![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
I came to this article to find out how this stuff "works." I'm inferring from the text (and it's not at all obvious if true) that amalgam has a very low melting point, and it's heated before it's applied, and sets up by cooling? If so what is the melting point, and what temp is it held at when it's prepared for use? None of this basic stuff is in the article. Could somebody (a dentist?) walk us through what you do when you grab a container of amalgam and fill a tooth with it? 68.42.98.97 ( talk) 14:58, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
I think "Dental Amalgam" should have its own page or a subsection on a more general "Amalgam" page. This page is ONLY about dental amalgam ... but many mining, metallurgy, and chemistry pages link here, apparently out of context. The disambig link at the top of the page is not useful as the linked section does not have any chemical or mineral expositions of amalgamation. Amalgamation has been used in metal refining since the 1500s, as a dental filling only since 1826 ... why no mention of the chemistry of amalgamation, metals which form amalgams, historical importance in mining, etc.? There sure is a lot of petty detail about the dental application. New Providence ( talk) 04:30, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
What a deceitful pile of corporate propaganda filth. Brings disgrace and discredit on wikipedia. As for the supposed lack of evidence, See Mats Hanson "Effects of amalgam removal on health" for a start. Also Wojcik, Godfrey, Christie & Haley 2006. -Robin P Clarke
(I've now put some little changes to counter that misleading.)-rpc
I am totally against splitting this article because once we split up this article, then there will be stubs. It's not propaganda at all becuase there are some health effects on mercury you know. Joe9320 ( talk) 06:53, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
The last paragraph needs NPOVing, but I'm not the person to do it. Who exactly claims amalgam is poisoning patients, who advises the removal of all fillings. Do the dentists have any say in the matter? theresa knott 21:09, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Darrien we've got off to a bad start. That's my fault, I shouldn't have issued an order to "watch your tone"straight off. you'd think by now I'd have learned not how to get peoples back's up in the opening sentence. Can we start again? theresa knott 08:51, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)
[my older and now solved concerns were here, except for the monkey study mention transfered below]
Earlier you stated "I clarified mercury's toxicity (which is mild)".
Montrealer 17:02, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)
-Montrealer (somehow I got logged off during edit??)
The current entry for "Amalgam" was informative, but had four limitations: (a) accuracy: in certain places it was factually inaccurate; (b) language: there remained some basic linguistic mistakes; (c) incompleteness: there were certain key areas of information which had not been included yet; (d) links: only two links were provided for what is a broad subject with many excellent website resources in existence.
As this is my area of specialist research, and I have a library of books, papers, articles, studies and clippings on it, and have been writing about it for years, and am one of the leading experts in this field in Ireland and Britain, I decided to try and and address these four issues all at once.
Although I gave a lot of thought to it, and spent many days putting together carefully re-edited or new paragraphs where appropriate, I found that all of my changes were immediately reverted. This reversion was made completely indiscriminately, since even my basic corrections of a few spelling and grammatical errors had been reversed to their previous linguistically inaccurate versions. This therefore leads me to conclude that the reversion took place more or less automatically, without any particular attention being given to the specific proposed changes and additions individually.
In other words, this is against the community spirit of Wikipedia. I still hope that we can work together to improve this "Amalgam" entry, and so I have two suggestions:
(i) I could reinstate the changes I proposed all at once, but this time one by one, in small degrees. In this way, each one could be considered in its own right, rather than multitudinous changes being reverted all at once indiscriminately;
and/or (ii) If the person who reverted the entry would like to enter discussion with me with regard not to my entire proposed changes as a whole, but with regard to individual aspects of the changes I proposed, then perhaps we can try to come to some compromises, and together work to improve this entry. Likewise, others could join in the discussion if they wish.
My intention would be that in both the discussion and in the entry itself there would be an academic attempt to come as far as possible to objective statements, rather than statements of opinion.
My logic is that this is very clearly a controversial topic (just see the history and discussion pages!) and, correspondingly, there exist two (or more) very different schools of thought on the matter. Since both of these camps have appeared before the U.S. House of Representatives (April 2002) to discuss the issue, as well as before courts of law in many protracted lawsuits, in neither case with any clear conclusion one way or the other yet, then in an objective knowledge base like an encyclopedia we, as a result, should do our best likewise to reflect both sides of the conflict, if we have any pretension to objectivity.
