supposed to be a bright guy.
Keith, who told you that? ;-)
Steve
>
> Keith P Walsh
--
Mark & Steven Bornfeld DDS
* w w w .dentaltwins . com
Brooklyn, NY
718-258-5001
Keith P Walsh wrote:
>>
>
> Steven,
>
> Do you think that the "bone fluid" theory deduced by Schriever and
> Diamond is correct?
Sorry--I am unfamiliar with the term "bone fluid". Not a term I
believe we ever used in physiology. Can you define precisely what
Schriever and Diamond mean by "bone fluid"?
>
> And if so, would you say that Dr Philip Neufeld's suggestion that it
> is only necessary to avoid the placement of amalgams in contact with
> other metals when the surfaces of the contacting metals are exposed
> might therefore be inaccurate?
>
> Or would you say that the "bone fluid" theory is wrong? In which case,
> is there any established scientific explanation for the fact that
> amalgam fillings are able to generate electrical potentials when they
> are free from contact with saliva?
>
> Feel free to attempt a reply which demonstrates your ability to be
> honest and intelligent, rather than the dismal combination of
> indolence and cynicism implied by your previous contribition.
>
> Remember you're supposed to be a bright guy.
Keith, who told you that? ;-)
Steve
>
> Keith P Walsh
--
Mark & Steven Bornfeld DDS
* w w w .dentaltwins . com
Brooklyn, NY
718-258-5001
Re: Amalgam Potentials Measured in Absence of Saliva - In 1952!
On 30 Apr, 20:45, Mark & Steven Bornfeld
<bornfeldm...@dentaltwins . com > wrote:
>
> Sorry--I am unfamiliar with the term "bone fluid". Not =
a term I
> believe we ever used in physiology. Can you define precisely what
> Schriever and Diamond mean by "bone fluid"?
>
No I can't.
I can only presume that they meant "fluid from bones".
If you want a more precise definition you might try asking either
Schriever or Diamond themselves, although it's so long ago now since
they reported their finding that amalgam dental fillings are able to
generate electrical potentials even when their exposed surface are not
in contact with any saliva, I suppose you might be too late.
At the time of publication of their paper "ELECTROMOTIVE FORCES AND
ELECTRIC CURRENTS CAUSED BY METALLIC DENTAL FILLINGS", in 1952,
William Schriever was a member of the Department of Physics at the
University of Oklahoma, and Louis E Diamond likewise in the Department
of Biochemistry at the University School of Medicine, Oklahoma City.
And it was the Journal of Dental Research that published it.
These facts of course doesn't necessarily prove that the "bone fluid"
theory is correct.
Here again is what they actually said:
"Since the teeth were dry the potential difference V1 (Fig. 3) was the
e.m.f. (e) caused by the action of the bone fluid on the two fillings,
i.e., e = V1."
I strongly suspect that this assertion is really only a presumption
which is based on the premise that in order for metal fillings to
generate electrical potentials they must be in contact with an
electrolyte of some kind. And I (we) now know for a fact that this
premise is simply not true.
So if your reply was intended to convey the note of scepticism which I
inferred when reading it, then I can only say that I too would share
your scepticism, unless anyone knows of any experiment which has
positively demonstrated that the electrolytic action of "bone fluid"
on the surfaces of metal dental fillings does actually take place in
sufficient degree as to produce the sizes of electrical potentials
measured by Schriever and Diamond.
Otherwise, if we igore the "bone fluid" theory, then the question
arises as to what other physical process could have been producing
these electrical potentials if it wasn't the elecrolytic action of
either saliva or bone fluid?
Any suggestions?
Or are you going to go with bone fluid now?
Keith P Walsh
On 30 Apr, 20:45, Mark & Steven Bornfeld
<bornfeldm...@dentaltwins . com > wrote:
>
> Sorry--I am unfamiliar with the term "bone fluid". Not =
a term I
> believe we ever used in physiology. Can you define precisely what
> Schriever and Diamond mean by "bone fluid"?
>
No I can't.
I can only presume that they meant "fluid from bones".
