→Revisions of 11/2: still not connecting |
Removing expired RFC template. |
||
Line 147: | Line 147: | ||
Yobol has been massively deleting the work of other users. S/he just deletes entire sections rather than improving or discussing. I made additions to this article, which s/he has *repeatedly* deleted wtih no discussion. Are his/her other edits similarly reckless? |
Yobol has been massively deleting the work of other users. S/he just deletes entire sections rather than improving or discussing. I made additions to this article, which s/he has *repeatedly* deleted wtih no discussion. Are his/her other edits similarly reckless? |
||
Is this practice of removing all non-secondary sources sanctioned by MEDRS? Just because it is not covered in a secondary source does not make the data any less credible, factual, or pertinent. |
Is this practice of removing all non-secondary sources sanctioned by MEDRS? Just because it is not covered in a secondary source does not make the data any less credible, factual, or pertinent. |
||
These are the additions I made which Yobol deleted: |
These are the additions I made which Yobol deleted: |
||
#The reference advisory limits for mercury toxicity in Canada. These are advisory limits which are used to regulate the safety of dental amalgam. |
#The reference advisory limits for mercury toxicity in Canada. These are advisory limits which are used to regulate the safety of dental amalgam. |
Revision as of 20:00, 11 December 2014
This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
More sources for the regulatory controversy in the US
- FDA Issues Final Regulation on Dental Amalgam —Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.76.90.106 (talk) 04:59, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
- The Mercury Mischief: As Obama Warns of Hazards, The FDA Approves Mercury Dental Fillings MaxPont (talk) 08:29, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
broken links
This link is broken: ^ US FDA/CDRH: Consumer Information - Questions and Answers on Dental Amalgam —Preceding unsigned comment added by Talgalili (talk • contribs) 22:01, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
Re-edited the article
I reorganized the paragraphs and added much needed citations.
I also added a yet to be clinical trial. I hope someone (maybe me) will update the text when the results will come in.
I wish to explain why I gave so much room for the header "clinical trial" in this article. The reason is because clinical trials are THE golden standard in evidence based medicine. In such cases as this article - this is the number one thing to look at.
Talgalili (talk) 08:07, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
Does anyone know the effect of putting caps on teeth with large amalgam fillings. Does this push the outgassing of mercury into the tooth root and gums. Recently I had Birketts lymphoma above the teeth — Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.70.59.102 (talk) 00:34, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
Banning Mercury Amalgam in the United States
Banning Mercury Amalgam in the United States, fda.gov — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.237.156.57 (talk) 09:17, 13 October 2011 (UTC) FDA agrees to amalgam announcement this year. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.237.156.57 (talk) 09:44, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
Inaccurate representation of sources
Checked one source, see Talk:Amalgam_(dentistry)#Controversy_section WHO figures are presented as related to worldwide emissions, contrary to the source.
- "The WHO reports that mercury from amalgam and laboratory devices accounts for 53% of total mercury emissions" refers to the UK emissions.
- "the release of mercury into the public sewer system, where dental amalgams contribute one-third of the mercury waste" an estimate from Environment Canada, I assume about Canada's sewer system. DS Belgium (talk) 02:33, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
- It's technically ambiguous without looking at the underlying sources. The WHO article is not clearly written. It could be that the regional organizations are talking about global emissions. For example, the 53% statistic comes from the following sentence: "Together, mercury contained in dental amalgam and in laboratory and medical devices, account for about 53% of the total mercury emissions". With that said, I agree with you that these are likely to be regionally-specific estimates and therefore it would be better to revise the text - which you are free to do. It would be nice to have a global estimate but the regional estimates give an approximate idea for developed nations. II | (t - c) 03:28, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
- The numbers don't add up globally, with 84% of emissions coming from power plants, gold mines and metal production. Mercury (element)
- Representation of other sources may be problematic as well: the ban on amalgam in Sweden, Norway and Denmark for example: based on a jan 3 2008 press release. This part is not mentioned in the article: Exceptions to use amalgam may be granted for a certain period after the ban, if dentists apply for it.
