A M E R I C A N D E N T A L A S S O C I A T I O N
Central District Dental Society
| From: Holliday
Dental [mailto:teeth@mindspring.com] http://www.msdental.org |
|||
http://www.msdental.org/cms/images/stories/Amalgam%20BMPs%202008.pdf
Amalgam
Waste - Mercury is a naturally
occurring metal; however, about half of the mercury released to the
environment comes from human activity. Of that amount, 53% is
emitted from combustion of fuels for energy production and 34% is from
the combustion of waste. Sources associated with
manufacturers and consumers make up the remaining 13%, with dentistry
contributing less than one%. Some mercury
released into the air eventually collects in the waterways, where it
enters the food chain. As a precautionary measure, Although
mercury in the form of dental amalgam is very stable, amalgam should not be
disposed of in the garbage, infectious waste “red bag,” or sharps
container. Amalgam also should not be rinsed down
the drain. These cautions are important because some communities
incinerate municipal garbage, medical waste, and sludge from wastewater
treatment plants. If amalgam waste ends up in one of these
incinerated waste streams, the mercury can be released to the
environment due to the extremely high temperatures used in the
incineration process. Increasingly, local communities are
enacting restrictions on the incineration of wastes containing
mercury. The good news
is that amalgam waste, kept separate from other waste, can be safely
recycled. The mercury can be recovered from amalgam wastes
through a distillation process and reused in new products. The
The If you still
have bulk elemental mercury in the office, you should recycle it.
Check with a licensed recycler to determine whether they will accept
bulk mercury. Do not pour bulk
elemental mercury waste in the garbage, red bag or down the
drain. You also should check with your state regulatory agency and
municipality to find out if a bulk mercury collection program is
available. Such bulk mercury collection programs provide an easy
way to dispose of bulk mercury.
2.
Contact an amalgam waste recycler about any special requirements that
may exist in your area for collecting, storing and transporting amalgam
waste. 3.
Store amalgam waste in a covered plastic container labeled “Amalgam for
Recycling” or as directed by your recycler.
Dr.
Holliday, I hope some of this information can be of use to your
research. Communications
Director http://www.msdental.org/ From: Holliday Dental
[mailto:teeth@mindspring.com] Tamra, |
|
|
From: "Mark Ritz" <msritz@alltel.net> To: <teeth@mindspring.com> Cc: "'Martha Phillips'" <phillips@gadental.org>, Subject: RE: Yesterday's Congressional Hearing on Amalgam/Wastewater Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2008 09:43 Hi Lindsay!
You may find the below article interesting.
Have you had a chance to research the history of BMP issues
in other areas
of the country? (FYI, I have attached the contact
information we discussed
in May).
Mark
From: Martha Phillips [mailto:phillips@gadental.org]
Sent: Monday, July 14, 2008 2:09 PM
To: Brian Hall (Brian Hall); hbyron@bellsouth.net;
rdrdds@gmail.com; Donna
Moses (Donna Moses); Dr. Jack Bickford; Ed Green;
griff217@yahoo.com;
hcookone@aol.com; harmolar@alltel.net; Jimmy Cline; Jimmy
Talbot (Jimmy
Talbot); Mark Ritz (Mark Ritz); Mike Rogers (Mike Rogers);
Nelson Conger;
weinmandmd@aol.com; Robert B. Moss, Jr.;
tyivey@bellsouth.net; Andy Allgood
(Andy Allgood); Hank Goble; hgs0409@aol.com;
jfhdds@windstream.net; Ron
Smiley; Ty Ivey; bgreenway@mindspring.com;
drcwolff@bellsouth.net; Doug
Torbush; drjoed@etcmail.com; Jim Hall; jaybo2th@aol.com;
percydds@yahoo.com;
Marie Schweinebraten; Marshall Mann; Mike Vernon (Mike
Vernon);
ptragerdds@bellsouth.net; Timothy Fussell; Tom Broderick;
fieldortho@gmail.com
Subject: FW: Yesterday's Congressional Hearing on
Amalgam/Wastewater
Please see the following information provided by the ADA on
recent
Congressional Hearings on Amalgam and wastewater issues.
