Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
United Kingdom News

Toxin Levels in Fish Lead To Calls For UK-Wide Ban on Mercury Dental Fillings (theguardian.com) 68

Britain is facing mounting pressure to ban mercury dental fillings, one of the few countries yet to prevent the practice, as new data reveals alarming contamination levels in the nation's fish and shellfish. The Guardian: Mercury is a potent neurotoxin that can harm the nervous, digestive and immune systems, as well as the lungs, kidneys, skin and eyes, even at low levels of exposure. Its organic form, methylmercury, is particularly dangerous to unborn babies and can move through the food chain building up in insects, fish and birds.

Britain is lagging behind the rest of the world on phasing out mercury dental fillings, with 43 countries having already banned mercury amalgam, including the EU, Sweden, Norway, Tanzania, Uganda, Indonesia and the Philippines. Northern Ireland will outlaw mercury fillings from 2035 but no such ban is planned in the rest of Britain. According to new analysis by the Rivers Trust and Wildlife and Countryside Link, more than 98% of fish and mussels tested in English rivers and coastal waters contain mercury above safety limits proposed by the EU, with more than half containing more than five times the recommended safe level.

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Toxin Levels in Fish Lead To Calls For UK-Wide Ban on Mercury Dental Fillings

Comments Filter:
  • by sinij ( 911942 ) on Thursday October 30, 2025 @11:15AM (#65761488)
    There is no proof that mercury in vaccines getting injected into newborns... oh wait, this is about dental fillings. Never mind. Carry on.
    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by dbialac ( 320955 )
      In other news, the British now utilize dentists.
    • Re:Antivaxers! (Score:4, Informative)

      by EvilSS ( 557649 ) on Thursday October 30, 2025 @01:04PM (#65761954)
      Ignoring that we don't use mercury in childhood vaccines anymore, the amount of mercury in a single filling is several orders of magnitude greater than any vaccine exposure before we removed it.
      • Re:Antivaxers! (Score:4, Interesting)

        by quenda ( 644621 ) on Thursday October 30, 2025 @09:59PM (#65763190)

        the amount of mercury in a single filling

        Not a valid comparison, as most of that mercury stays in the tooth. Actual release is less than 5 microgram per day, as a gas which is breathed in.
        A vaccine with thimerosal might have 25 micrograms, similar to a very small can of tuna, i.e. bugger all.

        Mercury fillings release more, but still only around a milligram per year. Multiplied by billions of fillings, that is still a very tiny fraction of the thousands of tons of mercury released into the environment every year.

        • by EvilSS ( 557649 )

          the amount of mercury in a single filling

          Not a valid comparison, as most of that mercury stays in the tooth. Actual release is less than 5 microgram per day, as a gas which is breathed in. A vaccine with thimerosal might have 25 micrograms, similar to a very small can of tuna, i.e. bugger all.

          Mercury fillings release more, but still only around a milligram per year. Multiplied by billions of fillings, that is still a very tiny fraction of the thousands of tons of mercury released into the environment every year.

          You realize you just proved my comparison is valid, right? Your numbers, literally, show exactly what I stated.

          • by quenda ( 644621 )

            You realize you just proved my comparison is valid, right? Your numbers, literally, show exactly what I stated.

            What were you expecting? An anti-vaxer? :-)
            I'm just trying to clarify the numbers regarding fillings. Fillings are safe enough, which of course implies thimerosal was never the slightest risk.

  • Since it's suspected it enters the food-chain when people with mercury fillings get cremated, then ban the cremation of teeth with such fillings. If it's too hard to tell, then ban cremation of any human teeth. Remove the jaw first.

    • by Viol8 ( 599362 )

      You don't even need to go that far. Mercury fillings are very obvious so just get a pair of strong pliers and remove the teeth with them.

    • Yes, lets pull out teeth out of all dead and make them into sustainable and organic jewellery like necklaces.
    • by bjoast ( 1310293 )
      Perhaps UK should look into mummification.
    • by EvilSS ( 557649 )
      They could probably capture most or all of it with scrubbers on crematorium smoke stacks. Of course that would cost money so....
    • Another solution would be to compost the body [webmd.com]. The mercury would still be in the ground, but either stay there or be dispersed among the tree and vegetation.

    • Banning this type of filling from being used in the first place is also a good idea, but banning the cremation of these fillings is more effective and important. If they just ban these fillings from being put in, then the problem will persist unabated until at least after the death of the last person who already has one.

      I suspect they're a lot more careful with the corpses of people who have nuclear-powered pacemakers etc...

  • by Anonymous Coward

    How does banning mercury based dental fillings affect the mercury level in fish?

    • by Kernel Kurtz ( 182424 ) on Thursday October 30, 2025 @11:21AM (#65761518)

      How does banning mercury based dental fillings affect the mercury level in fish?

      According to Environment Agency data, crematoriums are the second-largest source of mercury emissions to air after fuel combustion. Power stations contribute about 846kg mercury emissions to air, followed by crematoria, with 593kg, road transport, 228kg, domestic combustion, 194kg and cement processes, 140kg.

      Now you don't need to read the article.

