Re: Why We Use No Mercury In The Fillings We Place
From: Happy Oyster (happy.oyster_at_ariplex.com)
Date: 09/29/04
- Next message: texindianabob_at_yahoo.com: "University of Texas Dental Branch at Houston, NICO Capitol of the US"
- Previous message: Mark & Steven Bornfeld DDS: "Re: Dental malpractice (UK) - Some questions - mostly legal"
- In reply to: John Chewter: "Re: Why We Use No Mercury In The Fillings We Place"
- Next in thread: John Chewter: "Re: Why We Use No Mercury In The Fillings We Place"
- Reply: John Chewter: "Re: Why We Use No Mercury In The Fillings We Place"
- Reply: John Chewter: "Re: Why We Use No Mercury In The Fillings We Place"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2004 18:00:55 +0100
On Wed, 29 Sep 2004 10:44:17 +0000 (UTC), "John Chewter"
<john@LESS_SPAMchewter.f9.co.uk> wrote:
>>Amalgam is a material that is over 150 years old, and there are many modern
>alternatives that can be considered.
>
>Water is more than 400 Billion Years old - what alternative should we
>consider?
Dear Mr. Chewter,
I disagree.
a) The whole universe exists for about 13.5 billion years since the
big bang.
b) Water is an essential ingredient of the human body. Mercury is
NOWHERE part of a living body or its metabolism.
Regards,
Aribert Deckers
--
Ich klage an:
Schwerer Pfusch bei Knie-Behandlungen
http://www.ariplex.com/hws/hws_knie.htm
- Next message: texindianabob_at_yahoo.com: "University of Texas Dental Branch at Houston, NICO Capitol of the US"
- Previous message: Mark & Steven Bornfeld DDS: "Re: Dental malpractice (UK) - Some questions - mostly legal"
- In reply to: John Chewter: "Re: Why We Use No Mercury In The Fillings We Place"
- Next in thread: John Chewter: "Re: Why We Use No Mercury In The Fillings We Place"
- Reply: John Chewter: "Re: Why We Use No Mercury In The Fillings We Place"
- Reply: John Chewter: "Re: Why We Use No Mercury In The Fillings We Place"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
|
