Re: Florida Amalgam Lawsuit Dismissed

From: Keith P Walsh (keith.p.walsh_at_btinternet.com)
Date: 06/13/04 

Date: Sun, 13 Jun 2004 07:15:43 +0000 (UTC)

On Sat, 12 Jun 2004 22:24:49 GMT, "jwndds" <jnelsondds@shaw.ca> wrote:

>Three cheers for real science.
>

So you're an advocate of real science are you?

In 1987 Swedish researcher A W Johansson was granted publication
of a patent for an apparatus which measures the migration of mercury
ions from a test piece of dental amalgam when it is subjected to an
electrical potential.

You can read all about it at:

http://www.jageblad.se/research/

And the patent documents are at:

http://l2.espacenet.com/dips/viewer?PN=SE8505974&CY=ep&LG=en&DB=EPD

Which of the following do you think represents the most rational and
scientific response to Johansson's work?

1) accept it without question

2) dismiss it out of hand beacause you don't like the sound of it

3) sit around on your *** making up "scientific" excuses for ignoring
it

4) investigate experimentally to determine whether or not the
apparatus does what the patent says it does, and then consider
honestly and scientifically whether the results of this investigation
require you to alter your position on the suitability of amalgam
for use as a material in restorative dentistry

Go on, give us some "real science".

Keith P Walsh

PS, enquiries concerning the electrical properties of dental amalgams
can be found at:

http://book.boot.users.btopenworld.com/intro.htm

Quantcast