RE: Mercury - not topic drift

["Tesla list" <tesla@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Original poster: "Dave Halliday" <dh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

You are looking at refraction as much as density.  Think about heat
waves shimmering off a stretch of hot pavement and you get my thoughts.
They are not doing a Schlieren setup but they are somewhat close with a
small source of UV light shining through a test area onto a reactive
screen.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schlieren_photography

If there was that much mercury coming off the tooth and if they were
saying that it was categorically __not__ water vapor, why didn't they
re-do the test and heat the tooth in a dry oven instead of soaking it in
hot water.

Besides, as I said before, with a well-made amalgam, there is no free
Mercury and no free Silver to speak of.
A simple point of inorganic chemical fact.

People are making serious $$$ by scaring people into having unnecessary
dental work.
The alt-health care business follows Ted Sturgeon's law perfectly.
( "Ninety percent of everything is crud." )

Dave



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tesla list [mailto:tesla@xxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Friday, March 10, 2006 6:24 PM
> To: tesla@xxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: Mercury - not topic drift
>
>
> Original poster: "Mike" <induction@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>
> Dave:
> I think, actually, that it is NOT water vapor but I will
> explain my logic.
> The video is shot in a room with somebody holding the tooth for study.
> There is a hand holding a tool. Consider the volume of air in
> even a tiny room,
> As the room contains a person, reason says there is air in there, too.
>
> Consider now, even if the humidity were as low as 10 %, not
> likely so low,
> but using that low a number, compare the ratio of this huge
> volume of air
> with existing water vapor as compared to what could possibly
> come from the
> tooth under study and still have such a strong darker
> signature on the screen,
> while the rest of the screen remains lighted without such shadowing.
>
> Then there is the distance from the UV light to the screen
> and the distance
> from the UV light to the tooth, to the screen. The light has in
> general the same
> distance. Considering that the UV has to pass through water
> vapor in the air
> of much greater volume than the tooth can contain at room pressure.
>
> This shows me more reasons why it can not be water vapor. In
> a spark gap,
> while we may see some metal vapors in shadow, I do not think the  UV
> shows water vapor. Burning electrodes, yes, water vapor, no.
> Mike
>
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tesla list" <tesla@xxxxxxxxxx>
> To: <tesla@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Friday, March 10, 2006 9:45 AM
> Subject: RE: Mercury - topic drift
>
>
> >Original poster: "Dave Halliday" <dh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >
> >Actually, what you are probably seeing is water vapor and
> not Mercury.
> >(And yes, I know about the PDF file that touts the
> absorption spectrum
> >of water and claims that it is practically transparent at
> 254nm -- they
> >cherry picked the chart in that PDF.)
> >
> >A properly made amalgam has no "free" Mercury. Another
> amalgam in common
> >use is Concrete.  One of the ingredients (slaked Lime) is horribly
> >caustic and will cause skin damage if not washed off completely.
> >
> >People are using Concrete for kitchen countertops and eating off it.
> >Kids play on it outside.  You simply do not hear about skin
> irritation
> >with concrete. Concrete contains a toxic component but a
> properly made
> >amalgam will bind all ingredients together permanently.
> >
> >Unfortunately, there is a very broad "grey zone" in health-care where
> >unsubstantiated claims can be made without fear of the FDA
> knocking on
> >your door.  The wonderful people at The International Academy of Oral
> >Medicine & Toxicology fit solidly into that grey zone.
> >
> >
> >We now return to the Topic...
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Tesla list [mailto:tesla@xxxxxxxxxx]
> > > Sent: Thursday, March 09, 2006 10:47 PM
> > > To: tesla@xxxxxxxxxx
> > > Subject: Re: Mercury
> > >
> > >
> > > Original poster: "Mike" <induction@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> > >
> > > HI,
> > >        Most of us have at some point played with Mercury.
> > > Often, we heated things with Mercury in or on them.
> > > Most of us tend to have an interest in science and more,
> > > if somebody said " That wooden stick there has 50 volts across the
> > > ends", we would say "Let's read it with a meter to prove this".
> > >
> > > This Mercury thing we all hear about, is it so bad? How about if
> > > somebody said "There are Mercury fumes" but you can not see them.
> > > How about a Mercury meter, as it were.
> > > Take a UV light shining on a flourescent screen, we know it glows.
> > > We know Mercury has strong lines in the UV region and
> that any Mercury
> > > vapor will make a shadow on the screen because it takes in the UV.
> > >
> > > To see an interesting demonstration of this in video form
> (with audio)
> > > visit  http://www.iaomt.org/merc_release.swf
> > > Where a tooth, 25 years old with a silver amalgam filling
> was used,
> > > is exposed to body temperature, yes, see the fumes. 110 degree F
> > > as in hot coffee, the thing looks like the smoke stack of a
> > > local power
> > > plant.
> > >
> > > If you figure the number of list members, times the filled
> > > teeth and add
> > > hobby or work Mercury, which does not go away without detox, it
> > > is an important issue. A look at the video and
> understanding how the
> > > fumes show on the screen is a valid science based
> reading, even just
> > > having a warm drink.
> > >
> > > So extra care should be used with outside Mercury switches, etc.
> > > Maybe Tesla had a lot of dental work done, too?
> > > Mike
> > >
>
>
>
>
>