From: Mark Probert on
Mike wrote:
> Mark Probert wrote:
>> Mike wrote:
>>> Mark Probert wrote:
>>>>>>> First: the body absorbs some of the mercury. The more you get the
>>>>>>> more you absorb.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Not necessarily. Some is rapidly excreted through feces and urine.
>>>>>
>>>>> And some is not. The more you get, the more is excreted. And the
>>>>> more is absorbed.
>>>>
>>>> Partially. As for excretion, yes, the more you get, the more is
>>>> excreted. However, there comes a point where storage reaches
>>>> equilibrium, and the balance is excreted.
>>>
>>> This is called saturation. The body becomes saturated with mercury.
>>> (Expected response: prove that saturation levels are toxic!)
>>
>> Since you know what the standard of proof is, and did not provide it,
>> I can assume that you cannot prove those levels are toxic.
>>
>
> If saturation levels are not toxic then no level is toxic, so the
> substance is not toxic. You reached dead end here, Markey.

Can you prove that saturation levels in vivo are toxic and that whatever
damage they cause is significant?

>>>>>>> Second: if the substance is harmful it does not necessarily
>>>>>>> matter whether it is cleared at all. Here is a quote from the
>>>>>>> previous post:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> **** In any event, even infants clear thimerosal from the body
>>>>>>> with great rapidity. ****
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Substitute alcohol for thimerosal and see how absurd it would be.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Nope. We are discussing Ethyl Mercury which is NOT the same
>>>>>> chemical as alcohol.
>>>>>
>>>>> It is not. But it illustrates that even rapid clearing of a
>>>>> substance from the body does not mean there will be no long-term
>>>>> consequences.
>>>>
>>>> No, it does not do that. What it demonstrates is that there may be a
>>>> long term storage, but whether there is a consequence is another
>>>> question. And, after there is no more intake, the storage may even
>>>> decrease.
>>>>
>>>>> A substance can clear rapidly and still inflict immense damage.
>>>>
>>>> However, there is no proof of that, since even the peak
>>>> concentrations are non toxic.
>>>>
>>>>> So, "Infants clear thimerosal with great rapidity" would not be a
>>>>> valid argument even if true.
>>>>
>>>> First, it is true, and second, there is no evidence to support a
>>>> claim of injury.
>>>>
>>>>>>>> The Burbacher study showed that more inorganic mercury stays
>>>>>>>>> in the brain after thimerosal exposure. It quoted another study
>>>>>>>>> estimating half life of inorganic mercury to be between 227
>>>>>>>>> and 540 days. It is not "rapid clearing". As for the first
>>>>>>>>> study, the sample pool is too small to talk about.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Disagree. Burbacher shows that Ethyl Mercury is rapidly cleared
>>>>>>>> (with some residue).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And more residue in the brain for ethylmercury.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> However, it is a significant residue? The answer to that question
>>>>>> you seem to be avoiding at all costs. It makes me wonder why.
>>>>>
>>>>> I do not. Got the numbers how much is significant?
>>>>
>>>> You are making the claim that it is significant. Your burden.
>>>>
>>>>>>>> As for the sample pool,m that would be correct only when there
>>>>>>>> is a wide latitude of findings. There wasn't.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> How do you know? There is no data about deviations from average
>>>>>>> in the abstract, the full text is not freely available, I bet you
>>>>>>> did not read it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You lose. It is an important study in this issue, and I read it.
>>>>>
>>>>> Can prove it? Post some data, maybe?
>>>>
>>>> Possibly. I read a hard copy.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Yes, post a couple of sentences. You will not because you did not
>>> read it. And you will not make them up because - who knows? - it may
>>> become available to everybody.
>>
>> Incorrect. I read an interloan library copy and neglected to make a
>> photocopy. I do sometimes make mistakes.
>>
>>> Oh, I know: you have your base covered. You will say: I read it in a
>>> library, now prove that I did not.
>>
>> I'll see if the library can get the copy again. Depends on the other
>> library still having it on file. Will take a while, as I am taking a
>> long overdue vacation commencing Saturday.
>>
>
> I knew your excuse. You will not post anything. You will not bother
> getting the article because you are too busy making posts.

I have already requested it through my library's website. However, I
will not have an answer immediately.

>> However, do not get your Jockeys into a wedgie over this. Remember, I
>> have asked you for proof numerous times, and have yet to see a
>> substantive response to most points.
>
> You declare responses you do not like non-substantive. I will leave it
> to readers if there are any yet.

Yes, the old "leave it to readers" excuse. Heard it before.

Snip
First  |  Prev  | 
Pages: 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
Prev: ~ * The Animal Rescue
Next: Sodium Benzoate