- Press releases about bans in the future are not hard evidence since dates can be postponed, see these three about a Swedish ban:
- The use of amalgam will be totally banned for children and adolescents up to the age of 19 by 1 July 1995 at the latest and for adults by 1997. source
- The Government today decided to introduce a blanket ban on mercury. The ban means that the use of dental amalgam in fillings will cease and that it will no longer be permitted to place products containing mercury on the Swedish market. The new regulations enter into force on 1 June 2009. source
- As from 1 June 2009, its use in children and teenagers has been entirely banned, but amalgam can still be used in adult patients within hospital dental care until 2012, on condition that the Swedish National Board of Health and Welfare be notified before treatment. source
- If it's still allowed, it's not banned. 94 references left to check... DS Belgium (talk) 05:05, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
- It's technically ambiguous without looking at the underlying sources. The WHO article is not clearly written. It could be that the regional organizations are talking about global emissions. For example, the 53% statistic comes from the following sentence: "Together, mercury contained in dental amalgam and in laboratory and medical devices, account for about 53% of the total mercury emissions". With that said, I agree with you that these are likely to be regionally-specific estimates and therefore it would be better to revise the text - which you are free to do. It would be nice to have a global estimate but the regional estimates give an approximate idea for developed nations. II | (t - c) 03:28, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
- It doesn't surprise me that there a lot of weaknesses in the article - it's received a minimal amount of attention and I just hurriedly reorganized what was already in the article a while back. I look forward to your improvements. According to Pirrone's Global mercury emissions to the atmosphere from anthropogenic and natural sources (2010), amalgam is about 8% of the demand. Atmospheric emissions such as those focused on by Pirrone are probably low while emissions directly to the water are probably relatively high, especially in regions like the U.S. where there aren't (as far as I know) federal statutes regulating its release. Hylander et al's High mercury emissions from dental clinics despite amalgam separators (2006) is a potential source, but not openly-accessible. The environmental effects of dental amalgam (2000) is also an interesting start, although since it is written by undergrads supervised by a dentist it is really not an ideal env science source. II | (t - c) 06:01, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
- Tell you the truth, I'm much better at finding faults than I am at correcting them. A few hours writing, searching, changing and finally not posting is how it usually turns out. Anyone expecting major (or minor) contributions to articles on my part will likely be disappointed. Criticise and move on is more my style, I'm afraid. ... :-( DS Belgium (talk) 16:52, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
- It doesn't surprise me that there a lot of weaknesses in the article - it's received a minimal amount of attention and I just hurriedly reorganized what was already in the article a while back. I look forward to your improvements. According to Pirrone's Global mercury emissions to the atmosphere from anthropogenic and natural sources (2010), amalgam is about 8% of the demand. Atmospheric emissions such as those focused on by Pirrone are probably low while emissions directly to the water are probably relatively high, especially in regions like the U.S. where there aren't (as far as I know) federal statutes regulating its release. Hylander et al's High mercury emissions from dental clinics despite amalgam separators (2006) is a potential source, but not openly-accessible. The environmental effects of dental amalgam (2000) is also an interesting start, although since it is written by undergrads supervised by a dentist it is really not an ideal env science source. II | (t - c) 06:01, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
Use of μ symbol instead of "micro"
The average user does not know what the symbol μ means. I believe we should change "μg" to "microgram" for immediate clarity. Wikipedia's convention is to use the more common name when selecting the name of an article, and the same should apply when selecting the terminology. The Manual of Style recommends to "minimize jargon, or at least explain it".
On the other hand, if you insist on using the symbol rather than the word, you would do well to at least move the explanation-- which before my edit appeared once, buried several sections into the article-- to the beginning of the article, rather than merely thoughtlessly reverting my edit. --Mr. Billion (talk) 13:49, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
- How do you know that the average user doesn't know the mu symbol? I'd think that the average user does, assuming the average user has taken high school chemistry or equivalent, but even if they don't know...welcome to a place where you can learn something! All they have to do is click a wikilink if they don't know the symbol. Since the manual of style doesn't cover this specific situation, it should probably be dealt with on the MOS talk page. With taht said, I do most of my editing on science articles and it's standard convention to use µg when applicable; I couldn't say for all of WP but that's my general experience. I don't think it needs to be explained in the article either because it's unnecessary information that's only a click away for those who don't know. SÆdontalk 19:25, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
I've started a discussion here SÆdontalk 19:33, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
- JHunter's edit to spell it out on the first occurrence and then use the symbol in subsequent instances is pretty satisfactory. I think it maximizes readability for the general public. Thanks! --72.205.253.49 (talk) 05:30, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
Amalgam Causes Genetic Behavior Defects in Boys: Study
"Modification of neurobehavioral effects of mercury by a genetic polymorphism of coproporphyrinogen oxidase in children"
"Five hundred seven children, 8–12 years of age at baseline, participated in a clinical trial to evaluate the neurobehavioral effects of Hg fromdental amalgam tooth fillings in children" http://iaomt.guiadmin.com/wp-content/uploads/Woods-JS-et-al-2012-Modification-neurobehavioral-effects-of-mercury-by-CPOX4-in-children_Neurotox-Teratology.pdf
"Amalgam Causes Genetic Behavior Defects in Boys: Study" http://www.mddionline.com/article/amalgam-causes-genetic-behavior-defects-boys-study --84.1.198.213 (talk) 16:41, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
Lipophilicity/Partition Coefficient Issue And mechanism for how Amalgam-level mercury exposure can damage Specific Cognitive Abilities
The archives to this article are quite substantial, reflecting (for instance) the complexities of determining whether low levels of mercury leeching (of the order of “from 1-3 micrograms (µg) per day (FDA) up to 27 µg/day (Patterson)” according to the article) are capable of interfering and/or damaging the complex operation of neurons (brain-cells). Some of the following comments seem worthy:
1) The article DOES explain how high levels of mercury can have a negative effect on human health BUT DOES NOT indicate a biochemical mechanism for how Mercury amalgam leeching into the human body can have negative effects. In particular, there is the work of a team at the University of Calgary which has indicated that (purportedly) even the low concentrations of mercury found in amalgam can interfere with the microtublin of neurons in a particular way. Has anyone done a study to determine whether the “low-level” structural interference in neuronal mechanisms that occur when microtubulin formation/structure is damaged by very-low-level mercury presence does, indeed, have a predictable effect upon cognitive functions. (If you could predict which specific cognitive functions would be most negatively affected by very-low-level mercury presence, then this would make it easier to demonstrate epidemiologically that mercury amalgam does have negative cognitive effects and those sub-populations with mercury amalgam fillings ought to perform worse than the “control population” of non-mercury filling patients). Of course, this ignores confounding factors like whether people come from inner city areas which are likely to have more pollutants and a long history of industrial contamination, etc... which might affect cognitive abilities in other ways, social stratification is also another possible confounding statistic in the case of testing those from inner-city areas.