In other words, from a scientific perspective, the matter is not decided, since there is no conclusive proof of either safety or danger from amalgam which has been submitted either in scientific, legal or government circles. Correspondingly, it is our duty to report on both sides in an objective fashion, i.e. with phrases such as "Some dentists argue. . . while others claim. . . " or "Some studies have shown. . . while others have suggested. . . " or "Dental associations in some countries (e.g. x, y and z) maintain. . . while those in some countries (e.g. p, q and r) have stated. . .. " etc. Some paragraphs of the current entry do not currently report on both sides in this objective fashion, but instead reflect the opinions of one side only.
It is not that I wish any parts of the entry to be changed to an opposite opinion. I would much rather that opinions were left out (including my own, which I have already done my best to put aside for the sake of academic reporting), and that instead these opinions were given equal mention as two sides of what is an ongoing scientific, political and legal debate at large in dozens of countries, still without conclusive resolution.
P.S. I am Simon K - but my proposed changes appeared under "212.2.175.179". I don't know how this happened, unless my log-in session had accidentally expired, since I would have liked it to appear under my username "Simon K". Simon K 16:11, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I was unable to look at these pages for a long time, but returning now to Wikipedia I am very pleased at the solution, which strikes me as an admirable one, to have created two pages. Thank you for finding this good resolution to the dilemma. The new ‘dental amalgam controversy’ page was a good idea, and it seems to me to be a good compromise/balance, describing both sides of this controversial topic in a fairly objective manner, combining contributions from different people. Simon K 17:00, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
There is no controversy, there is discussion about the toxicity and the impact of such on the body. Psilocin 23:42, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
One of the interesting things about amalgams is that they are plastic when made, but quickly harden. What's going on in terms of chemistry/physics? Seems like it would be a good addition to this article.
There is no controversy, there is discussion about the toxicity and the impact of such on the body.
Psilocin
23:42, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
At the top of the article it says that this article is about amalgams in dentistry. Why has the mining section been included. As far as I can see, it does not appear to be relevant to amalgams in dentistry at all; the section appears to be about uses of mercury in mining, should that not be located on the mercury page?. The only link is the mercury. If mining is to be included (which I oppose), then perhaps the mining of all the components of amalgams should be included, as mercury is only one of the materials used. Bouncingmolar 00:53, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Moved here from article -- to be placed elsewhere upon later determination. DRosenbach ( Talk | Contribs) 00:37, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Why does the dentistry section have two paragraphs discussing things other than amalgam and one paragraph discussing the topic of the article? DRosenbach ( Talk | Contribs) 16:40, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Could this article be split into dental amalgam vs. other amalgam? DRosenbach ( Talk | Contribs) 20:59, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
I removed secondary information about non-dental amalgam to the talk page pending a determination of where this information would perhaps be more useful, as this article is an article on dental amalgam.
Seconday, I added what seemed to be entirely missing sections on the the history of amalgam as well as modern use of amalgam.
Thirdly, I wish to debate whether or not the last line of the section entitled "dental malgam controversy" should be allowed to remain. If the scientific community is thoroughly convinced of anything after running clinical studies and controlled trials, why is it that dental amalgam is faced with the objection of the opposition that "long-term studies have yet to conclude that amalgam is safe." Is any drug safe? What's the longest study performed on any medication? 5 years? 10 years? If three 5-7 year studies (Casa Pia, NECAT and the Lisbon one mentioned in the JAMA article ending in the 2000's) all established amalgam safety, why is safety being harped on? If the science isn't there, what is their opposition resting on when it inserts that there have been no long term-studies? I think this sentence should be removed, because it pushes a POV agenda. DRosenbach ( Talk | Contribs) 17:26, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Currently, dental amalgams are composed of about 40% mercury, and 60% powder where the powder is made up of silver (~65%), tin (~29%), copper (~10%), and zinc (~2%).
