Premolar tooth with<unk>  filling This discussion of the<unk>  outlines the debate over whether<unk><unk>  (the mercury alloy in<unk>  fillings) should be used. Supporters claim that it is safe, effective and long-lasting while critics argue that claims have been made since the 1840s that<unk>  is unsafe because it may cause mercury poisoning and other toxicity. Supporters of<unk>  fillings point out that it is safe, durable, relatively inexpensive, and easy to use. On average,<unk>  lasts twice as long as resin composites, takes less time to place, is tolerant of saliva or blood contamination during placement (unlike composites), and is often about 20-30% less expensive. Consumer Reports has suggested that many who claim<unk><unk>  is not safe are "prospecting for disease" and using pseudoscience to scare patients into more lucrative treatment options. Those opposed to<unk>  use suggest that modern composites are improving in strength. In addition to their claims of possible health and ethical issues, opponents of<unk><unk>  fillings claim<unk>  fillings contribute to mercury contamination of the environment. The World Health Organization (WHO) reports that health care facilities, including<unk>  offices, account for as much as 5% of total waste water mercury emissions. The WHO also points out that<unk>  separators, installed in the waste water lines of many<unk>  offices, dramatically decrease the release of mercury into the public sewer system. In the United States, most<unk>  practices are prohibited from disposing<unk>  waste down the drain. Critics also point to cremation of<unk>  fillings as an additional source of air pollution, contributing about 1% of total global emissions. The World Health Organization recommends a global phase out of<unk>  mercury in the WHO’s 2009 report on "Future Use of Materials For<unk>  Restorations, on the basis of aiming for a general reduction of the use of mercury in all sectors, and on the basis of environmental impacts of mercury product production." It is the position of the FDI World<unk>  Federation as well as numerous<unk>  associations and<unk>  public health agencies worldwide that<unk>  restorations are safe and effective. Numerous other organizations have also publicly declared the safety and effectiveness of<unk> . These include the Mayo Clinic, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), Health Canada, Alzheimer's Association, American Academy of Pediatrics, Autism Society of America, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, National Multiple Sclerosis Society, New England Journal of Medicine, International Journal of Dentistry, National Council Against Health Fraud, The National Institute of<unk>  and Craniofacial Research NIDCR, American Cancer Society, Lupus Foundation of America, the American College of Medical Toxicology, the American Academy of Clinical Toxicology, Consumer Reports Prevention, WebMD and the International Association for<unk>  Research.
Dental amalgam controversy
Bodywork 
Circumcision controversies
Toxic waste
Rural health
Water fluoridation controversy
Surrogacy laws by country
Prosthetics in fiction