- #1
- 161
- 0
Hi,
I am reading various articles online about the amalgam fillings and am quite shocked on the degree of variation of opinions from "professionals" on weather amalgam fillings are a major health hazzard or not. From what I could gather there are 3 camps. 1st camp says that they are a major health hazzard, that the amount of mercury in one filling is enough to posion all the fish in a small lake, that people with amalgam fillings are cronically poisoned with mercury and all that nasty stuff that comes with the package. 2nd camp says, yes that are toxic for body but the amount one is exposed by the fillings is minimal - you get more mercury from eating tuna than the fillings themselves. But the fillings should be banned not because of the health hazzard but because they pose serious environmental hazzard when they are disposed etc. The 3rd camps say they are perfectly safe, since they are used for more than 150 years and there arent any obvious side-effect deteced. Something like that.
That makes me think that none of this people made any serious scientic study of the matter. Like 3 people would be watching a ball fall from a heigh of h meters and the question asked is how much time does it take for the ball to fall down. Guess these medical studies vary depending on who funded the research. Should the funding from people who are determined that the ball falls really slow they come to the conclusion that it takes t = h^2 * g time for the ball to fall down. On the other hand should they wish to show that balls falls down really fast then they would say that it takes t = sqrt(h/g) time for the ball. The most extremist would just state that ball falls down instantly!?! Should all of this people conduct a totaly scientific experiment they all would come to the matter that it takes exactly t = sqrt(2*h/g) time for the ball to reach the ground provided that the air resistance is neglected, should the air resistance be included then t = .. etc. Soo the opinion would be unanimous.
How can there be such a "variation" in opinions? I ask this question here becose I trust "science" people. Since in science - scientific truth is what matters above all else. What are your opinions on this matter?
I am reading various articles online about the amalgam fillings and am quite shocked on the degree of variation of opinions from "professionals" on weather amalgam fillings are a major health hazzard or not. From what I could gather there are 3 camps. 1st camp says that they are a major health hazzard, that the amount of mercury in one filling is enough to posion all the fish in a small lake, that people with amalgam fillings are cronically poisoned with mercury and all that nasty stuff that comes with the package. 2nd camp says, yes that are toxic for body but the amount one is exposed by the fillings is minimal - you get more mercury from eating tuna than the fillings themselves. But the fillings should be banned not because of the health hazzard but because they pose serious environmental hazzard when they are disposed etc. The 3rd camps say they are perfectly safe, since they are used for more than 150 years and there arent any obvious side-effect deteced. Something like that.
That makes me think that none of this people made any serious scientic study of the matter. Like 3 people would be watching a ball fall from a heigh of h meters and the question asked is how much time does it take for the ball to fall down. Guess these medical studies vary depending on who funded the research. Should the funding from people who are determined that the ball falls really slow they come to the conclusion that it takes t = h^2 * g time for the ball to fall down. On the other hand should they wish to show that balls falls down really fast then they would say that it takes t = sqrt(h/g) time for the ball. The most extremist would just state that ball falls down instantly!?! Should all of this people conduct a totaly scientific experiment they all would come to the matter that it takes exactly t = sqrt(2*h/g) time for the ball to reach the ground provided that the air resistance is neglected, should the air resistance be included then t = .. etc. Soo the opinion would be unanimous.
How can there be such a "variation" in opinions? I ask this question here becose I trust "science" people. Since in science - scientific truth is what matters above all else. What are your opinions on this matter?