The powder composition has over 100% of contents: 65 + 29 + 10 + 2 = 106%, so that is not correct. As I know nothing of the subject, I am not able to correct this, but hopefully someone else can. Punksmurf ( talk) 08:16, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
That little "squiggle" means approximately. Different manufacturers use different amounts
While cleaning up the Dental restorative materials page I noticed this page. I propose the following future structure:
The advantages/disadvantages section is kind of there atm but it needs restructuring. I started but I want to focus on the restoration page for the moment. Bouncingmolar ( talk) 17:58, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
I came to this article to find out how this stuff "works." I'm inferring from the text (and it's not at all obvious if true) that amalgam has a very low melting point, and it's heated before it's applied, and sets up by cooling? If so what is the melting point, and what temp is it held at when it's prepared for use? None of this basic stuff is in the article. Could somebody (a dentist?) walk us through what you do when you grab a container of amalgam and fill a tooth with it? 68.42.98.97 ( talk) 14:58, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
I think "Dental Amalgam" should have its own page or a subsection on a more general "Amalgam" page. This page is ONLY about dental amalgam ... but many mining, metallurgy, and chemistry pages link here, apparently out of context. The disambig link at the top of the page is not useful as the linked section does not have any chemical or mineral expositions of amalgamation. Amalgamation has been used in metal refining since the 1500s, as a dental filling only since 1826 ... why no mention of the chemistry of amalgamation, metals which form amalgams, historical importance in mining, etc.? There sure is a lot of petty detail about the dental application. New Providence ( talk) 04:30, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
What a deceitful pile of corporate propaganda filth. Brings disgrace and discredit on wikipedia. As for the supposed lack of evidence, See Mats Hanson "Effects of amalgam removal on health" for a start. Also Wojcik, Godfrey, Christie & Haley 2006. -Robin P Clarke
(I've now put some little changes to counter that misleading.)-rpc
I am totally against splitting this article because once we split up this article, then there will be stubs. It's not propaganda at all becuase there are some health effects on mercury you know. Joe9320 ( talk) 06:53, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
The last paragraph needs NPOVing, but I'm not the person to do it. Who exactly claims amalgam is poisoning patients, who advises the removal of all fillings. Do the dentists have any say in the matter? theresa knott 21:09, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Darrien we've got off to a bad start. That's my fault, I shouldn't have issued an order to "watch your tone"straight off. you'd think by now I'd have learned not how to get peoples back's up in the opening sentence. Can we start again? theresa knott 08:51, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)
[my older and now solved concerns were here, except for the monkey study mention transfered below]
Earlier you stated "I clarified mercury's toxicity (which is mild)".
Montrealer 17:02, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)
-Montrealer (somehow I got logged off during edit??)
The current entry for "Amalgam" was informative, but had four limitations: (a) accuracy: in certain places it was factually inaccurate; (b) language: there remained some basic linguistic mistakes; (c) incompleteness: there were certain key areas of information which had not been included yet; (d) links: only two links were provided for what is a broad subject with many excellent website resources in existence.
As this is my area of specialist research, and I have a library of books, papers, articles, studies and clippings on it, and have been writing about it for years, and am one of the leading experts in this field in Ireland and Britain, I decided to try and and address these four issues all at once.
Although I gave a lot of thought to it, and spent many days putting together carefully re-edited or new paragraphs where appropriate, I found that all of my changes were immediately reverted. This reversion was made completely indiscriminately, since even my basic corrections of a few spelling and grammatical errors had been reversed to their previous linguistically inaccurate versions. This therefore leads me to conclude that the reversion took place more or less automatically, without any particular attention being given to the specific proposed changes and additions individually.
In other words, this is against the community spirit of Wikipedia. I still hope that we can work together to improve this "Amalgam" entry, and so I have two suggestions:
(i) I could reinstate the changes I proposed all at once, but this time one by one, in small degrees. In this way, each one could be considered in its own right, rather than multitudinous changes being reverted all at once indiscriminately;
and/or (ii) If the person who reverted the entry would like to enter discussion with me with regard not to my entire proposed changes as a whole, but with regard to individual aspects of the changes I proposed, then perhaps we can try to come to some compromises, and together work to improve this entry. Likewise, others could join in the discussion if they wish.
My intention would be that in both the discussion and in the entry itself there would be an academic attempt to come as far as possible to objective statements, rather than statements of opinion.
My logic is that this is very clearly a controversial topic (just see the history and discussion pages!) and, correspondingly, there exist two (or more) very different schools of thought on the matter. Since both of these camps have appeared before the U.S. House of Representatives (April 2002) to discuss the issue, as well as before courts of law in many protracted lawsuits, in neither case with any clear conclusion one way or the other yet, then in an objective knowledge base like an encyclopedia we, as a result, should do our best likewise to reflect both sides of the conflict, if we have any pretension to objectivity.
