>My dentist is  *very* alternative/holistic (he's a buddhist as well) and
looked
>very carefully into the concept of removing mercury fillings.
>
>His conclusion was that it is not a good idea, that it is best to leave
fully
>intact fillings in.
>
>This is solely based on an evaluation of the sum total mercury exposure
from
>removal versus that when the fillings stay.
>
Your dentist is problably right for the short term , because removal of
fillings will allow the immune system to start to eliminate the mercury
stored in tissues and will circulate in your blood .

So it is a trade off that i choosed to bare ( i have symptoms that i think
is related to mercury poisonning ) instead of letting my immune system shut
down and getting tolerant to the daily poisonning when my fillings were
still in my mouth. I hoped an improved level of health in the long term (i
don't remember the half life of mercury in the body but it didn't seems too
long to me ) At least now if i don't eat too much fish like salmon or tuna
(known to accumulate mercury in their tissue  ) i don't get more of it.
Be careful of sources of fish oils in regard of mercury ( the supplements
might bring more of it)
Jean-claude