Cracked.com debunks "Flouride lowers your IQ"

MikeC

Closed Account
as Cracked puts it - B.S. headline of the week!

Basically:

1/ It's not news, it is a press release by anti-fluorine activists
2/ It's nto a given - it is a possibility
3/ The levels that constitute "high" are those on poluted Indian and Chinese weater supplies that are up to 20 times allowed levels in "normal" drinking water

and as a bonus it is written with Cracked/com's usual reliance on humour :)
 

Trigger Hippie

Senior Member.
I just happened to come across this issue while listening to the latest podcast on The Skeptics' Guide To The Universe.

Here's Steve Novella's take on this particular report.

 

MikeC

Closed Account
Why would anyone have to imagine it?? "Science" is still a human activity & is therefore subject to all the usual vagaries that humans are generally wont to display.

the thing about science that makes it a bit better than other systems of evidence and knowledge is that it actually gives a mechanism with which to argue against its misuses - that mechanism being itself!
 
U

Unregistered

Guest
please read this article

http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/features/features/fluoride-childrens-health-grandjean-choi.html
and then read this article too

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/a...thium-drinking-water-lower-suicide-rates.html

They just love to moderate our way of thinking .It's very convenient ...for them but not for us.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
The Daily Mail article has some useful perspective on the lithium thing:

Regarding the Harvard study. Its interesting, however it's not actually studying water fluoridation, it's areas with high fluoride, vs. areas with low fluoride. In fact the areas with higher IQ were frequently at fluoride levels of around the CD dental optimum of 0.7 mg/L.

Given that all the samples were in China, it's quite possible that this may be showing something like the difference between city folk with processed water (low fluoride, better access to education, higher IQ), and country folk (water from springs and wells, less education, lower IQ).

Clearly more study would be needed there.
 

haarp

New Member
Why put this in water supplies at all?? I don't understand why there's any debate, get it out of the water and if people feel the need to swallow Sodium Fluoride they can do so in their own time. This is nothing but forced medication and a profit making scam.

Also, calcium fluoride is what you find in nature, teas etc still considered a toxin. Sodium Fluoride(silicofluorides) is a byproduct of industrial business and there is a direct conflict of interest as it saves them a lot of money not having to throw away their Sodium Fluoride by burying it. The fact that there's still research being done to determine the effects on humans shows it shouldn't be unleashed on the population until overwhelming evidence shows Sodium Fluoride is 100% safe, this is the same argument that's used to push GMO food " ah we haven't seen any negative effects in customers yet let's keep pushing it ". Anyone read the book "100,000,000 guinea pigs"? Pretty horrifying stuff.
 
K

Kubla

Guest
What they primarily use in drinking water is fluorosilicic acid, which is a by-product of phosphate mining and listed by the EPA Superfund as hazardous waste. Has anyone seen the results of spills? This stuff etches concrete and requires full Hazmat gear. Anyway! Plenty of evidence exists to elicit questions of fluoride's harm. This study and one other cost Dr. Mullenix her job at Forsyth. She took this study to NIH and was dismissed shortly after the shock wore off. One of those listening to her review of the study actually asked, "Are you saying that we've been dumbing down our children?" Mullenix was the first to use time-lapse imaging to capture behavioral changes of animals in rigorously controlled studies.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7760776 "Neurotoxicity of Sodium Fluoride in Rats"

The complete story can be found in The Fluoride Deception by Christopher Bryson. It's worth noting that Mullenix's mentor at Forsyth was one of the founding fathers of drinking water fluoridation. He put her on this study of fluoride as a way to lose some guilt before dying. The deception is maintained by the living who are too busy protecting their egos to care about the effects of their actions.
 

Trigger Hippie

Senior Member.
What they primarily use in drinking water is fluorosilicic acid, which is a by-product of phosphate mining and listed by the EPA Superfund as hazardous waste. Has anyone seen the results of spills? This stuff etches concrete and requires full Hazmat gear.
Consider hydrochloric acid, a dangerous by-product of the industrial chlorination process. It's a corrosive poisonous liquid that is very hazardous in case of skin contact. It can cause organ failure and even death. The stuff etches steel and requires full hazmat gear for large spills.