In other words, from a scientific perspective, the matter is not decided, since there is no conclusive proof of either safety or danger from amalgam which has been submitted either in scientific, legal or government circles. Correspondingly, it is our duty to report on both sides in an objective fashion, i.e. with phrases such as "Some dentists argue. . . while others claim. . . " or "Some studies have shown. . . while others have suggested. . . " or "Dental associations in some countries (e.g. x, y and z) maintain. . . while those in some countries (e.g. p, q and r) have stated. . .. " etc. Some paragraphs of the current entry do not currently report on both sides in this objective fashion, but instead reflect the opinions of one side only.
It is not that I wish any parts of the entry to be changed to an opposite opinion. I would much rather that opinions were left out (including my own, which I have already done my best to put aside for the sake of academic reporting), and that instead these opinions were given equal mention as two sides of what is an ongoing scientific, political and legal debate at large in dozens of countries, still without conclusive resolution.
P.S. I am Simon K - but my proposed changes appeared under "212.2.175.179". I don't know how this happened, unless my log-in session had accidentally expired, since I would have liked it to appear under my username "Simon K". Simon K 16:11, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I was unable to look at these pages for a long time, but returning now to Wikipedia I am very pleased at the solution, which strikes me as an admirable one, to have created two pages. Thank you for finding this good resolution to the dilemma. The new ‘dental amalgam controversy’ page was a good idea, and it seems to me to be a good compromise/balance, describing both sides of this controversial topic in a fairly objective manner, combining contributions from different people. Simon K 17:00, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
There is no controversy, there is discussion about the toxicity and the impact of such on the body. Psilocin 23:42, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
One of the interesting things about amalgams is that they are plastic when made, but quickly harden. What's going on in terms of chemistry/physics? Seems like it would be a good addition to this article.
There is no controversy, there is discussion about the toxicity and the impact of such on the body.
Psilocin
23:42, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
At the top of the article it says that this article is about amalgams in dentistry. Why has the mining section been included. As far as I can see, it does not appear to be relevant to amalgams in dentistry at all; the section appears to be about uses of mercury in mining, should that not be located on the mercury page?. The only link is the mercury. If mining is to be included (which I oppose), then perhaps the mining of all the components of amalgams should be included, as mercury is only one of the materials used. Bouncingmolar 00:53, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Moved here from article -- to be placed elsewhere upon later determination. DRosenbach ( Talk | Contribs) 00:37, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Why does the dentistry section have two paragraphs discussing things other than amalgam and one paragraph discussing the topic of the article? DRosenbach ( Talk | Contribs) 16:40, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Could this article be split into dental amalgam vs. other amalgam? DRosenbach ( Talk | Contribs) 20:59, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
I removed secondary information about non-dental amalgam to the talk page pending a determination of where this information would perhaps be more useful, as this article is an article on dental amalgam.
Seconday, I added what seemed to be entirely missing sections on the the history of amalgam as well as modern use of amalgam.
Thirdly, I wish to debate whether or not the last line of the section entitled "dental malgam controversy" should be allowed to remain. If the scientific community is thoroughly convinced of anything after running clinical studies and controlled trials, why is it that dental amalgam is faced with the objection of the opposition that "long-term studies have yet to conclude that amalgam is safe." Is any drug safe? What's the longest study performed on any medication? 5 years? 10 years? If three 5-7 year studies (Casa Pia, NECAT and the Lisbon one mentioned in the JAMA article ending in the 2000's) all established amalgam safety, why is safety being harped on? If the science isn't there, what is their opposition resting on when it inserts that there have been no long term-studies? I think this sentence should be removed, because it pushes a POV agenda. DRosenbach ( Talk | Contribs) 17:26, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Currently, dental amalgams are composed of about 40% mercury, and 60% powder where the powder is made up of silver (~65%), tin (~29%), copper (~10%), and zinc (~2%).
The powder composition has over 100% of contents: 65 + 29 + 10 + 2 = 106%, so that is not correct. As I know nothing of the subject, I am not able to correct this, but hopefully someone else can. Punksmurf ( talk) 08:16, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
That little "squiggle" means approximately. Different manufacturers use different amounts
While cleaning up the Dental restorative materials page I noticed this page. I propose the following future structure:
The advantages/disadvantages section is kind of there atm but it needs restructuring. I started but I want to focus on the restoration page for the moment. Bouncingmolar ( talk) 17:58, 21 November 2008 (UTC)