>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