Hazard2a.jpg Hazard1a.jpg

Hydrochloric acid is also produced in the gastric glands of our stomach as part of the natural digestive process. So how is it that our own bodies produce and tolerate a dangerous industrial acid? It's all about the concentrations. In high concentrations hydrochloric acid will kill you, but diluted to 0.5% it's a harmless part of the digestive system. The same applies for most of the chemicals we regularly ingest. A high concentration of table salt is toxic, yet at low doses it's not toxic and it's even beneficial. Similarly, a high concentration of fluorosilicic acid is toxic, but at low doses it's not, and it's even proven to have beneficial properties.




http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7760776 "Neurotoxicity of Sodium Fluoride in Rats"

This study and one other cost Dr. Mullenix her job at Forsyth. She took this study to NIH and was dismissed shortly after...
Let's ignore the emotive editorializing and examine the study...

In this study small rats weighing 200 grams were given concentrations of fluoride that are equivalent to more than 30 times the safe limit for an adult. They kept giving the rats these dangerously high concentrations of fluoride until blood plasma counts showed 0.059-0.640 ppm. This is equivalent to what a person would experience if they were consistantly drinking water with fluoride concentrations at 7 to 14 times higher than the recommended level.

Their findings were inconclusive:

"Substances that accumulate in brain tissue potentiate concerns about neuorotoxic risks, but the conditions leading to fluoride deposits in any species are still not clear such that quantitative extrapolations are not possible at this time. Thus, conclusions concerning the neurotoxic potential of fluoride require further rat and human studies, both focused on the relationship of plasma fluoride levels with the brain, behavior, and skeletal growth."




Anyway! Plenty of evidence exists to elicit questions of fluoride's harm.
Yes, questioning results and further research is always welcome and encouraged. However, the question of fluoride toxicity at levels found in drinking water has been examined extensively. There is no evidence of harm directly attributable to fluoridated water. The mild cosmetic effects of dental fluorosis attributed to fluoridated drinking water don't count.
 

Plautus Satire

Banned
Banned
Similarly, a high concentration of fluorosilicic acid is toxic, but at low doses it's not, and it's even proven to have beneficial properties.
Feel free to ingest as much of it as you want, just don't put it in my water, and be careful where you excrete because you're going to poison the environment when you do.

There is no evidence of harm directly attributable to fluoridated water.
You're free to deny the evidence, but don't say it's not there.
 

Elfenlied

Member
The CDC (http://www.cdc.gov/fluoridation/safety/nas.htm) states:
In this report, the NRC considered research issues related to the medical geology field on connections between earth science and public health, addressing both positive and negative societal impacts. This report identified fluoride as a mineral that can positively influence human health, and although earlier NRC reports were not conclusive in their opinions, this report concluded that fluoride was considered to be an element essential for human life based on its role in cellular functions involving metabolic or biochemical processes. The report further stated that fluoride in drinking water has two beneficial effects: preventing tooth decay (dental caries) and contributing to bone mineralization and bone matrix integrity.
So, does it say that? Not exactly, since fluoride is not an element, but apart from that, yes, at page 39, and only at page 39:

The mineral ele-
ments currently considered essential for human health and metabolism
include the major ions/anions sodium (Na+), calcium (Ca2+), chlorine
(Cl–), magnesium (Mg2+), potassium (K+), silicon (Si4+), sulfate (SO4–), and
nitrate (NO3–); trace elements such as phosphorus (P), iodine (I), and fluo-
rine (F)
; and metals/metalloids such as iron (Fe), zinc (Zn), copper (Cu),
manganese (Mn), vanadium (V), selenium (Se), cobalt (Co), nickel (Ni),
chromium (Cr), tin (Sn), and molybdenum (Mo) (Moynahan, 1979).
Nice one, CDC, dismissing the 2006 conclusions based on one 1979 source ...
No wonder some people distrust organisations like the CDC and WHO. They have shown too often to be more concerned with "changing the social norms" than with objective science. That's why the CDC counts an "economic cost" of more than one million dollar per death due to drug abuse, and why the WHO advices countries to ban the electronic cigarette.

You won't gain the trust of wacko's with good science, but you will lose the trust of rational people with bad science.
 

muttkat

Banned
Banned
Why put this in water supplies at all?? I don't understand why there's any debate, get it out of the water and if people feel the need to swallow Sodium Fluoride they can do so in their own time. This is nothing but forced medication and a profit making scam.

