It appears that some people still believe that in order for metal amalgam dental fillings to generate electrical potentials in the mouth the fillings must be involved in an electrolytic reaction with saliva.
However, experimental research studies reported by William Schriever of the University of Oklahoma and Louis E. Diamond of the University School of Medicine, Oklahoma City, and published in the Journal of Dental Research as long ago as 1952 proved that this is not true.
see:
These studies demonstrated that readings of electrical potentials from amalgam fillings which had been dried and separated from all contact with saliva in the mouths of the subjects were just as prominent as those those taken when the fillings were wet.
Quote:
"Next one oral pack (or two if necessary) was put in place, the two teeth were carefully swabbed with 95 per cent ethyl alcohol, and air was blown on both teeth. The potential difference of the dry fillings in the dry teeth was measured as described above. This potential difference is designated V1 (Fig. 3)."
The authors went on to "deduce" from this fact that the measured potentials "must" have been produced by the action on the fillings of "bone fluid " contacting against the concealed surfaces of the fillings inside/under the teeth.
Quote:
"Since the teeth were dry the potential difference V1 (Fig. 3) was the e.m.f. (e) caused by the action of the bone fluid on the two fillings, i.e., e = V1."
I wonder whether this "deduction" (presumtion?) made by Schriever and Diamond that bone fluid must act as an electrolyte was based on the false belief that the only way that metals, mixtures of metals and dissimilar metals in contact with each other are able to generate electrical potentials is by becoming involved in electrolytic reactions.
Of course, those of us who understand thermoelectric and electromagnetic phenomena (and particularly those who recognise the way in which these two must interact in inhomogeneous mixtures of metals) realise that this is simply not true.
But perhaps the explanation for the fact that Schriever and Diamond's paper appears to have gone largely ignored for nearly sixty years is because some of their peers maybe didn't quite believe the "bone fluid" theory, and Schriever and Diamond were not able to verify it positively. As a result, having proved that it is not necessary for there to be any saliva in contact with the fillings to produce the electrical potentials, the principal effect of the publication of this paper was to confuse those involved as to just exactly how the amalgam potentials are generated.
I have a suggestion.
Perhaps it is a combination of thermoelectric and electromagnetic phenomena which has been the principal reason for amalgam fillings generating electrical potentials all along (at least there's no strong scientific evidence to indicate otherwise), and the contribution made be electrolytic effects is either negligible or zero. And furthermore the continued confusion over where these potentials come from is due largely to the fact that the electromagnetic and thermoelectric behaviors of dental amalgams have never been investigated experimentally (or at least if they have then the results have not been made public).
People keep telling me that the thermoelectric and/or electromagnetic behaviors of typical dental amalgams should be easy to measure.
One of the first to do so was Professor D M Rowe of Cardiff University in October 1988.
However, nearly 10 years later, and in spite of the continued lack of any satisfactory explanation for the electrical potentials generated by dental amalgams, it appers that the thermoelectric and/or electromagnetic properties of amalgam fillings have not been measured (or at least if they have then the results have not been made public).
Anyway one thing's for sure, we now know that it is not necessary for metal amalgam dental fillings to be in contact with any saliva for them to genetrate electrical potentials in people's mouths.
William Schriever and Louis E. Diamond's paper proved that.
So come on all you unscientific ridiculers at sci.med.dentistry and sci.materials who were misled into believing otherwise, isn't it about time you acknowledged your own ignorance?
Or are you still too arrogant to even recognise it?
Keith P Walsh
PS,
This message has been posted to google groups at:
sci.med.dentistry sci.materials misc.health.alternative
and to the Internetional Thermoelectric Society forum at: