I don't think that is a very good example. A better example would be is there a safe compound with lead or arsenic or mercury (known toxic elements) you would want to take into your body?
Well sulfates in general tend to be highly insoluble in water, and therefore biologically inert, so I think this is still kind of a cherry-picked example
"Dental amalgam is a mixture of metals, consisting of liquid (elemental) mercury and a powdered alloy composed of silver, tin, and copper. Approximately half (50%) of dental amalgam is elemental mercury by weight. The chemical properties of elemental mercury allow it to react with and bind together the silver/copper/tin alloy particles to form an amalgam."
Amalgam fillings do offgas tiny amounts of mercury. Of course, this is a controversial topic and there's a lot of misinformation around, so do your own research. Personally, I came to the conclusion that the one amalgam filling I have is ok but too many would cause potentially toxic buildup over a lifetime so I'll never get another.
There is a strong correlation between incidence of mercury amalgam and alzheimer's. Obviously correlation is not causation, but I'd still be wary of putting mercury in my body...
I'd also add that elemental mercury is toxic if inhaled as a vapor. While I mentioned fillings as a safe use, there is a (very small) amount of vapor released when they're installed, and more gets released if they need to be removed. Not enough to matter in adults. If you needed enough fillings for it to be a concern the dental microbiota issues causing the decay would be a far bigger general health threat. Indeed, Alzheimer's is linked to gingivitis (gum disease) and the hypothesized link with amalgam fillings may be an artifact of people with worse gum disease having worse dental health, and thus more fillings.
Yes. As one example, arsenobetaine is an arsenic-containing compound that is naturally present in almost all fish that we consume. It is entirely harmless to humans in normal amounts, since we don't metabolize it into ordinary arsenic.
Organic chemistry should probably be made mandatory as part of high school science education like physics. Parent looks like Exhibit A for anti-thiomersal hysteria.
In Germany it's 1 year of the final 2 year Chemistry elective, where most people instead choose Biology or Physics (and I think if you are on a language focused path you might not even have to do one of them).
Just looked it up and you are right, all of 10th grade is already focused on organic chemistry[0] (in Bavaria) for those with a STEM profile, while other profiles also have organic chemistry that year, but a bit less of it.
In the US, high school includes very basic chemistry lumped into general science topics. Pretty much all organic chemistry I've learned has been from Khan academy and wikipedia...
I've actually worked for decades in science and the last ten in a chemistry department as a scientist looking for new cancer drugs. Don't assume things. I'm not that afraid of thiomersal since it is given so rarely. That doesn't mean I would love to be around a new pigment made from mercury...
One of the things I learnt in actual chemistry classes was that organomercury compounds actually tend to be really toxic compared to elemental mercury. Unfortunately, there's been a fair amount of misinformation spread about this online in the name of fighting anti-vaxxers, often involving misleading analogues with stuff like chlorine and sodium.
I believe that the anti-thiomersal hysteria was quite justified.
Even if thiomersal is more effective at killing bacteria than at killing humans, there are no doubts that it is also toxic for humans and for any other animals.
While the thiomersal dose injected together with a vaccine is small enough so that in most cases it will not cause damages before being eliminated from the body, the risks are not negligible.
To willingly inject yourself with poison, even in a quantity that hopefully will not hurt you, seems rather stupid.
Better alternative bactericides must be found for vaccine preservation.
The amount of mercury intake with vaccine that was preserved using thiomersal is smaller than amount mercury taken into organism when you drink a cup of tap water in many countries, including tap water declared safe to drink.
While you may be right that the total amount of mercury is not an issue relative to other sources, allergies to thiomersal are a real thing. Here's a page on it: https://dermnetnz.org/topics/thiomersal-allergy/
Personally, I eventually discovered that my terrible problems with wearing contact lenses in the 1990's were caused by the thiomersal used as a preservative in the saline solution I was using. Given my known and tested reaction to having it in my eyes and on my skin, I would be very reluctant to have an injection that contained it.
Guess we should ban peanuts too, since allergies to that exist too. Some population being allergic isn't an argument to remove it, rather one for transparency and alternatives.
"Heh" is an obnoxious response, as if an organic chemistry class wouldn't teach the basics of organometallics and some of the things that make compounds more or less dangerous.
Likely for the same reason we rarely use lead paint anymore, or why micro plastics are a concern in bath products. Just for a couple of examples of products you don’t consume ending up in animal bodies.
Why does that matter? The point is you can combine elements and create compounds that are drastically different to the components with different properties.
Obvious one is water. H - explody. O2 - burny. H2O - puts out fires, quenches your thirst, no longer a gas, not very reactive.
Because corrosive is way different than toxic. Particularly, acid/base corrosion can and will be neutralized by our body once sufficiently diluted. Toxic compounds, especially heavy metals, stay toxic even if diluted.
The point is, that making corrosive properties go away is easy and very typical, whereas toxic properties often have a habit of not going away after it enters the body.
Most corrosive substances release their effects on the surface they contact you, but toxic effects, especially the problematic ones, are way deeper.
The distinction is fairly important, especially regarding heavy metals.
Like hydrofluoric acid, for example. It's fairly easy to not notice you spilled some on your hand/arm until after it soaked through your skin, upon which the issue is systemic toxicity or at least bone damage. In contrast, sulfuric, nitric, and hydrochloric acids at any concentration up to azeotropic just cause burns and, for sulfuric acid, dehydration. There are no acute systemic risks from all but large-area burns, and even then it's mostly due to fluid loss which can be compensated for. (Yes, there are later risks due to loss-of-skin and skin graft surgery, but none of those complications try to have you pronounced dead you within a few hours of the spill.)
I live in pride of my mercury-compound amalgam. You can choose to live in fear.
"Numerous other organizations have also publicly declared the safety and effectiveness of amalgam. These include the Mayo clinic,[21] the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA),[22] Health Canada,[23] Alzheimer's Association,[24] American Academy of Pediatrics,[25] Autism Society of America,[26] U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,[27] National Multiple Sclerosis Society,[28] New England Journal of Medicine,[29] International Journal of Dentistry,[30] National Council Against Health Fraud,[31] The National Institute of Dental and Craniofacial Research NIDCR,[32] American Cancer Society,[33] Lupus Foundation of America,[34] the American College of Medical Toxicology,[35] the American Academy of Clinical Toxicology"
For better or worse, the dentists I have gone to in recent years don't use it any more. I have some old mercury fillings and at least one newer resin one.
Your link is interesting. It seems like the arguments against mercury amalgam being a problem include:
1) organizations like you listed saying don't worry
2) obvious scammers making a living blaming everything on fillings, even nonexistent ones
3) only 5% of people with fillings having elevated mercury in urine, particularly gum chewers
4) "hypersensitivity or allergy" are the "most likely health effects" but there is not clear evidence for or against autoimmune disorders caused by fillings.
It seems to me that it's perfectly conceivable, at the same time, that there is or has been a scam/cult of mercury fillings causing every possible problem, and at the same time, that they do do something to a minority of recipients that is different from acute mercury toxicity that we know about. There could be a combination of more than normal mercury released and more than normal sensitivity.
Something that would be interesting to research, I think, is the microbiome of people with and without different kinds of fillings. There's been some recent claim(s) about the bacteria that cause gingivitis being linked to Alzheimers.
How many diseases did they significance test? What's the causal mechanism? Was there a proportional response, or was the causal variable thresholded arbitrarily?
