Were the conspiracy theorist right about Fluoride?

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
I know the author of this article seems to be a naturalist(anti-GMO) so the alarm bell went off but what about the Harvard study mention here. Any truth?Does Fluoride in the water make us dumb?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dr-mercola/fluoride_b_2479833.htm


The report says that it's possible, not that it's proven. It's all based on studies of people in China. Clearly Mercola is anti-fluoride, and wants to spin this as some kind of proof.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3491930/pdf/ehp.1104912.pdf
 
I was just reading the study and it says it was using water that was well above 1ppm fluoride but couldn't see any exact reading levels. Whats funny is the natural well water in China has a higher fluoride level than Fluoride treated water in the same country?...I'm confused.
 
So is the study basically pointing out that people who live rural areas have a lower IQ and then tries to make a connection with the higher Fluoride in the untreated natural well water?

.....please tell me I'm not reading the report right.
 

Trigger Hippie

Senior Member.
I was just reading the study and it says it was using water that was well above 1ppm fluoride but couldn't see any exact reading levels. Whats funny is the natural well water in China has a higher fluoride level than Fluoride treated water in the same country?...I'm confused.

Not all ground water in China has natural fluoride above 1ppm in it. If there is none then they add it. If there is too much then they should remove it, or tell people not to drink it.
 

Trigger Hippie

Senior Member.
So is the study basically pointing out that people who live rural areas have a lower IQ and then tries to make a connection with the higher Fluoride in the untreated natural well water?

.....please tell me I'm not reading the report right.

Going from memory, I think the study is saying that drinking water and breathing air with dangerously high levels of fluoride in it might mess up your head. Be careful with that study, many believe it not to be very good or conclusive. The thing about fluoride is that ingesting high concentrations is dangerous. However small concentrations have not been found to be dangerous and are even beneficial.
 
Not all ground water in China has natural fluoride above 1ppm in it. If there is none then they add it. If there is too much then they should remove it, or tell people not to drink it.

Yes of course.It just goes to show that the level of fluoride should be regulated and watched. now if we could just find a level that dentist and the conspiracy theorist agree on.
 

Grieves

Senior Member
I was in my dentist for the first time in a long time just a couple of months ago, getting a filling taken care of. While there, I asked my Hygienist, the cute and plucky young lady who does the cleaning in preparation of the Dentist, what she thought about the whole 'fluoride' debate. "Oh, that stuff's crazy." she told me. "People read like, one article on the internet, and they think they know everything. But some town nearby? Can't remember which... they stopped using fluoride a little while ago, and now guess what, tons of teeth problems!" I smiled, and nodded, and gargled on spit, and when she was done my Dentist, an Asian man in his early forties, started prepping me to go under the drill. What do you think about the fluoride debate, I asked him? His answer, to paraphrase, "Well, a lot of people fail to see the difference between 'contact' use and ingestion. I think contact-use is good for you, like with a fluoride rinse... but you get that from toothpaste and mouth-wash and just about every other oral care product. To have fluoride in the water-supply and most all beverages is excessive to me, here in Canada. It leads to a lot of overexposure in kids. These pale spots on your front teeth for example are suggestive of too much fluoride when you were young."

That we continue to fluoridate our water in North America is relatively ludicrous. When the idea first came about, it was advertised as reducing cavities by '99%', by the same kindly and reassuring TV doctors who told you smoking and lead in your car were good ideas. It's also a fundamental ingredient in many anti-depressants, which is pretty indicative of the effect it might have on cognition/behavior. Aside from being an extremely toxic substance, fluoride is binding, meaning your body doesn't filter it well, and a good 50% or so of all the fluoride you ingest seeps into your bones and stays there. There's absolutely no question that over-exposure to fluoride can have terrible effects on people/animals. It's also fatal in 'large' doses. (there are something like 23k reports a year of kids suffering sickness or dieing after ingesting a tube of toothpaste.)

These days the best estimates of its effectiveness I can find are at around 25% cavity reduction. Is medicating more or less the entire continent with no measure of consent using a toxic product the long-term effects of which, both in the individual and in generational consumption, are largely untested and unconsidered a good idea? We know our bodies absorb and hold onto this stuff, we know that it can wreak havoc on bones, especially in males studies show. Having personally developed mild scoliosis and Kyphosis at a very young age, and to have spent my youth to now groaning like an old man whenever I sit/stand, I can't say 'fluoride's to blame' with any real authority, but how can the benefits outweigh costs when we don't even have a firm grasp on what the long-term costs could be?
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
It's also fatal in 'large' doses. (there are something like 23k reports a year of kids suffering sickness or dieing after ingesting a tube of toothpaste.)