2) In the case of methylmercury, the route to bioaccumulation seems to be something which is widely recognised. However, what of elemental mercury (which, presumably, is the type most likely to leech from fillings?). In particular, does elemental mercury have a greater or lower partition coefficient (or, to use the modern terms, "partition constant", "partition ratio", or "distribution ratio") when considering lipid acids versus water (and also considering any relatively immiscible lipids acids). I mention this because, if Mercury does have a great lipophilicity, or is hydrophobic in the form of aggregated clusters which might be likely to leech from Human teeth, then this ought to mean that certain parts of the nervous system and brain are more vulnerable to interference due to mercury accumulation than are others (this is for two reasons : one functional, that mercury is likely to interfere with certain parts of the brain more due to the fact that it interferes in a specific function of the neurons , and the other locational, that the mercury is likely to accumulate, due to lipophilicity reasons, in certain parts of the brain which are constituted predominantly from those types of lipids and fatty acids – it occurs to me that the ease with which Mercury might transfer from one part of the brain/nervous system could be considered an additional “transportability” factor, but I will ignore this).
3) Related to the above, does this mean that the pre-frontal cortex is more or less likely than the hippocampus to be affected by Mercury?
4) The article mentions NOWHERE, the work of the University of Calgary team, which I feel to be a shame which adds to the overall weaknesses of the article, not enough in the way of quantitative indication of how low levels of mercury can have a large effect on cognition AND the lack of indication (though not in the literature) of biochemical mechanisms that can explain how such low levels of mercury (as realistically attainable via amalgam filling presence)can have a real effect on the brain.
5) Unrelated to above, fossil fuel power stations (according to some sources) increase mercury exposure in the general population as such fuels contain (at least trace) levels of mercury compounds which are definitely vapour into the atmosphere. I hope someone might be able to respond to some of my points.
AnInformedDude (talk) 03:54, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
Forked content - Dental amalgam controversy
There is an article for Dental amalgam controversy, then Amalgam (dentistry) and Mercury poisoning.
Wikipedia tries not to repeat the development of content. Persons wishes to write about the dental amalgam controversy should do so at the article for that, and not at the articles for amalgam or mercury poisoning. Those articles should link to the "dental amalgam controversy" article, so that discussion can be centralized. I am looking at these articles now and intend to merge all content from amalgam and mercury poisoning to the controversy article, then make sections in each of those articles based on the lede of the controversy article.
My intent is to direct people to the controversy article if they want to read about the controversy. Please discuss my doing this only at Talk:Dental_amalgam_controversy, not on the talk pages of the other articles, to the extent that it is reasonable to have this conversation in one place. Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:58, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
- I merged content from amalgam and mercury poisoning to here. This is all the content, and in those articles, I replaced the section on "Dental amalgam toxicity" with a portion of the lede here and a link to this article. I did this only because the content was being independently developed in multiple places. Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:27, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
Rearranged article
I often edit health articles. WikiProject Medicine, the community of editors which collaborate to develop health content, recommends that health articles comply with the order of sections in the medical manual of style. I tried to apply that guideline, MEDMOS, to this article by rearranging all the sections here and making some placeholder sections for headings which would typically exist in a disease article. I do not think I deleted any existing content or added anything substantial. My intent was only to make this match the order of other health articles. Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:32, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
Name change to "Dental amalgam toxicity"
This article was once called "Dental amalgam discussion", and later "Dental amalgam controversy", and I have just named it "Dental amalgam toxicity". It seemed to me the article was not about any discussion or controversy, but was instead talking about the purported toxicity of dental amalgam. If anyone questions this name change then it could be changed again, or we could seek other comment. Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:38, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
- New title immediately suggests that there is an issue of toxicity... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.29.83.252 (talk) 21:19, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
- That is not my intent. I wanted a neutral title. Do you like the previous name? Blue Rasberry (talk) 21:26, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
- The vast majority, mainstream opinion is that amalgam is entirely safe to use. It is routinely used in primary care all around the world. So to reflect the real world situation, I would suggest a title which implies that this is fringe. Not happy with old or new, but have no other suggestions right now. 188.29.83.252 (talk) 22:17, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
- 188.29.83.252 I am unclear what is best. I did not like the controversy title because I did not see how the article's content constituted a discussion of a controversy. A part of the article which seems to not be a controversy is the extent to which dental amalgams lead to environmental contamination. I am not clear if this is purported to have health implications, but this part of the article at least seems to not be challenged. I took the name "toxicity" because I wanted to frame this as a medical concern and apply WP:MEDMOS to name the section headings and give an outline to the article. I had the idea that if this were a controversy article then it would be less appropriate to frame it like a medical article.
- I am not sure that calling the article "dental amalgam controversy" expresses the view that worry about "dental amalgam controversy" is the fringe perspective. I also think a title which implies that this view is fringe would be best. What do you think of any of these?