      • by skam240 ( 789197 )

        Wow, thanks for posting that info. I never would have guessed that this would be as dramatic a problem as being their second largest contributor to mercury pollution nor that it releases about 2/3rds-3/4s of what their electrical generation does.

        Might have been nice to have something that reflects the scale of the problem in the summary.

        • Might have been nice to have something that reflects the scale of the problem in the summary.

          You must be new here - welcome!

        • Yeah I found it a bit shocking as well. I probably have a mercury filling or two. I will one day be cremated. If they were to pull those teeth first I would probably not mind. Otherwise sorry fish.
      • by burtosis ( 1124179 ) on Thursday October 30, 2025 @12:36PM (#65761836)
        The article is wrong. Those are local emissions, mercury contamination accumulation is global. Great example is I live not far from the boundary waters, a wilderness region largely untouched by humans including mining. It’s known for its pristine wilderness and people that go there are encouraged to pack out each tiny piece of material they went in with, some include fecal matter in that list. But you can’t eat the fish in many lakes due to mercury contamination that is mostly from coal burning worldwide. A good amount is from India and China and not even America.
        • Well it did say power stations were the top contributors. I just assumed they meant coal, since I think we all know its global impact by now.
          • While emissions sources deposit the bulk of the material within a few dozen mile ground plume, especially when low or no smokestacks are used, we aren’t talking about the house just downwind which may be quite bad but the article is talking fish and it applies to wildlife contamination in general. Something like 10% goes thousands of miles and is spread over millions of square miles. This is why you can be on Antarctic ice edge and catch a fish and its mercury contamination is too high to eat but yo
            • This is why you can be on Antarctic ice edge and catch a fish and its mercury contamination is too high to eat but you’re more than a thousand miles from the nearest tiny city much less a burnt denture.

              And there will also be microplastics, even though there are no vending machines. And dioxins. And various radioactive isotopes. All manner of things probably, none of which are local. It is almost like local problems that are prolific enough become global problems. Who knew?

              • Exactly. This is what chaps may hide about these types of articles. Thinking the problem can be solved with just local action. It’s like saying the planet is saved from climate change because England is now 100% renewables. Thats great, sure, but it’s not going to fix the problem which will only get worse for everyone. This has to be a global effort.
                • Exactly. This is what chaps may hide about these types of articles. Thinking the problem can be solved with just local action. It’s like saying the planet is saved from climate change because England is now 100% renewables. Thats great, sure, but it’s not going to fix the problem which will only get worse for everyone. This has to be a global effort.

                  Global effort is just a combination of local efforts of varying degrees. If you are expecting anything different you are going to be disappointed.

        • Comment removed based on user account deletion
          • Well, it’s good to have doubt but you are flat out wrong. Not only are there virtually no coal plants nearby in terms of European standards, or that nearby ground plumes could account for, but the problem [mprnews.org] is only getting worse. Look at the affected lakes, it has nothing to do with the iron mining that’s nearly non-existent now. The last coal fired refining plant for iron is at Duluth 100 miles south while the prevailing winds tend to be moving toward the south and east most of the time. Go o
            • Comment removed based on user account deletion
              • here [researchgate.net] is a map of coal plants in Europe, you can’t find many places where you can be 100 miles from a coal plant and in England it’s almost not possible. So by European standards it’s quite far.

                Mercury in metallic or inorganic forms are released as microscopic clumps of particles with insanely high surface area to volume ratios. They get absorbed into the lower chains first like plankton and are eaten up the food chain, with many biological organisms that attempt to break it down crea
                • Comment removed based on user account deletion
                  • No it isn't. Have you ever actually been there?

                    Maybe 25 times on the American side and 3 on the Canadian, so yes. Inside the actual boundary waters area there are virtually no structures, it’s the main advertising point and obvious from google maps.

                    You think air pollution doesn't travel hundreds of miles?

                    am doubtful. The boundary waters is right on the edge of the Mesabi Iron Range. And I brelieve most of the mercury comes from local coal plants and other industrial processes along with accumulated mercury in forests and wetlands. Not worldwide air pollution.

                    Just lol. You don’t hold consistent beliefs that can be simultaneously true. Yes, perhaps 70% is from sources less than 1000 miles but a significant remainder is from the world. There simply are not enough smokestacks and further every lake system on the planet is affected, even those 1000 mil

      • So, fit the crematoriums with proper filters.
        • So, fit the crematoriums with proper filters.

          And keep using mercury for fillings? Sort of like we do with coal plants then.

  • by Viol8 ( 599362 ) on Thursday October 30, 2025 @11:24AM (#65761540) Homepage

    Speaking as someone with a couple of mercury fillings I'd be interested to know what they're doing to me. Its known that grinding and chewing can slowly abrade the filling and the particles are only going one way. Apparently this isn't considered a problem. Uh huh. How often have we heard hand waving expedient answers like that before.

    • by Waffle Iron ( 339739 ) on Thursday October 30, 2025 @12:00PM (#65761696)

      I think that the theory is that mercury in the environment is converted to methylmercury by microbial activity, then it bioaccumulates in fish. Presumably, anything that is leaching from fillings is metallic mercury, which is far less toxic than methylmercury.