Well, not exactly:

http://emedicine.medscape.com/article/814774-overview#a0199

The 23K number sounds like it's just the number of calls Poison Control got. There were just 45 "Moderate effects", probably considerably less than the number of candy overdoses.
 

MikeC

Closed Account
When I was a kid we had F-tabs - they were small and white and quite sweet - so much so that I scoffed half a bottle of them one night - couldn't stand them after that!! But no medical attention was required.

the twitch has almost gone away 45 years later!! ;)

IMO there is certainly a reasonable argument that topical application and better general dental hygiene may remove the need for water fuoridation.

But the BS about it being ineffective, poison, used for mind control, included in chemtrails and all the rest of that stuff is just mind-bogglingly ignorant.
 

Grieves

Senior Member
And Mike, those were up to you to eat / your folks to feed you. There's no choice where water-fluoridation is involved, except a reverse-osmosis filter, which are expensive as hell.
 

MikeC

Closed Account
I wasn't talking about F-tabs because they were voluntary - but becaue I scoffed half a bottle of them to no known ill effects.

Everything is taxic if yuo have to much - even water - no, not from drowning, but from consuming too much of it .

the amount of fluoride in water that is treated is in the order, IIRC, of 1 ppm - which is simply not toxic - it is less than many naturally fluoridated water supplies around the world and inded these days some placesd use defluoridation to reduce natural levels to about that much.
 

Grieves

Senior Member
There's a difference between 'poisonous' and 'toxic'.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m5NRhtbQTxg
some idiots demonstrating how water can become 'poisonous' before it becomes fatal. I think we can all agree overdosing on fluoride is a rather easier and significantly more harmful in the long-term, so long as you don't water yourself to death.
http://thyroid.about.com/od/drsrichkarileeshames/a/fluoridechange.htm
an interesting article on the connection between fluoride and thyroid conditions. Fluoride baths was classically a well established treatment for an over-active thyroid.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Yar Mick, they'd be reporting sicknesses induced from eating toothpaste. Good to know there were no deaths in 2010, and that deaths in general are infrequent. The stuff remains a potentially fatal toxic substance.
http://www.nofluoride.com/presentations/Fluoride%20Lead%20Arsenic%20Comparison.pdf pretty nice little graph illustrating the oddly 'special' treatment of fluoride as a toxin.

No. They would be reporting their children eating toothpaste. They do this because of the warning printed on the tube which tell you to contact a poison control center if "more than is used for brushing" is swallowed.

Despite all those calls, nobody died.

The toxicity of fluoride is well known. A lethal dose of sodium fluoride is around 5 to 10g. At normal toothpaste concentration of around 1000 ppm, that means you'd need to consume 5Kg, or 11 pounds of toothpaste.

All things are toxic in sufficient quantity. Mouthwash is a LOT more toxic than toothpaste.
 

Grieves

Senior Member
No. They would be reporting their children eating toothpaste. They do this because of the warning printed on the tube which tell you to contact a poison control center if "more than is used for brushing" is swallowed.
Are you suggesting this is an over-precautionary measure of parents and toothpaste producers, putting those labels on their product? Or is the reason that warning is there because the product is potentially dangerous when over-consumed?
A lethal dose of sodium fluoride is around 5 to 10g.
In adults. In children it's significantly lower, in infants significantly lower still. Fluorosis, dental and skeletal, is not uncommonly witnessed in newborns who's mothers were ingesting 'normal' levels of fluoride while pregnant. The CDC and ADA now advise women to try and significantly reduce their fluoride consumption while pregnant (It used to be advisable for pregnant women to up their dosage I believe) and to try not to mix baby formula with fluoridated water.
Mouthwash is a LOT more toxic than toothpaste.
Because of its usual alcohol content, you mean? The thing is, you swish and spit mouthwash. Same with toothpaste. Some absorption is bound to occur (is in fact the intention), and inherently you're going to swallow a little, some people more and some people less, so you're ingesting a relatively high concentration of fluoride (comparative to the typical water content) with your morning routine already. Then it's also in most every beverage you can buy save typically the more expensive, and in the shower/bath, and in your drinking glass. You might argue 'well not everybody can afford a morning routine! Should we let their teeth fall out?' Well no, of course not, but what's likely to cost your community more in the long run: a social program through which people in that kind of need have cheap/free access to simple dental hygiene products? Or making fluoride consumption, which is indeed and should remain a natural occurrence, a mandate even for those who clearly don't need it, and for whom it's presence in the water pushes their consumption toward the excessive?

