Mercury is toxic. There is no longer dispute on this issue, not among environmentalists, government agencies, doctors or lawyers, even industry has had to bow to the overwhelming weight of scientific evidence.

Mercury is toxic. This is not news. It is clearly a neurotoxin and has been implicated as an endocrine disrupter and possibly a cause of autoimmune disorders. It is particularly hazardous to young children and a developing fetus. Exposure to mercury can cause devastating, irreversible problems in a developing brain. It may also be a factor for our older generation in the form of Alzheimer’s disease.

The elimination of mercury is being tackled through eliminating mercury in thermostats, switches, by eliminating mercury in vaccines and reducing mercury in florescent lights, and other mercury containing products. Industry sees this freight train of a trend. Well, most industry.

There is one industry that leaves us a bit baffled and scratching our heads; the dental industry. Mercury arrives in a dentist office as hazardous waste, and must be treated as such. Remnant mercury leaves the dentist office as hazardous waste, and must be treated as such. But the dental industry would have us believe that like alchemists in days of old, wishing to turn lead to gold, the mercury in our mouths somehow, some way, is no longer hazardous waste.

We are told the half-gram of mercury in the average filling [enough to pollute a 10 acre lake to the point of needing fish consumption advisories] is not toxic. If it is not toxic, why must it be treated as hazardous waste? If it is not toxic, why do dentists have the highest suicide rate of any professionals (there are studies which implicate mercury)? If it is not toxic, why is mercury amalgam restricted in at least eight countries including Canada? If it is not toxic, why does the Department of Environmental Protection want to require dentists offices to have mercury separators so stray mercury from fillings don’t end up in our rivers, lakes and streams?

Because mercury is toxic. It is dangerous. And when we become aware that we and those we love are being adversely impacted by toxins that undermine our health and can have long term implications, especially for our children, we are ethically and morally bound to put an end to that exposure (as we have done with lead and DDT, Dursban and Diazinon).

Last year the Maine Legislature passed an historic bill, the toughest thus far in the country, to require informed consent in regards to mercury amalgams. The original bill asked for not only informed consent [all patients receiving fillings must be told the hazards of mercury amalgams on their health and the impact on the environment], but also a ban on mercury amalgam placement in children and pregnant and nursing women. The bill was reworked to include only informed consent, though we believe a ban is inevitable as the data come in on the hazards

of mercury amalgams.

The Bureau of Health, who opposed the bill, was required to write a brochure, which is to be handed out to all patients requiring fillings. This is a bit of a conflict in that the bureau does not support the concept that the public should be protected from exposure to mercury amalgams. The draft of that flier was presented to the Bureau of Health on Feb. 4. It is our belief the brochure does not meet the statutory requirement, nor the intent, set forth by the Legislature last year. It is vague about the health hazards of mercury, does not explain the impact to the environment, and the bureau did not work in concert with the DEP as required by the law.

Mercury elimination is occurring in everything from switches to thermostats, everywhere from cars to hospitals. We must face the fact that if it is not safe there, it is not safe in our bodies. If an entire neighborhood can be evacuated due to a box of broken thermostats, we cannot safely put it in our children’s mouths. At the very least, we must make those hazards known in a clear, precise manner, and allow informed choice for the public.

The Bureau of Health is supposed to be protecting public health. We must require that they do so in a proactive manner. We need a strong informed consent brochure as a public service, as a predecessor to a mercury ban for the most vulnerable population (children and pregnant and nursing women). Maine people want and deserve the truth on the mercury issue; it is what the statute requires and what the governor signed into law and extolled as a positive right-to-know step for the public.

Kathleen McGee is the director of the Maine Toxics Action Coalition.