- Effects of mercury from dental amalgam
- Safety of dental amalgam
- Criticism of the use of dental amalgam
- Effects of dental amalgam
- Concerns about dental amalgam
- I am not sure what the title should be. I have not reviewed the sources here, either. Do you have more thoughts? Blue Rasberry (talk) 01:17, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
- The vast majority, mainstream opinion is that amalgam is entirely safe to use. It is routinely used in primary care all around the world. So to reflect the real world situation, I would suggest a title which implies that this is fringe. Not happy with old or new, but have no other suggestions right now. 188.29.83.252 (talk) 22:17, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
- That is not my intent. I wanted a neutral title. Do you like the previous name? Blue Rasberry (talk) 21:26, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
I don't much like "controversy" in WP section or article titles, but here the (let's call it) issue is really the only subject of the article. From the list above, I'd go for "Safety of dental amalgam". Toxicity seems rather to prejudge, although I know it doesn't. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 17:19, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
Yes agree "safety of dental amalgam" is probably most neutral. Describes content of article but does not take sides. 94.196.236.61 (talk) 17:23, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
- More feedback is at the WikiProject Medicine talk page. There are a range of opinions there. Let me wait a bit more. Blue Rasberry (talk) 17:18, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
- Per discussion at WikiProject Medicine, I think that the name "Dental amalgam controversy" would be most in line with the precedent set by other articles and the least objectionable title. The name I used, "dental amalgam toxicity", has some problems, and should not remain. In my opinion, Safety of dental amalgam would be a good title and better than "dental amalgam toxicity", but I do not want to be the one to close this and perform the move. Right now I just want to confirm that the current title of "Dental amalgam toxicity" is not desirable. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:18, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
- Were we moving it back to controversy, then? I agree that the current title is prejudicial (as per my comments in the WT:MED discussion). Yobol (talk) 04:23, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
- Yobol There is consensus that moving this to "Dental amalgam controversy" would be an improvement as compared to its current title, "Dental amalgam toxicity". I just requested the move. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:22, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
- Were we moving it back to controversy, then? I agree that the current title is prejudicial (as per my comments in the WT:MED discussion). Yobol (talk) 04:23, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
- Per discussion at WikiProject Medicine, I think that the name "Dental amalgam controversy" would be most in line with the precedent set by other articles and the least objectionable title. The name I used, "dental amalgam toxicity", has some problems, and should not remain. In my opinion, Safety of dental amalgam would be a good title and better than "dental amalgam toxicity", but I do not want to be the one to close this and perform the move. Right now I just want to confirm that the current title of "Dental amalgam toxicity" is not desirable. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:18, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
Statements from medical societies
Hello. I work for Consumer Reports, an organization which does health communication. In my opinion, Consumer Reports gets its information from conservative sources which are supposed to be noncontroversial.
I just rearranged this article in lots of ways as described above. When I was doing this I tried to avoid changing existing content, and feel that I was doing general cleanup which should not be controversial.
After the cleanup, I added content to the article relating to my work at my organization. Here is that content repeated:
The American College of Medical Toxicology and the American Academy of Clinical Toxicology say that research confirms that mercury from amalgams does not cause illness because the amount of mercury that they release is not enough to cause a health problem.[1] In response to some people wanting their existing amalgam removed for fear of mercury poisoning, these societies advise that the removal of filling is likely to cause a greater exposure to mercury than leaving the fillings in place.[1] These societies warn that removal of amalgam fillings, in addition to being unnecessary health care and likely to cause more mercury exposure than leaving them in place, is expensive.[1]
- ^ a b c American College of Medical Toxicology; American Academy of Clinical Toxicology (February 2013), "Five Things Physicians and Patients Should Question", Choosing Wisely: an initiative of the ABIM Foundation, American College of Medical Toxicology and American Academy of Clinical Toxicology, retrieved 5 December 2013
Normally when I add health information to Wikipedia articles I just say the health practice. In this case, I qualified the information saying that it came from particular health organizations, just because that is what has already been happening in this article and because I did not want to enter or try to resolve any existing controversy. If anyone has questions please ask me. I do this as part of a project to develop health information on Wikipedia which I have described at WP:Choosing Wisely. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:54, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
Revisions of 11/2
Yobol has been massively deleting the work of other users. S/he just deletes entire sections rather than improving or discussing. I made additions to this article, which s/he has *repeatedly* deleted wtih no discussion. Are his/her other edits similarly reckless?
Is this practice of removing all non-secondary sources sanctioned by MEDRS? Just because it is not covered in a secondary source does not make the data any less credible, factual, or pertinent. These are the additions I made which Yobol deleted:
- The reference advisory limits for mercury toxicity in Canada. These are advisory limits which are used to regulate the safety of dental amalgam.
- Data from the most recent Canadian Health Survey. (This is a massive health survey the goverment of Canada does periodically.) In the last survey, one of the things they collected data on was the number of amalgam fillings each person had. They also collected body samples and measured mercury concentration in urine. They found that 80% of people had a daily dose of Hg that exceeding the recommended dose limit.
- Statements of the International Academy of Oral Medicine and Toxicology. That is an association of dental professionals focused on the exact topic of this article. Removed my summary of their work, positions, and main findings.