Martha S. Phillips, Executive Director
Georgia Dental Association
7000 Peachtree Dunwoody Road NW, Bldg 17, Suite 200,
Atlanta, GA 30328
phillips@gadental.org
web site: www.gadental.org <http://www.gadental.org/>
This message originates from the Georgia Dental
Association. It contains
information which may be confidential or privileged and is
intended only for
the individual or entity named above. It is prohibited
for anyone else to
disclose, copy, distribute, or use the contents of this
message. All
personal messages are the express views of the sender, which
are not to be
attributed to the Georgia Dental Association, and may not be
copied or
distributed without this disclaimer. If you received
this message in error,
please notify me immediately at
phillips@gadental.org (404) 636-7553.
Please find below a recap of yesterday's hearing on amalgam
and the
environment.
ADA witness William Walsh (our outside legal counsel on
amalgam wastewater
issues) faced a long series of hostile questions yesterday
during a hearing
titled "Assessing State and Local Regulations to Reduce
Dental Mercury
Emission," held by the House Committee on Oversight and
Government Reform's
Subcommittee on Domestic Policy. Mr. Walsh was very
effective in staying on
point that state and local authorities ought to be free to
choose voluntary
separator programs over mandates.
As is common in these hearings, the few House members
present branched off
into amalgam safety as well. Representatives Dennis
Kucinich (D-OH), Dan
Burton (R-IN) and Diane Watson (D-CA) were the only members
present during
the hearing. Attendance in the gallery was also less than
for past hearings.
There were several individuals seated at the press table,
none of whom who
stayed for the entire hearing, and we have not received any
press inquiries
as of this time. One reporter present was from Associated
Press. We provided
her with our statement and she wrote a story which is
reprinted below.
Mr. Walsh was part of the first panel of witnesses before
the Subcommittee.
Also testifying were Michael Bender (an anti-mercury
activist), Dr. Richard
Fisher (a "mercury-free" dentist and former president of the
IAOMT, an
anti-amalgam group), and Curt McCormick, a former EPA
official upset that
his efforts to mandate separators throughout EPA Region 8
were thwarted by
ADA's efforts. Clearly, the decks were stacked. Virtually
all of the
questioning of the witnesses was directed at Mr. Walsh. The
Representatives
either did not understand or did not care that dentistry's
contribution of
mercury to lakes and streams represent less than 1% of the
total. It was
enough, according to them, that mercury is toxic and
dentistry contributes a
large proportion of the mercury in the sewers.
Mr. McCormick testified at length about his efforts to
mandate separators
through a "guidance" document in EPA Region 8. His written
testimony
suggested that ADA's efforts to defeat his efforts may have
been improper.
However, in his oral statement he emphasized that ADA had
done nothing
improper but was "surprisingly" effective in lobbying EPA
headquarters.
Despite this focus of his testimony, the Subcommittee did
not invite EPA to
testify and, in fact, EPA headquarters was unaware of the
hearing until we
informed them of it. The subcommittee also failed to invite
the National
Association of Clean Water Agencies to testify, despite
their obvious
interest in the subject matter.
All three representatives insisted that voluntary programs
do not
work--dentists will not install separators unless forced to
do so--and some
form of mandate should be used. The Chairman also chastised
the ADA saying
that his observation is that the ADA is holding onto
voluntary standards
"for dear life" when this was an issue about neurotoxins. He
even questioned
whether the ADA had taken its position based on product
liability or some
sort of class action suit. It is quite possible that one or
more of them
will introduce legislation calling for mandatory separators
nationwide.
In any case, Chairman Kucinich promised that the
subcommittee would
continue its work on this topic.
The second panel included three witnesses who work for
public water
programs representing areas that had gone from attempting
voluntary programs
for dental separators to mandatory and a manufacturer of
separators.