If you want a more precise definition you might try asking either
Schriever or Diamond themselves, although it's so long ago now since
they reported their finding that amalgam dental fillings are able to
generate electrical potentials even when their exposed surface are not
in contact with any saliva, I suppose you might be too late.
At the time of publication of their paper "ELECTROMOTIVE FORCES AND
ELECTRIC CURRENTS CAUSED BY METALLIC DENTAL FILLINGS", in 1952,
William Schriever was a member of the Department of Physics at the
University of Oklahoma, and Louis E Diamond likewise in the Department
of Biochemistry at the University School of Medicine, Oklahoma City.
And it was the Journal of Dental Research that published it.
These facts of course doesn't necessarily prove that the "bone fluid"
theory is correct.
Here again is what they actually said:
"Since the teeth were dry the potential difference V1 (Fig. 3) was the
e.m.f. (e) caused by the action of the bone fluid on the two fillings,
i.e., e = V1."
I strongly suspect that this assertion is really only a presumption
which is based on the premise that in order for metal fillings to
generate electrical potentials they must be in contact with an
electrolyte of some kind. And I (we) now know for a fact that this
premise is simply not true.
So if your reply was intended to convey the note of scepticism which I
inferred when reading it, then I can only say that I too would share
your scepticism, unless anyone knows of any experiment which has
positively demonstrated that the electrolytic action of "bone fluid"
on the surfaces of metal dental fillings does actually take place in
sufficient degree as to produce the sizes of electrical potentials
measured by Schriever and Diamond.
Otherwise, if we igore the "bone fluid" theory, then the question
arises as to what other physical process could have been producing
these electrical potentials if it wasn't the elecrolytic action of
either saliva or bone fluid?
Any suggestions?
Or are you going to go with bone fluid now?
Keith P Walsh
Re: Amalgam Potentials Measured in Absence of Saliva - In 1952!
unexposed = deexposed
unexposed = deexposed
Re: Amalgam Potentials Measured in Absence of Saliva - In 1952!
On 5 May, 14:33, "Autymn D. C." <lysde...@sbcglobal . net > wrote:
> unexposed = deexposed
Thank you for your contribution.
My copy of the Concise Oxford English Dictionary (ninth edition,
published in 1995 by Oxford University press and printed in the United
States on acid-free paper) lists "unexposed" as a single word and
defines its meaning simply as "not exposed".
This is precisely the meaning I intended when I used it in my previous
post.
(For the record, the word "deexposed" isn't in there - perhaps it's in
the "unconcise" edition.)
Dentists sometimes tell us (leastways a couple of them have told me)
that new amalgam fillings quickly form a layer of metal oxide on their
surfaces due to the electrolytic action of contacting fluids, and that
on being formed this layer adheres to the surface of the amalgam with
a degree of permanence such that it has the effect, after a finite
period, of preventing the amalgam from taking place in any further
electrolysis.
I am not aware of any scientific argument for suggesting that this is
false.
However, whenever the results of any scientific studies are published
reporting measurements of amalgam potentials with magnitudes in the
hundreds of millivolts, in my experience the stock response of the
dental profession is to say something like , "Ah yes we understand all
about this, it's called "Galvanic activity" (or electrolysis), and it
happens as a result of the electrochemical action of saliva on the
metal fillings in the mouth."
But most of the reports I've read of experiments which have measured
the electrical potentials in amalgams do not describe measurements
taken from "new" fillings at all.
Scriever and Diamond's report "ELECTROMOTIVE FORCES AND ELECTRIC
CURRENTS CAUSED BY METALLIC DENTAL FILLINGS" doesn't either.
Isn't there some inconsistency here?
Materials scientists may recognise that metal oxides do not make
particularly good electrical insulators, so although a layer of oxide
adhering to the surface of an amalgam filling may prevent any further
electrolysis from taking place, it wouldn't necessarily be very good
at preventing the flow of electrical current driven by electrical
potentials arising from physical phenomena other than electrolysis.
(I'll be happy to point a couple of them out again if anyone wants me
to.)
Isn't it possible that the electrical potentials generated by amalgam
fillings and measured by Schriever and Diamond as long ago as 1952
(and repeatedly measured by others ever since) do not in fact depend
primarily on the natural phenomenon known as "electrolysis" for their
existence?