Other things (not my work) s/he has removed all information about: -- amalgam containing possible endocrine disrupters, -- factors in absorption of mercury from amalgam (bruxism, gum chewing) -- research on monkeys showing accumulation in organs
I don't mind when others find a more succint or pertinent way of stating the information. But this behavior of wholesale removing relevant information is disrespectful of the time, work, and perspective of other users. As a contributor to Wikipedia, I am very tired of this kind of behaviour. I have no agenda in this article. I came to it while looking for information about mercury toxicity. I tried to contribute what I found to be relevant & credible information. Ajobin (talk) 19:18, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
- All health related information on Wikipedia needs to conform to WP:MEDRS, which states that primary sources should generally NOT be used for health related information. If you want to add information to this article, it needs to be sourced to MEDRS compliant sources. I note that the IAOMT is a fringe advocacy group formed specifically to push an anti-amalgam view, and is not the type of independent source we should be using in this article. Yobol (talk) 23:09, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
- Points 1 and 2 do not seem to come under MEDRS. 1 seems to be a legal regulation, and 2 seems to be an environmental survey that might not be connected to any statement about personal health. I agree with Yobol about the deletion of the 3rd point, which is the fringe society. This is not a mainstream organization doing science, but seems to be a political activist group acting outside of science and medicine.
- I am not seeing information about endocrine disruptors but most likely that should be in the mercury poisoning article and not here, and I am not sure about monkey amalgam. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:32, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
- The IAOMT is not a political activist group. It is a group of professional dentists who do research and advocacy about amalgam toxicity. They study the facts and latest research and issue summaries and reports on their findings. You just don't agree with them. Science is a process that a community engages in. The concensus of science right now is that amalgam is safe for teeth fillings. That doesn't mean that there aren't professionals and scientists who take a different opinion and have evidence for their opinion. Instead of characterizing the opposing opinion appropriately, you are just deleting them from the overview of professional organization in this article. You are censoring from the article even though they are a highly relevant professional group.
- The Canadian report is not an environmental survey. It is a public health survey and in the last one it collected data to precisely address this issue. Again you would rather censor it that find an appropriate characterization for it? Ajobin (talk) 00:58, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
- Please respond about this. Yobol changed the information about Canada so that it simply says "Amalgam use is legal in Canada." However Canada has a reference intake level for mercury. In their last massive public health survey they specifically studied the relationship between number of fillings and mercury levels. They did this precisely because they were concerned about this issue. And they did find a relationship. Characterize it however you see fit, but deleting all reference to it is plainly biased. Likewise with deleting the principal group of dentists who research amalgam & advocate against it from the list of relevant organizations on this subject. Ajobin (talk) 00:10, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
- The Canadian Health Measures Survey mercury & amalgam study: G. Mark Richardson, Mercury Exposure and Risks from Dental Amalgam in Canada: The Canadian Health Measures Survey 2007–2009, Hum. Ecol. Risk Assess., 20/2 (2014) 433-447. DOI: 10.1080/10807039.2012.743433
- Data was collected on "the concentration of Hg in urine of survey participants. These data were employed to determine Hg exposures in the Canadian population. Also determined was the number of amalgam-restored tooth surfaces that would not result in exposure exceeding the dose associated with Canada's reference exposure level (REL) for Hg0. ... Of Canadians with dental amalgam restorations, 80.4% experience a daily dose of Hg that exceeds the Canadian REL-associated dose. The number of amalgam surfaces that will not result in exceeding the REL-associated dose varied from two amalgam surfaces (children, both sexes) to seven surfaces (adult males)." Ajobin (talk) 11:24, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
- Ajobin Regardless of what IAOMT is, they are not publishing in per-reviewed journals. Per WP:MEDRS, when health claims are made in Wikipedia articles, those claims must have a connection to peer review. You may say that "Science is a process that a community engages in", but Wikipedia for a long time has had an extreme and unfair bias against all science outside the peer review process. Because of that bias, the citations to that organization's information seem outside the scope of what Wikipedia can present since their own self-published materials are all that was cited.
- "...Canada has a reference intake level for mercury." may be true also, but per WP:PRIMARY Wikipedia tries to avoid publishing reference numbers because their significance is not immediately obvious to a layman. In certain unusual cases it is acceptable to publish some numbers, but this rarely happens in medicine. The most discussed case is medical dosing; this is prohibited. From that consensus, giving numbers about toxicology doses is also prohibited, because typical people cannot see a number and understand the extent to which it is good or bad.
- Wikipedia rarely covers primary research. This is why information about a urine study is not permissible in Wikipedia. More information on that is in WP:MEDRS.
- You say that people here do not agree with the IAOMT. I am more of a librarian than anything else, and most people here are also. I neither know nor care what this or any other group says; I mostly just look at what they have published and where. Without reading any of these papers, I can see by the titles and publishing that these sources do not meet WP:MEDRS. Most of Wikipedia is just library cataloging, because the authors of books and papers typically label their work to note whether it should be cited by general information resources like Wikipedia. When the authors of papers themselves want their papers called as primary research, then of course Wikipedians agree and say that those papers cannot be used here. Since the sources you present seem to be labeled as primary research, that is why I dismiss them without considering them.