Continuing the discussion of whether POTWs could prevent
dental mercury in
sludge from going into surface water, Kucinich asked a
witness what the cost
would be to accomplish that. She seemed confused by the
question but then
answered it would take tens of millions of dollars - even if
the equipment
was available. Without being asked, Dr. Marc Smith, from the
Massachusetts
Department of Environmental Protection, stated that he
disagreed with the
ADA's assertion that a mandatory standard would create a
burdensome
regulation. he stated that it has been easy for them in
their state because
they check on dentists electronically.
In conclusion, Rep. Burton said to all panelists that
he deduced from their
testimony that the ADA lawyer is not correct in stating that
a voluntary
program would work. At first, no one supported him, then Dr.
Smith stated,
"There's no evidence of that [i.e. to support the ADA
position] ." In short,
the hearing was as hostile to our interests as is possible,
but Mr. Walsh
ably represented our views on the science, the law and
public policy.
AP Story:
Dental industry gets an earful on mercury
The Associated Press July 8, 2009
By Libby Quaid
WASHINGTON (AP) - People trust dentists with their health.
Some members of
Congress are more skeptical.
The dental industry, asked to testify Tuesday about
pollution from mercury
in tooth fillings, found itself under attack from lawmakers
who blame
mercury for everything from autism in children to skin
discoloration.
The hearing was about whether dentists should be required to
install
"separator" equipment to keep pieces of fillings from
getting into public
wastewater. Currently, dentists in nine states are required
to use
separators.
The American Dental Association, before its spokesman
testified, faced
deeply personal diatribes from Reps. Dan Burton, R-Ind., and
Diane E.
Watson, D-Calif.
Burton began by saying he'd had a cap replaced, and a silver
filling
removed, over the weekend, and that he worried as he swished
the water in
his dentist's office about where his filling would go.
Then Burton talked about his grandson, saying the child
became autistic not
long after receiving nine vaccination shots, seven of them
containing
mercury. While such theories have been rejected in
mainstream medicine,
Burton has held several hearings on it in the past. Mercury
has not been in
childhood vaccines since 2001.
"Mercury should not be ingested into the human body in any
way," he said.
Watson had her own issues. She blamed mercury fillings she
got as a
9-year-old for allergies, headaches, darker and splotchy
skin and trouble
remembering people's names. She talked to researchers who
thought she had
mercury poisoning.
"I had to go to Mexico - I asked my own dentist about it,
and he stuffed
something in my mouth and wouldn't even discuss it," Watson
said.
Mercury makes up as much as 54% of silver fillings, also
called dental
amalgam.
Last month, the government warned for the first time that
silver dental
fillings and the mercury they contain may pose a safety
concern for pregnant
women and young children. The Food and Drug Administration
posted the
precaution on its website to settle a lawsuit.
The ADA spokesman, William J. Walsh, seemed taken aback by
the focus on
mercury poisoning. He said his profession already
acknowledges that dental
fillings are the biggest single contributor to mercury in
wastewater.
But his organization opposes a mandatory requirement for
separators, which
can cost anywhere from $750 to nearly $3,000 to install,
according to
Burton. Walsh said dentists have worked hard to keep filling
pieces from
getting into wastewater and today manage to keep about 80%
from leaving
their offices.
"Dentists drink and fish and swim in the same waters as
everyone else in
their communities," Walsh said. "They bring to these efforts
the same
commitment they bring to providing the best possible oral
health care to the
American people."
Polling indicates that people trust dentists to protect
their health. A 2006
Gallup poll said people rated dentists as the fifth most
trustworthy
professions, after nurses, pharmacists, veterinarians and
medical doctors
and well ahead of clergy, journalists, business executives,
lawyers, and
politicians.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+++++++++
BNA Daily Environment Reporter
No. 131
Wednesday, July 9, 2008 Page A-10
ISSN 1521-9402
News
Water Pollution
Dentists Urged to Do More to Prevent
Mercury Pollution From Silver Fillings
More than six tons of toxic mercury used in silver dental
fillings are
discharged to wastewater treatment plants in the United
States every year,
and the dental industry is not doing enough to eliminate
this form of
pollution to protect public health, public interest group
representatives
and other witnesses told a subcommittee of the House
Committee on Oversight
and Government Reform July 8.