      I've seen claims that the mercury is so firmly bound in the amalgam with silver that your exposure is negligible, but I'm not sure how much I believe that. I've had quite a few worn out mercury fillings replaced over the years, and I always wondered how much of the ground up fillings ends up getting ingested in that process.

      Of course, the newer fillings are largely some kind of UV-activated epoxy resin, probably a different exact brew of chemicals for each one. I wouldn't be surprised if someone eventually figures out that some of those chemicals pose risks as well.

      What can you do? Not getting your mouth fixed is known to be risky as well. Bacteria cause inflammation that causes your own body to release highly toxic chemicals.

    • by EvilSS ( 557649 )
      Elemental mercury isn't easily absorbed by your body so the fillings are not a major concern for that. It's when it is converted to organic mercury compounds like methyl mercury that it becomes a problem.
    • by caseih ( 160668 )

      I'd like to know what exposure to synthetic resins is doing to my body from composite resin fillings which do wear down with time, relatively fast. In fact my mercury fillings lasted way longer than any of my composite resin fillings. Dentist told me that in the last 30 years they've gone through no less than four different kinds of resins as they try to find one that's more long-lasting. Every last one of my first-generation resin fillings was replaced years ago.

  • WT actual F? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by YuppieScum ( 1096 ) on Thursday October 30, 2025 @11:27AM (#65761562) Journal

    I get that mercury in various forms is toxic, but if the dental amalgam is so dangerous, why is it being put in people's mouths and has been for decades?

    And how exactly is the mercury amalgam from dental fillings finding its way into fish? Is it leaching out of buried bodies into the water table, or is it the smoke from cremations thats then rained out?

    Or could it be that the two are entirely unrelated, and it's just a diversion from all the untreated industrial waste being pumped into our rivers and seas?

    • by wiggles ( 30088 )

      1) Decades? I suppose if you mean around 18 decades. Mercury amalgam was invented in the 1800s

      2) It's not. The mercury is coming from the fallout of coal burning. This is a poor attempt at diversion.

      3) yes.

    • I get that mercury in various forms is toxic, but if the dental amalgam is so dangerous, why is it being put in people's mouths and has been for decades?

      I've wondered that for many years. "Mercury is toxic!" and also "I'm going to fill holes in your tooth with mercury and silver."

      Near as I can understand, there's mercury and there's mercury. Metallic mercury isn't terribly toxic (but wash your hands after playing with it). Mercury-silver amalgam is quite stable. Other mercury compounds are neurotoxins which will kill you.

    • by tlhIngan ( 30335 )

      Mercury amalgams are generally safe, but making them does involve handling mercury and spills have happened. And no doubt the tools and such may simply be washed down the drain. It's why most dentists these days don't offer amalgams - they use plastic resins which also have the advantage that they don't stick out and match the color of the tooth.

      Alas, most dental insurance only pay for the amalgams. And dentists prefer the composite because it's easier and safer on everyone so they don't even offer amalgams

  • Most UK coastal waters are class B and C and fish and bi-valves can't be exported to the EU anyway, since the UK discharges raw shit 400,000 times a year over 1000 times per DAY!. this doesn't matter, not one bit.

  • by burtosis ( 1124179 ) on Thursday October 30, 2025 @11:55AM (#65761672)
    Mercury from dental fillings is literally nothing, and the stupidity in thinking cremation or burial puts meaningful amounts into the environment is insane. The average number of amalgam fillings per person is under 4 and at about 1 gram each where mercury is 10-15% so maybe .6 grams per person. Over 2200 tons of mercury are released by coal burning and it’s only 1/3 of human mercury emissions making it around 7000 tons per year, or the equivalent of 4.2 billion people’s tooth filling per year. England plus wales had only 500k cremations per year, the idea mercury from teeth is even 0.001% of the problem is insane. Might as well as blame world oil consumption on rubber finger dolls.
  • More importantly, how much does Soylent Green contain?

  • by organgtool ( 966989 ) on Thursday October 30, 2025 @12:02PM (#65761710)
    Well who the hell is going around giving dental fillings to fish?
  • UK is lagging behind in phasing out any dental fillings. They are simply becoming too expensive to have.

  • by registrations_suck ( 1075251 ) on Thursday October 30, 2025 @02:53PM (#65762358)

    Well, hell's bells! I thought the U.K. banned performing dental work on people decades ago!

  • ...get signals from extraterrestrials?

    OK as owner of four amalgam fillings, I have to say they are the fillings that have lasted the longest (one is almost four decades old).  Toxin anything or anyone, I'm sorry, but this is enshittification.
  • by Hodr ( 219920 ) on Thursday October 30, 2025 @06:06PM (#65762836) Homepage

    Why are the british giving their fish dental fillings?

  • Start making fillings out of fish. Two birds, one stone.
    • Please be advised that fish are not birds. They come from totally different evolutionary lines. I can't believe someone on this website could be so ignorant.

  • The mercury in fish I thought was mainly the result of burning coal. It's reaaaallllly unlikely that the amount in dental fillings contributes any significant amount.

The wages of sin are unreported.

Working...