- I encourage you to look for secondary sources. PubMed gets practically every paper from every researcher in the world, and it is free. Try looking there, perhaps with this search I started. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:16, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
- He didn't just delete their publication. He deleted them from the list of professional "Organizations" which have position statements on this issue. He removed their publication and he removed this:
The IAOMT educates dentists on safely handling and disposing of mercury-laden amalgam fillings, and developed safe forms of effective dental treatment in many areas, including periodontics and preventing oral disease. The IAOMT has researched and reported on the danger of mercury in amalgam fillings to the health and safety of patients, dental workers, and the environment.[1]
- He didn't just delete their publication. He deleted them from the list of professional "Organizations" which have position statements on this issue. He removed their publication and he removed this:
- I don't mind if he characterizes them as a lesser group. He is welcome to point out that their views are not mainstream. I think that is already clear from the ADA position, but go ahead and point it out. Listing them as an organization working on this question does not imply they are on par with the FDA. It just shows that there are other views among professional dentists, which is the truth. I have had a few dentists who suggested they could remove the amalgam from my mouth. I didn't. It doesn't concern me. Doesn't mean that the existences of other views should be censored.
- Re. the Canadian study: I now understand your concern with primary sources. I understand that in order for a study to be included we cannot link to the original study, but must instead find some other meta-study discussing it. However, I do not understand why it is inadmissible to point out that Canada has a reference advisory limit for mercury. Ajobin (talk) 01:45, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
- The IAOMT is an advocacy group, formed specifically as an anti-amalgam group. The type of WP:MEDRS compliant source would be a body of medical professionals that would impartially analyze the data and come to an independent conclusion; this is clearly not the case with the IAOMT. Using them would be akin to using a group of doctors who are also HIV denialist as a reliable source for whether or not HIV causes AIDS. Yobol (talk) 04:43, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
- Ajobin You might say "Canada has a reference limit for mercury", or you might say "Various countries have reference advisory limits for mercury", but you cannot list the actual advisory limit because an odd number has no meaning except to a handful of people with very specific training. When numbers are presented, they should immediately mean something without other context. When numbers are listed, readers are pressured to draw a conclusions, but in this case people cannot understand the number without further research.
- The reason why IAOMT cannot be cited is because they do not interact with other scientists or dentists. In conventional science, people publish in journals that everyone shares and in which many people can comment. IAOMT seems to only publish in their own website, and not in any public place, and Wikipedia almost always omits the views of these kinds of groups unless they already have a lot of respect from publishing in third party sources on other occasions. Yes, as you say, this is censorship of views outside of mainstream science. Wikipedia is never the first publication to acknowledge a group's legitimacy; someone else has to review their ideas first and comment on them. The content that you are adding is not the problem. The problem is that the citation is to a self-published work, rather than someone else's review of this information. Is that more clear? Please say if it is not, because I am happy to talk more. I could be wrong about something here. Blue Rasberry (talk) 12:55, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
- Bluerasberry Re. the Canadian advisory limit: The deleted text did not say a number. It said: "Amalgam use is legal in Canada, but the government has a reference exposure level (REL) for mercury guideline which it uses to study risk." Ajobin (talk) 17:18, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
- Ajobin Sorry for the confusion. Yes, that kind of information seems appropriate for inclusion. Somehow I lost track of the conversation focus. Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:30, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
- I also don't see any sourcing provided in this discussion that would indicate the views of this advocacy group are particularly notable. What authoritative independent source demonstrates their views are noteworthy and influential? Without that, it was correct to remove mention from the article per WP:WEIGHT.
Zad68
16:00, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
- Re the IAOMT: I am not asking you to take them as a reliable source. They are a group of dentists opposed to the use of mercury fillings, and therefore should be included in the list of professional organizations who have positions on the subject. Characterize their opposition and their work however you see fit to avoid undue weight, but deleting them is to pretend that their is no professional opposition, when there is. That is a strange thing to say that they don't interact with other dentists given that it is part of their mission to educate dentists about the risks of mercury. Ajobin (talk) 17:18, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
- Please provide an authoritative, independent reliable source that demonstrates this group is noteworthy and we can include it. We cannot possibly open the door to inclusion of position statements of every advocacy group regarding any topic. There has to be some recognition by an authoritative body independent of the organization that the group is noteworthy.