Also, calcium fluoride is what you find in nature, teas etc still considered a toxin. Sodium Fluoride(silicofluorides) is a byproduct of industrial business and there is a direct conflict of interest as it saves them a lot of money not having to throw away their Sodium Fluoride by burying it. The fact that there's still research being done to determine the effects on humans shows it shouldn't be unleashed on the population until overwhelming evidence shows Sodium Fluoride is 100% safe, this is the same argument that's used to push GMO food " ah we haven't seen any negative effects in customers yet let's keep pushing it ". Anyone read the book "100,000,000 guinea pigs"? Pretty horrifying stuff.
And China is happy to send their more toxic fluoride with heavy metals & the US is so happy to accept it. I quit using fluoride toothpaste. The natural brand costs more but I will pay for it. You might find this article enlightening to the dangers of fluoride:
http://www.holisticmed.com/fluoride/toxic.html
 

Elfenlied

Member
What 2006 conclusions??
The 2006 NRC Report on Fluoride in Drinking Water: A Scientific Review of EPA’s Standards

That report is specifically about fluoride, the 2007 report covers topics as diverse as the risks of volcano eruptions, the spread of malaria, arsenic-contaminated foods in Chile, the lake Nyos eruption of 1986, asbestos in the air etc. It deals with fluoride on pages 67 to 68. Compared to the 2006 report: pages 1 to 530.

The 2013 CRS report for congress: Fluoride in Drinking Water: A Review of Fluoridation and Regulation Issue says fluoride is not an essential nutrient.
The 2010 report to the European Commission starts it's abstract with the words:
Fluoride is not an essential element for human growth and development, and for most organisms in the environment.
and the main document begins with
Fluoride is not considered to be essential for human growth and development but it is considered to be beneficial in the prevention of dental caries (tooth decay).

There's nothing controversial about this, the definition of essential nutrient has always been clear to scientists, until politics and public health issues came into play. You don't change a scientific definition because it would make a nice sound bite, science is not about PR and marketing, no matter how beneficial water fluoridation is.
and I find this more insulting to science than the outrageous claims by some fringe groups.
 

Soulfly

Banned
Banned
And China is happy to send their more toxic fluoride with heavy metals & the US is so happy to accept it. I quit using fluoride toothpaste. The natural brand costs more but I will pay for it. You might find this article enlightening to the dangers of fluoride:
http://www.holisticmed.com/fluoride/toxic.html
Fluorosilicic Acid has a higher LD50 than sodium fluoride making it less toxic.http://fscimage.fishersci.com/msds/21230.htm
RTECS#:
CAS# 7681-49-4: WB0350000
LD50/LC50:
CAS# 7681-49-4:
Draize test, rabbit, eye: 20 mg/24H Moderate;
Oral, mouse: LD50 = 44 mg/kg;
Oral, rabbit: LD50 = 200 mg/kg;
Oral, rat: LD50 = 31 mg/kg;
https://fscimage.fishersci.com/msds/11110.htm
RTECS#:
CAS# 7732-18-5: ZC0110000
CAS# 16961-83-4: VV8225000
LD50/LC50:
CAS# 7732-18-5:
Oral, rat: LD50 = >90 mL/kg;
.

CAS# 16961-83-4:
Oral, rat: LD50 = 430 mg/kg;
It is sad that holistic quacks can use the term medicine!
 

Cairenn

Senior Member.
You can make your own tooth powder with some baking soda and salt. clove oil can be added in small quantities. Even cheaper
 

Elfenlied

Member
I just happened to come across this issue while listening to the latest podcast on The Skeptics' Guide To The Universe.

Here's Steve Novella's take on this particular report.

Turns out the 0.45 was the standard weighted mean difference, which for an IQ test with a standard deviation of 15 (most modern tests) comes to a net effect size of -6.75 IQ points. (http://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/pdf-files/2013/Mar/ehp.1206192_508.pdf)
 

"They"

New Member
Here are all the links and info grabs from quick searches off google.

http://water.epa.gov/drink/contaminants/basicinformation/fluoride.cfm
The maximum contaminant level goals (MCLG) for fluoride is 4.0 mg/L or 4.0 ppm

http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/water/NU00283
adequate intake (AI) for men is roughly 3 liters (about 13 cups) of total beverages a day

http://www.ada.org/EPUBS/science/2012/may/page.shtml
According to Clifford Whall, PhD, director of the ADA Seal of Acceptance Program, the FDA permits OTC toothpaste for adults to contain 1000 ppm

http://theorganizedpackrat.blogspot.com/2011/05/toothpaste-math.html
This means that the average person uses about .0283 oz (.8 g) of toothpaste per use.

mg/g = 1000/1
4.0mg/L = 12mg/3L per day
12mg per day x 20 times allowed levels = 240mg per day
800mg toothpaste per use = 800mg/.8g
800mg toothpaste per use / 240mg per day = 3.33 days

As long as your swallowing less than a full single use of toothpaste every 3.33 days then your not even a candidate for what they are saying.
THIS IS THE REASON YOUR MOM TOLD YOU NOT TO SWALLOW TOOTHPASTE!