William Walsh, counsel for the American Dental Association
(ADA), countered
that dentistry contributes less than 1 percent of the total
mercury found in
lakes and streams, and dentists are working to reduce the
amount of mercury
pollution they generate by using encapsulated fillings and
adopting other
"best management practices."
Richard Fischer, former president of the International
Academy of Oral
Medicine & Toxicology, told the Domestic Policy
Subcommittee that the dental
profession uses about 40 tons of mercury--a potent
neurotoxin--per year to
make silver (or amalgam) fillings.
According to Fischer, 6.5 tons of mercury is discharged to
wastewater
treatment plants through the process of placing and removing
the fillings,
in large part because chair-side suction units only are able
to trap large
particles. In addition, he said people with silver fillings
flush mercury
into wastewater through their excrement.
Moreover, he said, wastewater treatment plants are not
designed to process
or handle heavy metals such as mercury, which results in the
pollutant
accumulating in sewage sludge.
Fischer said devices called amalgam separators can capture
95 percent to 99
percent of the mercury before it leaves dental offices. He
added that states
should require dentists to use this equipment because few
dentists choose to
do so voluntarily, and places where they are required have
seen a 50 percent
reduction in the amount of mercury entering wastewater
treatment plants.
He also said the cost of amalgam separators--from a few
hundred to a few
thousand dollars--is "reasonable" compared with the cost of
most other
dental equipment.
Finally, Fischer said dentists should stop using silver
fillings altogether
because of health effects for patients. "To place a mixture
containing 50
percent mercury--the most neurotoxic element known on
earth--within inches
of a child's brain stem and assume it to be harmless is at
best
counterintuitive," he said. "To release this same pollutant
into the
environment is irresponsible when simple and available
technology exists to
reduce that release by over 95 percent."
Voluntary Programs Not Effective
Michael Bender, director of the Mercury Policy Project, also
said amalgam
separators are a "highly cost-effective" way to prevent
mercury releases.
For example, he said the cost to remove mercury at a
wastewater treatment
plant is $21 million per pound, compared to $1.95 per
filling when using an
amalgam separator.
He also said state and local governments should require
dentists to use the
equipment.
"The record clearly shows that voluntary programs are not
effective at
convincing dentists to install amalgam separators," he said.
He said the ADA "appears" to have blocked initiatives to
require the
equipment in California, Wyoming, Michigan, Ohio, Montana,
and "likely
elsewhere."
Moreover, Bender said, the dental industry is not curtailing
its use of
mercury. He said U.S. dentists were still using 30 tons of
the element
annually in 2004, the same amount as was used in 2001.
"Contrary to what we have heard from the dental sector,
their mercury
pollution will continue unabated without controls," he said.
ADA Initiatives Called Effective
But Walsh told the committee that dental amalgam is a "safe
and effective
option for treating dental decay" based on the "best
available science."
Moreover, he said the ADA's voluntary efforts to reduce
mercury pollution
are effective and that mandatory controls are unnecessary.
"Despite the very small share of mercury in surface waters
from dental
amalgam, America's dentists want to do the right thing and
minimize further
their impact on the environment," he said.
According to Walsh, the most effective way to do this is for
dentists
voluntarily to adopt the ADA's "best management practices."
For example, he said, dentists no longer keep bottles of
liquid mercury in
their offices for mixing their own amalgam. In addition,
they now use
amalgam that "encapsulates" the mercury, which "virtually
eliminates" spills
in dental offices.
Walsh also said the ADA has promoted recycling of waste
amalgam to prevent
mercury from entering the environment and has asked dentists
to use
chair-side traps and vacuum-pump filters.
Although the ADA supports the voluntary use of amalgam
separators, Walsh
said, mandatory programs are not needed because of
"dentistry's record of
voluntarily meeting the highest standards of health and
safety." He also
said there is "little incremental difference" in the amount
of amalgam
collected and recycled using a voluntary separator program
compared to a
mandatory program.
By Jeff Kinney
____________________________________________________________________________
_______
American Dental Association 1111 14th Street, NW
#1200 Washington, DC
20005 <http://www.ada.org> www.ada.org
|
|