Zad68
17:33, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
- Why is their mission statement not adequate for demonstrating the work that they are involved in? The mission statement that was deleted says they have 700 members and are an approved continuing education provider for dentists. It also says they have been expert witnesses before Congress, FDA, state legislatures, Health Canada, and other government bodies. They have another page of press releases showing that this is the work that they do. What policy says that additional proof is required to prove that this organization exists and does the work that it says it does? If I am forced to then I suppose I will contact them, point them to the article, and see if they can point to any proof about their work. Perhaps I will do that in any case. The standards you are imposing here simply to point out that there is professional dissent on this issue are ludicrous. You are creating a biased article by deleting all evidence of opposition. If there is some policy saying additional proof is required, then why not just add a citation needed flag, or put it up for discussion, rather than deleting all evidence of professional opposition? It does not improve the neutrality of the article to only show one side of the debate. Ajobin (talk) 19:03, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
- Their mission statement is not adequate because they published it themselves, and they rely on the credibility that they assert about themselves. No one is doubting that the organization believes what it publishes in its own press releases. What is in question is that people outside this organization respect these statements. Contacting this organization for their opinion will not address the problem. The most common and easiest way to get a perspective into Wikipedia is to find a third-party (meaning not self-published) critique of the idea in a medical journal. If you cite a source which meets WP:MEDRS then that gets the information in Wikipedia. If you cannot find a MEDRS source, then find the best source you have that is not published by the organization and share that. You said that it was strange when I said this organization seems to not interact with other dentists; show something published by dentists from outside this organization but which is about this organization. See WP:SPS for the general policy on self-published sources. Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:30, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
- Again, I am not trying to establish the credibility of anything they are saying. I am trying to include them as a group which is very active on this issue. Likewise, I would not be contacting them for their opinion, but for independent proof that they do work in the areas they say they do. The fact that they are a group of 700 dentists working on this issue and opposed to amalgam is in itself significant to this article. Again, the statement in question is not one of scientific opinion or findings. It simply describes their work.
The IAOMT educates dentists on safely handling and disposing of mercury-laden amalgam fillings, and developed safe forms of effective dental treatment in many areas, including periodontics and preventing oral disease. The IAOMT has researched and reported on the danger of mercury in amalgam fillings to the health and safety of patients, dental workers, and the environment.
- You are welcome to change the characterization from "the danger" to something else if you find that to be too strong. Ajobin (talk) 20:41, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
- Ajobin, sorry, but you're still not connecting to the point we're making. Basically there are two things you need: 1) A reliable source that supports the proposed content, and 2) An independent secondary source that demonstrates the topic is noteworthy enough for inclusion (i.e. meets the Wikipedia policy regarding WP:WEIGHT). You keep hitting on 1), but the objections are regarding 2). Please address 2).
Zad68
21:04, 26 November 2014 (UTC) - This study is not MEDRS and this group is not MEDRS. You can search pubmed to find better sources. QuackGuru (talk) 21:21, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
- I am not trying to prove any medical facts or anything that can be found in Pubmed. I am only trying to show that there is a group of dental professionals who are active in the dental amalgam controversy. I don't see why I need an outside source to attest to their mission? What outside source could possibly attest to size of their membership? I suppose they themselves might be able to point me to an independent source that can attest to the classes they offer or the advocacy work they do. I looked at their website and it seems they are engaged in a lawsuit against the FDA. So I an probably find proof of that. But I really don't see why I should need independent proof for such basic things as that they exist, have a mission in this area, and have a substantial membership of dentists. Anyway, if you insist then I will contact them to request proof of these things. Ajobin (talk) 00:02, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
- If you searched pubmed you may find a lot more than you think. This is not about proof. This is about sourcing. What section do you want to expand and what do you want to generally include? QuackGuru (talk) 00:38, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
- I don't want to expand anything. I just want to restore what was deleted, or some approximation of it. Mainly, I want to see it more fairly represent who is involved in the controversy, why, and how they are involved. I understand that the ADA views are are better supported and therefore can have more said about them. I am not looking for parity, just due weight. The lack of secondary sources may prevent certain findings from making it into the article but it shouldn't prevent the expression of the fact that there are concerns from numerous professionals who disagree with the professional/scientific concensus that amalgam is safe. This tendancy to enforce MEDRS without making any effort to add citations so that both sides can be appropriately characterized leads to bias. I am going on holiday forthwith. Ajobin (talk) 02:24, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
- If you searched pubmed you may find a lot more than you think. This is not about proof. This is about sourcing. What section do you want to expand and what do you want to generally include? QuackGuru (talk) 00:38, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
- I am not trying to prove any medical facts or anything that can be found in Pubmed. I am only trying to show that there is a group of dental professionals who are active in the dental amalgam controversy. I don't see why I need an outside source to attest to their mission? What outside source could possibly attest to size of their membership? I suppose they themselves might be able to point me to an independent source that can attest to the classes they offer or the advocacy work they do. I looked at their website and it seems they are engaged in a lawsuit against the FDA. So I an probably find proof of that. But I really don't see why I should need independent proof for such basic things as that they exist, have a mission in this area, and have a substantial membership of dentists. Anyway, if you insist then I will contact them to request proof of these things. Ajobin (talk) 00:02, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
- Ajobin, sorry, but you're still not connecting to the point we're making. Basically there are two things you need: 1) A reliable source that supports the proposed content, and 2) An independent secondary source that demonstrates the topic is noteworthy enough for inclusion (i.e. meets the Wikipedia policy regarding WP:WEIGHT). You keep hitting on 1), but the objections are regarding 2). Please address 2).
- Again, I am not trying to establish the credibility of anything they are saying. I am trying to include them as a group which is very active on this issue. Likewise, I would not be contacting them for their opinion, but for independent proof that they do work in the areas they say they do. The fact that they are a group of 700 dentists working on this issue and opposed to amalgam is in itself significant to this article. Again, the statement in question is not one of scientific opinion or findings. It simply describes their work.