(Remember that Schriever and Diamond proved that these electrical
potentials could be measured even when there was no saliva in contact
with the fillings.)
Keith P Walsh
On 5 May, 14:33, "Autymn D. C." <lysde...@sbcglobal . net > wrote:
> unexposed = deexposed
Thank you for your contribution.
My copy of the Concise Oxford English Dictionary (ninth edition,
published in 1995 by Oxford University press and printed in the United
States on acid-free paper) lists "unexposed" as a single word and
defines its meaning simply as "not exposed".
This is precisely the meaning I intended when I used it in my previous
post.
(For the record, the word "deexposed" isn't in there - perhaps it's in
the "unconcise" edition.)
Dentists sometimes tell us (leastways a couple of them have told me)
that new amalgam fillings quickly form a layer of metal oxide on their
surfaces due to the electrolytic action of contacting fluids, and that
on being formed this layer adheres to the surface of the amalgam with
a degree of permanence such that it has the effect, after a finite
period, of preventing the amalgam from taking place in any further
electrolysis.
I am not aware of any scientific argument for suggesting that this is
false.
However, whenever the results of any scientific studies are published
reporting measurements of amalgam potentials with magnitudes in the
hundreds of millivolts, in my experience the stock response of the
dental profession is to say something like , "Ah yes we understand all
about this, it's called "Galvanic activity" (or electrolysis), and it
happens as a result of the electrochemical action of saliva on the
metal fillings in the mouth."
But most of the reports I've read of experiments which have measured
the electrical potentials in amalgams do not describe measurements
taken from "new" fillings at all.
Scriever and Diamond's report "ELECTROMOTIVE FORCES AND ELECTRIC
CURRENTS CAUSED BY METALLIC DENTAL FILLINGS" doesn't either.
Isn't there some inconsistency here?
Materials scientists may recognise that metal oxides do not make
particularly good electrical insulators, so although a layer of oxide
adhering to the surface of an amalgam filling may prevent any further
electrolysis from taking place, it wouldn't necessarily be very good
at preventing the flow of electrical current driven by electrical
potentials arising from physical phenomena other than electrolysis.
(I'll be happy to point a couple of them out again if anyone wants me
to.)
Isn't it possible that the electrical potentials generated by amalgam
fillings and measured by Schriever and Diamond as long ago as 1952
(and repeatedly measured by others ever since) do not in fact depend
primarily on the natural phenomenon known as "electrolysis" for their
existence?
(Remember that Schriever and Diamond proved that these electrical
potentials could be measured even when there was no saliva in contact
with the fillings.)
Keith P Walsh
Re: Amalgam Potentials Measured in Absence of Saliva - In 1952!
On May 5, 12:35 pm, Keith P Walsh <keith.p.wa...@btinternet . com >
wrote:
> On 5 May, 14:33, "Autymn D. C." <lysde...@sbcglobal . net > wrote:
> > unexposed = deexposed
>
> Thank you for your contribution.
>
> My copy of the Concise Oxford English Dictionary (ninth edition,
> published in 1995 by Oxford University press and printed in the United
> States on acid-free paper) lists "unexposed" as a single word and
> defines its meaning simply as "not exposed".
A huge strawman, as -expos- isn't even English, which has been dead
for 1000 years, but Latin, so whatever any such dictionary says is
descriptive of the world's illiterate muttish bullshit.
un- != not-
On May 5, 12:35 pm, Keith P Walsh <keith.p.wa...@btinternet . com >
wrote:
> On 5 May, 14:33, "Autymn D. C." <lysde...@sbcglobal . net > wrote:
> > unexposed = deexposed
>
> Thank you for your contribution.
>
> My copy of the Concise Oxford English Dictionary (ninth edition,
> published in 1995 by Oxford University press and printed in the United
> States on acid-free paper) lists "unexposed" as a single word and
> defines its meaning simply as "not exposed".
