The result was keep per the snowball clause. Non-admin closure. MuZemike ( talk) 02:41, 26 November 2008 (UTC) reply
Not a real controversy. There are a few crazy weirdos and groups who have sponsored Zogby push polls and others who try to "drum up" the idea that a "controversy" exists, but in fact, none exists. There are no independent reliable sources which indicate that a dental amalgam controversy exists: only sources to obvious POV-sources such as "Mercury Watch" and autism pseudoscience groups. The material that is notable can be sourced in dental filling, but this article is essentially a WP:POVFORK. Please delete. ScienceApologist ( talk) 03:35, 24 November 2008 (UTC) reply
A recent lawsuit has essentially forced the FDA to update their page on dental amalgam. [2] In any case, there is plenty of literature out there. The page is badly organized and doesn't even have nearly all of the sources that could be added, so it certainly would not fit within due weight within the dental amalgam page. In 1995 FASEB, a fairly respectable group, published a review entitled: "Mercury exposure from "silver" tooth fillings: emerging evidence questions a traditional dental paradigm." [3] Since Mutter's paper is in German, that source, though lacking in the newer information, provides an interesting freely available full-text overview for those interested. II | ( t - c) 04:50, 24 November 2008 (UTC) replyThe FDA provided a “White Paper” for the Panel’s consideration that selected 34 studies out of many hundreds that fulfilled their criteria for inclusion. Following a careful review and discussion of the presentations and science, the Joint Panel voted 13-7 to reject the FDA’s conclusion that amalgam was safe. By the same voting margin, the Panel also concluded the paper did not objectively and clearly present the current state of knowledge about mercury exposure and health effects of dental amalgam. The Panel did not say amalgam was unsafe, only that its safety could not be established based upon the data provided.