Posted by tea on January 25, 2010, at 23:44:08
In reply to Re: Mercury(cont)- for blueberry » tea, posted by janejane on January 17, 2010, at 6:22:16
> > http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6TCR-4DK68V3-2&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1169090026&_rerunOrigin=google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=461aa2e7a27e2b13363ec7062bdbdf00
> >
> > like I assumed
> > Tried to say above that I assumed the bound mercury to selenium would not chelate as well or the same (assumed the binding would hold and prevent or change at least the binding to the chelating agent...if that's how it works). I'm also assuming that the bound selenium-mercury compound is not excreted ..or not much but remains in tissues/organs etc?. I haven't looked into this, but to me, if I EVER (dountful due to the years of numerous problems I am still going thru from the removals) get rid of all my amalgams, I think I'd try to find out about the selnium-mercury binding more and maybe stop the selnium if it cut out the chelating effect?
> > Sorry I could not when I looked years ago find out much about this
>
> Tea, this is something I've been wondering about too. I'm not very good at understanding the science stuff, so I find it very confusing. My take is that selenium is probably a good thing to take regularly to neutralize mercury, but should maybe be stopped temporarily during chelation rounds (the last part is what I'm getting from the study you cited). I don't really like the idea of the bound mercury staying in my body (since the chelators don't appear to pull it out), but it's presumably not harmful. In some ways it seems like a selenium only strategy might be prudent because it wouldn't stir up the stored mercury like chelators seem to. (I get the sense sense that if you're not very careful, some of the stuff that's stirred up could get redistributed rather than excreted.) I'm not sure how effective it would be compared to using chelators, though. I suppose it could be tried as a first strategy, and the progress measured.Scientists find it very confusing too :-)
I looked at selenium back in 2004 , pulled a few studies from the library and came up with a half life of about 6 mths on average. I wrote it up , then lost it!!! sigh
anyway, if true that means you can stop selenium at least 3 mths before and still be high enough in it, and 6 mths before you will still have about half the level you had, so if it were me I'd be stopping at least 3 mths before and not taking any during any chelation. How it interacts with the chelation, I don't think it;s known? that was the only study I could find with a quick look. I wish more was known but it looks like it hasn't been looked at in detail? I have not spent time researching this though.I was only trying to point out exactly what you picked up about perhaps there being some compromise to the chelation from the selenium.
Back in 2003/2204 the selenium "push" was on. Many people on forums especially females seemed to take took too large a dose. Selenium can be toxic.
The "average" female in the US seemed to need no more than 75mcg per day and then have breaks. I need no more than 25mcg maybe once every week or two. Just one 25mcg tablet is enough to give my Mum a lot of the toxicity symptoms!..it depends on where you live and how much selenium is in the soil.
UK is low, Canada is good, Nth Qld has toxic high levels apparently. The change of wheat purchases from Canada to the EU for the UK was enough to get parliament in the UK discussing it in a paper(due to selenium lower in EU, but some countries added it to their soil).
If you add in iodine you should also add selenium (if not already high )in it..they go together..it's pretty confusing and I only know a little.
I never did get around to writing it up. May be something on it here but maybe not. Lar was pro-selenium, It's needed more for men (prostrate etc). Inuit have a trad. diet high in iodine AND selenium.
Studies on that were on here at the time.
poster:tea
thread:924677
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/alter/20091202/msgs/935000.html