A huge strawman, as -expos- isn't even English, which has been dead
for 1000 years, but Latin, so whatever any such dictionary says is
descriptive of the world's illiterate muttish bullshit.
un- != not-
Re: Amalgam Potentials Measured in Absence of Saliva - In 1952!
On 6 May, 16:34, "Autymn D. C." <lysde...@sbcglobal . net > wrote:
>
> A huge strawman, as -expos- isn't even English, which has been dead
> for 1000 years, but Latin, so whatever any such dictionary says is
> descriptive of the world's illiterate muttish bullshit.
>
Hey - whatever you say Buddy!
Next time I'm in Oxford I'll pass on the message.
When a quantity of metal amalgam is used to fill a cavity in a tooth
and is then allowed to set hard, part of the surface of the resulting
solid filling is exposed to the environment of the oral cavity
(mouth), and part of it is not.
If for the purposes of this discussion I can distinguish between these
two parts by defining the former as the "outward" surface, and the
latter as the "inward" surface, then I would expect that anyone with
even the most rudimentary experience of these matters is unlikely to
be confused by the following:
In their paper "ELECTROMOTIVE FORCES AND ELECTRIC CURRENTS CAUSED BY
METALLIC DENTAL FILLINGS", William Schriever and Louis E. Diamond
reported having measured electrical potentials in amalgam dental
fillings when the outward surfaces of the fillings were not in contact
with any saliva.
They also deduced that the measured potentials must therefore have
been due to the "action" of "bone fluid" on the inward surfaces of
those fillings.
I believe that this "deduction" may have been based on a false
perception that in order for metal fillings to generate electrical
potentials they must be in contact with an electrolyte of some sort,
and that they may also have assumed without seeking any experimental
confirmation that "bone fluid" is indeed able to act as such.
I would therefore suggest that the "bone fluid" explanation, put
forward by Schriever and Diamond as a requirenment for the generation
of electrical potentials by amalgam dental fillings in the absence of
any contact with saliva, is not necessarily correct.
Would you agree?
(Dang it if I've misused a word somewhere! - I bet I have haven't I?
You know, I'd love to see you let loose on Steven Bornfield. He thinks
that the term "mercury amalgam" is a "pleonasm".)
Keith P Walsh
On 6 May, 16:34, "Autymn D. C." <lysde...@sbcglobal . net > wrote:
>
> A huge strawman, as -expos- isn't even English, which has been dead
> for 1000 years, but Latin, so whatever any such dictionary says is
> descriptive of the world's illiterate muttish bullshit.
>
Hey - whatever you say Buddy!
Next time I'm in Oxford I'll pass on the message.
When a quantity of metal amalgam is used to fill a cavity in a tooth
and is then allowed to set hard, part of the surface of the resulting
solid filling is exposed to the environment of the oral cavity
(mouth), and part of it is not.
If for the purposes of this discussion I can distinguish between these
two parts by defining the former as the "outward" surface, and the
latter as the "inward" surface, then I would expect that anyone with
even the most rudimentary experience of these matters is unlikely to
be confused by the following:
In their paper "ELECTROMOTIVE FORCES AND ELECTRIC CURRENTS CAUSED BY
METALLIC DENTAL FILLINGS", William Schriever and Louis E. Diamond
reported having measured electrical potentials in amalgam dental
fillings when the outward surfaces of the fillings were not in contact
with any saliva.
They also deduced that the measured potentials must therefore have
been due to the "action" of "bone fluid" on the inward surfaces of
those fillings.
I believe that this "deduction" may have been based on a false
perception that in order for metal fillings to generate electrical
potentials they must be in contact with an electrolyte of some sort,
and that they may also have assumed without seeking any experimental
confirmation that "bone fluid" is indeed able to act as such.
I would therefore suggest that the "bone fluid" explanation, put
forward by Schriever and Diamond as a requirenment for the generation
of electrical potentials by amalgam dental fillings in the absence of
any contact with saliva, is not necessarily correct.
Would you agree?
(Dang it if I've misused a word somewhere! - I bet I have haven't I?
You know, I'd love to see you let loose on Steven Bornfield. He thinks
that the term "mercury amalgam" is a "pleonasm".)
Keith P Walsh