These poor calculations only count if you only brush once a day. o_O
 

MikeC

Closed Account
A 40 year study in New Zealand found no link between fluoridated drinking water (community water fluoridation, CWF) and IQ:

 

Gary Cook

Active Member
as Cracked puts it - B.S. headline of the week!

Basically:

1/ It's not news, it is a press release by anti-fluorine activists
2/ It's nto a given - it is a possibility
3/ The levels that constitute "high" are those on poluted Indian and Chinese weater supplies that are up to 20 times allowed levels in "normal" drinking water

and as a bonus it is written with Cracked/com's usual reliance on humour :)

Is this the same study that was in the Lancet defining fluoride as a neurotoxin?
http://www.thelancet.com/journals/laneur/article/PIIS1474-4422(13)70278-3/fulltext#article_upsell
 

David Fraser

Senior Member.

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
All three papers have Grandjean as an author. Although the American Chemistry article was about the link to Grandjean's 2006 paper, different to the OP's paper.
 

Libertarian

Banned
Banned
I'm with haarp and Kubla on this one. I'm not interested in being force medicated. Mick, you identify yourself as a Libertarian...so surely you would also agree that we shouldn't be forcing everyone to drink and bath in fluoride. Or is your self assigned title of "Libertarian" made in error?

With respect to the OP, it appears reading through these various studies that fluoride does indeed lower your IQ. The OP doesn't speak to a proven safe dose which does not reduce IQ. The OP seems to be saying that the Cracked.com article has established in some way that fluoride does not lower your IQ. But Cracked.com does not establish this at all. They just laugh about it and say it's not relevant, without sufficient proof.

In fact the Cracked.com article establishes that in high doses fluoride may indeed reduce IQ.

Further, several of the studies in the later linked Harvard meta-analysis also conclude that fluoride lowers IQ in concentrations similar to what many of our legally allowed limits for drinking water are (in NA these are typically 0.7-1.5 ppm)

I haven't seen the New Zealand study yet so perhaps it counterbalances one of the 27 Harvard meta-study articles. But that means there are still another 26 establishing potential harm from Fluoride, and if I remember from reading them, at least three established direct links between fluoride consumption and resultant stupidity.

Cracked.com's conclusion that Fluoride does not lower your IQ should be marked "debunked".
 
Last edited:

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
I'm with haarp and Kubla on this one. I'm not interested in being force medicated. Mick, you identify yourself as a Libertarian...so surely you would also agree that we shouldn't be forcing everyone to drink and bath in fluoride. Or is your self assigned title of "Libertarian" made in error?
I'm towards the libertarian end of the social spectrum, but not all the way:
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/de...-where-are-you-on-the-political-compass.2039/


I'm rather ambivalent about the actual need for fluoridation. My concern here is with the claims that it is harmful, not the ideological arguments.
 

Soulfly

Banned
Banned
I'm not interested in being force medicated.
The only ones forcing you to drink and bath in fluoridated water are the voters in your municipality that voted to have their water fluoridated. If you don't want your municipalities water fluoridated then you should start a petition and attend your city/county hall meetings and voice your concern.

Also I believe some areas actually remove natural fluoride to save levels, none is added.
 

Miles Bloomer

New Member
as Cracked puts it - B.S. headline of the week!

Basically:

1/ It's not news, it is a press release by anti-fluorine activists
2/ It's nto a given - it is a possibility
3/ The levels that constitute "high" are those on poluted Indian and Chinese weater supplies that are up to 20 times allowed levels in "normal" drinking water

and as a bonus it is written with Cracked/com's usual reliance on humour :)
The fluoride is added because a large amount of the natural fluoride is removed by filtration. The concentration of fluoride in freshwater lakes and the ocean is approximately 0.8-1.4 ppm. Comparitively, the concentration of fluoride in municipal water is approximately 0.5-1.25 ppm. The cetaceans appear to be doing well.

http://thyroid.about.com/library/articles/blfluoridefinder.htm

Optimal fluoride levels recommended by the U.S. Public Health Service and CDC for drinking water range from 0.7 parts per million (ppm) for warmer climates to 1.2 ppm for cooler climates to account for the tendency for people to drink more water in warmer climates."
http://health.state.tn.us/oralhealth/facts.html

Tennessee’s water sources:
  • Contain between 0.1 - 0.2 ppm (mg/L) fluoride whereas groundwater usually contains below 0.1 ppm fluoride.
  • May vary between 0.01 ppm and 0.7 ppm fluoride
Sea water typically has a naturally occurring fluoride content of 0.8 - 1.4 mg/L (ppm).
 