- Their mission statement is not adequate because they published it themselves, and they rely on the credibility that they assert about themselves. No one is doubting that the organization believes what it publishes in its own press releases. What is in question is that people outside this organization respect these statements. Contacting this organization for their opinion will not address the problem. The most common and easiest way to get a perspective into Wikipedia is to find a third-party (meaning not self-published) critique of the idea in a medical journal. If you cite a source which meets WP:MEDRS then that gets the information in Wikipedia. If you cannot find a MEDRS source, then find the best source you have that is not published by the organization and share that. You said that it was strange when I said this organization seems to not interact with other dentists; show something published by dentists from outside this organization but which is about this organization. See WP:SPS for the general policy on self-published sources. Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:30, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
- Please provide an authoritative, independent reliable source that demonstrates this group is noteworthy and we can include it. We cannot possibly open the door to inclusion of position statements of every advocacy group regarding any topic. There has to be some recognition by an authoritative body independent of the organization that the group is noteworthy.
Let's not take WP policies to the letter here. The IAOMT has a rather professional website which clearly shows this is not a few renegade dentists. The amount of involved professors in their science advisory board alone establishes its notability en credibility. They should at least be briefly mentioned. And since this article is about toxicity of a substance, any information about limits should be welcomed. I'd like to remind everyone here that in the right amounts, water is toxic (causing hyponatriemia if you want to look it up). So when someone tries to add this information, please don't do a discouraging delete, but expand and improve upon it. PizzaMan (♨♨) 15:39, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
- If they're truly an influential, noteworthy organization it should be easy to provide independent reliable secondary sources saying so. This isn't "to the letter", this is the spirit.
Zad68
20:32, 30 November 2014 (UTC)- Agreed. The position that we should ignore our policies and guidelines because the website looks "rather professional" is remarkably unconvincing. (Not to mention it actually does not look professional at all...) Yobol (talk) 20:36, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
- You could just mark the information as in need of a better citation. Instead you are creating an article about controvery that ignores one side of the debate. At minimum, you could have moved it to the talk page for discussion, to preserve some hope of a balanced article. I do not agree that Wikipedia is meant to function like this. I realize this is a small issue and can be fixed when better sources can be found. I will contact the organization in question for pointers. However, this also matters to me as as an editor and a donor here. I would like an official judgment on this. Is the correct way to do this to file a dispute? Ajobin (talk) 22:08, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
- I agree that this is not a "major medical or scientific organization" and is therefore not a reliable source per WP:MEDRS. Ajobin you have been asked several times to provide some independent, reliable source that would convince folks that IAOMT is a even a significant minority opinion and you have provided nothing. There is no forum in Wikipedia where you are going to get any traction without that. We all need some more evidence and the burden is on you to provide it. Per policy and guideline, decisions about things like this are driven by sources, not by personal preferences. Jytdog (talk) 22:35, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
- I responded to your point. As I said, I will contact them and ask for pointers about where their work has been documented. Unfortunately, the only way you can prove the size of most groups is by their own statements.
- Saying that there is an opposed group of professionals or that Canada has a reference limit for mercury are not scientific statements -- noone is endangered by a mistake here. It would be more constructive to just flag it as needing a better reference. Barring that, moving the information to the talk page at least preserves the hope of balance and respect for other editors work. Do you think that this way of doing things makes Wikipedia a better place for editors and readers? I think it is creates more problems than it solves. There is a small chance it is removing a potential inaccuracy and a certainty that it is creating bias by deleting one point of view in a controversy and all documentation for it. It is also disrespectful of the work of others to just delete it with no discussion. Ajobin (talk) 22:33, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
- No discussion?? This is HUGE SECTION OF DISCUSSION. Three things. 1) if you want to change Wikipedia's sourcing guidelines, have at it. But this is not the place for that (try WT:MEDRS). 2) just for kicks, try finding sources that discuss the importance of the American Dental Association. You will have no problem. (because they actually are mainstream and important) 3) At this point you are WP:IDHT. I recommend WP:SHUN. Ajobin is just trolling at this point. done here. Jytdog (talk) 23:19, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
Sorry Ajobin but you're still not connecting to our points and I'm losing faith that you will/can/want to. At this point I'm not sure further Talk page discussion will be productive, I'll simply watch the article for edits.
Zad68
05:07, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
- I agree that this is not a "major medical or scientific organization" and is therefore not a reliable source per WP:MEDRS. Ajobin you have been asked several times to provide some independent, reliable source that would convince folks that IAOMT is a even a significant minority opinion and you have provided nothing. There is no forum in Wikipedia where you are going to get any traction without that. We all need some more evidence and the burden is on you to provide it. Per policy and guideline, decisions about things like this are driven by sources, not by personal preferences. Jytdog (talk) 22:35, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
- You could just mark the information as in need of a better citation. Instead you are creating an article about controvery that ignores one side of the debate. At minimum, you could have moved it to the talk page for discussion, to preserve some hope of a balanced article. I do not agree that Wikipedia is meant to function like this. I realize this is a small issue and can be fixed when better sources can be found. I will contact the organization in question for pointers. However, this also matters to me as as an editor and a donor here. I would like an official judgment on this. Is the correct way to do this to file a dispute? Ajobin (talk) 22:08, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
- Agreed. The position that we should ignore our policies and guidelines because the website looks "rather professional" is remarkably unconvincing. (Not to mention it actually does not look professional at all...) Yobol (talk) 20:36, 30 November 2014 (UTC)