The amalgam dilemma
Recently, the European Commission announced a full export ban on elementary mercury by 2011. Only days later, and with no obvious connection to the European initiative, the United States followed with their own restriction, to be achieved by the year 2013. Though anti-mercury groups welcomed these decisions as a much-needed step to take the toxin off the market, the bans—surprisingly—excluded the mercury widely used in amalgam fillings.
There has been much discussion on the health risks of amalgam in the last century. But let’s face it, this is no longer only about health concerns. It is also about the environmental footprint that the material is leaving on our world. Did you know that in Sweden mercury waste from used amalgam fillings and other sources has the same classification as nuclear waste? Or, that although it is being safely stored in salt mines, it still seeps into the ground and is expected to reach groundwater in approx. 100–150 years? Then, consider the tons of mercury that are released into the air, through burning the deceased with their dental fillings in crematoria.
Besides fossil fuels, amalgam fillings are the main source of mercury waste globally. Sure, its use is constantly decreasing, and it is being replaced by alternatives, like composites. In the developing world, however, it is often the only affordable choice for treating oral decay. Therefore, even if we stop using amalgam here in the West, the problems resulting from mercury waste will still affect people in large parts of Asia, Africa, and Latin America.
The only solution to this problem is to educate dentists in these parts of the world about the effects of mercury released into the environment. It is also up to national dental associations to pressure governments to make tools, like separators mandatory, or to reform their health care systems, to help people gain access to safer fillings. If we do not care, our children will certainly suffer the consequences.