Dan Wilson

Senior Member.
I'm with haarp and Kubla on this one. I'm not interested in being force medicated. Mick, you identify yourself as a Libertarian...so surely you would also agree that we shouldn't be forcing everyone to drink and bath in fluoride.
Fluoride would be the least of my worries of things in the water supply. Seeing as fluoride, in correct doses, can protect against tooth decay and help prevent bacteria from causing gum disease, making its way into our bloodstream, and colonizing our heart valves (endocarditis), it has a huge upside. On the other hand, you have bacteria like Legionella and parasites like Giardia and Cryptosporidium, just to name a few. To top it all off, you take full dosages of a whole cavalcade of medicine over time simply by drinking enough water. So forced (even if accidental) medication is kind of a given if you want to live in this day and age.
http://www.popsci.com/article/scien...ecent&lnk=8&con=whats-in-your-drinking-water-




I haven't seen the New Zealand study yet so perhaps it counterbalances one of the 27 Harvard meta-study articles. But that means there are still another 26 establishing potential harm from Fluoride, and if I remember from reading them, at least three established direct links between fluoride consumption and resultant stupidity.
This is when it would be useful to provide your source. Here is a statement summarizing the authors' findings.

http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/wp-cont...Media-Statement_Fluoride-9-12-12-Revised2.pdf
They declared inconclusive evidence and called for more research. The reason for this is because the studies they reviewed were done in China and dealt with uncontrolled conditions where children were consuming well above the concentrations we have in fluoridated water.
 

WeedWhacker

Senior Member
I GREW UP in the area of Los Angeles, drinking the "tap water" that (since the 1960s) had "fluoride" in it. You know what's "sad"??

I tried to Google WHEN my water, that I drank as a child, was first 'fluoridated' and Google is LOADED with so much crap about "Anti-Fluoridation", I'm not sure how to 'search' it to sort through the nonsense.

My "point" is....I recall, even as a child of the 1960s, certainly the 1970s, the radio reports of "fluoridation" in the water....and, I DRANK THAT WATER...and today, am STILL sane, and have a clear head.

WHY is that?
 

Leifer

Senior Member.
You drank fluoridated water, so you have been dumbed down too much to realize that fluoride makes you dumb. o_O
(circular)
 

MikeC

Closed Account
Yeah it's a neurotoxin - if you take enough of it. Which a great deal more than is in the water.

Pretty much everything is poisonous if you consume enough - but as far as I know more people have died from water intoxication (yes that's a real thing that is not drowning) than fluoride poisoning from drinking water!
 

JeffreyNotGeoffrey

Active Member
While we are at it, we shouldn't let the government force filtration and purity of drinking water on us. If people want good water, they can damn well pay for it themselves and not mooch off of my dime ;)
 
Thread starter Related Articles Forum Replies Date
MikeC Metabunk linked from Cracked.com article on "Truthers" Sandy Hook 2
Edgukator Cracked is moving in on our territory General Discussion 1
MikeG "History" Channel: Quick Debunks General Discussion 9
Rory How Antarctica debunks the flat earth Flat Earth 99
Trailblazer Russ Tanner accidentally debunks chemtrails Contrails and Chemtrails 2
Bfahome ElectroBOOM debunks "Current Mohan" (History Channel) General Discussion 8
Ray Von Geezer Ian Simpson / Look-up.org.uk debunks chemtrails & geoengineering Contrails and Chemtrails 13
deirdre Sandy Hook mom "Debunks" Hoaxers <3 Sandy Hook 28
Balance Irish Weatherman debunks chemtrail speculation Contrails and Chemtrails 19
TWCobra Max Bliss inadvertently debunks most chemtrail theories Contrails and Chemtrails 10
TWCobra EasyJet 737 incident debunks Pilot for 9/11 truth V-G diagram video 9/11 325
Jay Reynolds Bill Cooper Debunks Chemtrails (Vintage Audio) Contrails and Chemtrails 13
Jay Reynolds London Telegraph Debunks Chemtrails Contrails and Chemtrails 9
Leifer Jessie Ventura Debunks Icke, sorta Conspiracy Theories 1
Mick West Leaked Osama bin Laden Abbottabad Commission report on Al Jazeera - Debunks Conspiracy Theories Conspiracy Theories 95
HappyMonday MSN Debunks 'Facebook Page' set up before the Boston Bombing' theory Boston Marathon Bombings 2
Jay Reynolds Historical Aerosol Thickness Debunks "Chemtrails are Geoengineering" Contrails and Chemtrails 86

Related Articles

Top