{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.03565891472868217, 'fraction_numerical': 0.011627906976744186, 'mean_word_length': 5.089622641509434, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
[Amalgam. XVIII. Group characteristics in the attitude to and perception of amalgam].

Based upon their answers to a questionnaire, 1147 respondents could be divided into four groups. One group has a critical attitude to amalgam, the second is 'uncritical', the third 'uninformed' and the fourth, among which many with health complaints attributed to amalgam fillings, is named 'imaginary group'. The division is based upon nine out of 15 variables: 1. potential harmfulness of amalgam; 2. worry about the general health because of amalgam; 3. attribution of existing health complaints to amalgam; 4. reading/hearing about harmfulness of amalgam; 5. visits to alternative healers and quacks; 6. knowing that fish contains mercury; 7. knowing that amalgam contains mercury; 8. opinions on homeopathic medicines; 9. presence of dental amalgam. Among others preventive health and environmental actions were not of importance. The respondents, distinguished by sex, age and education, are not evenly distributed. An analysis of a second sample is considered in general to corroborate the findings. Although the analysis cannot reveal causal relationships, the results suggest the possibility that the population is kidded into distrust towards amalgam by the mass media and alternative healers.