We're naturally meant to ingest salt as well. We use vast amounts more than we should because we like it, and it has a well documented negative impact on our health as a result in many cases. Same with refined sugars. Same with butters/cheeses. All of these substances, when one ingests too much, have adverse effects on one's livelihood, and each can lead either in concentrated incidents or stretched out over time to death. The thing is, so long as you're not poor and living in a food-desert, you can choose to eat less salt, drink less soda, spread less butter... or you can choose to say 'fuck it', glom away, and die in discomfort having lived in sweet excess. That's your choice.

Fluoride, though having none of the appeal of salt, refined sugar, or cheese and an arguably much lesser benefit, is the one of these products a person would have to actually struggle to cut out of their lives. Even if they choose to ditch the toothpastes and the mouth-washes and the bleach-strips and the impregnated dental floss, it's a lot harder to say no to water.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Are you suggesting this is an over-precautionary measure of parents and toothpaste producers, putting those labels on their product? Or is the reason that warning is there because the product is potentially dangerous when over-consumed?

I suspect it's a combination of factors. Obviously you don't want children eating toothpaste like candy - but that's obviously going to happen with things like strawberry flavored toothpastes. So you need a warning. And toothpastes often contain other toxins, like sorbitol and sodium lauryl sulphate.

Anti-fluoridation is also something of a political movement, based in anti-communism, so there might have been political pressure to add the warning. Or it might simply have been a consequence of general regulations - something by the numbers. Or it might have been a reaction to research showing children under 6 naturally swallow toothpaste instead of spitting it out, so were in danger of developing dental fluorosis.


See the following news story from 1997:
http://www.fluoridealert.org/articles/fda-toothpaste/
 

Attachments

  • 171736497.pdf
    347.7 KB · Views: 413
  • 162920539.pdf
    388.1 KB · Views: 850

Grieves

Senior Member
In areas where the drinking water contains fluoride, children who swallow even the pea-size amount of toothpaste are getting too much fluoride and are at risk for fluorosis.

fluoride-poison.jpg
A child suffering skeletal fluorosis. It's a rare condition in North America, but not at all unheard of, and it's entirely likely instances of bone deformation in which fluoride could have played a significant role have been diagnosed with no consideration of mild skeletal fluorosis as a cause. Dental fluorosis on the other hand is entirely frequent in the states, but I'll refrain from sharing pictures of close-shots of sickly/diseased mouths.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17014382
a publicly released medical report on a 54 year old man who's severe neck pain was diagnosed as skeletal fluorosis. The culprit? Toothpaste, combined with all the other daily sources of fluoride.
 

Jay_Bee

New Member
A family member has low thyroid function, and we avoid fluoridated water for that reason. Things that are normally well tolerated by the average person (wheat, soy, chamomile,
 

Cairenn

Senior Member.
I have low thyroid function and a friend's grown daughter had to have her thyroid destroyed. I know others with both problems and NO ONE has ever been told to avoid Fluoridated water.
 

Jay_Bee

New Member
When the family member first went to an endocrinologist, they asked "Is there any lifestyle factor that I can change to deal with this?" and they were told "No, don't worry about it - we will monitor it, when your thyroid burns out from the Hashimoto's autoimmune reaction, we will give you synthroid." We did research on our own and found that about 40% of people with that autoimmune condition improved on a gluten free diet. That diet led to remarkable improvement in symptoms in our case, and improvement in lab tests - T3, T4, and TSH are in the normal reference range, anti-thyroid hormone is much lower, but still indicates Hashimotos. We were not told to avoid soy or chamomile, but it has been shown that these can interfere with thyroid ('goitrogens'), and simply by observing these in the diet and noting symptoms and body temperature, we can say they are a factor. For fluoride, we avoid it due to the epidemiological evidence that it can interfere with the thyroid - it may be an effect that is slight for many, it may be slow to accumulate, but fluoride competes with iodide in the thyroid. We have also noted that seafood can modulate the disease - sometimes for better, sometimes for worse. This is not something we were told by the highly paid specialist. Also - we use L-tyrosine, which is an essential, rate limiting precursor of thyroxine production in the body - another thing that most doctors won't tell patients.
 

Grieves

Senior Member
Another public release from the same source, a site I'm really starting to dig.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21755305

[h=3][/h]
High-fluoride (100 and 200 ppm) water was administered to rats orally to study the fluoride-induced changes on the thyroid hormone status, the histopathology of discrete brain regions, the acetylcholine esterase activity, and the learning and memory abilities in multigeneration rats. Significant decrease in the serum-free thyroxine (FT4) and free triiodothyronine (FT3) levels and decrease in acetylcholine esterase activity in fluoride-treated group were observed. Presence of eosinophilic Purkinje cells, degenerating neurons, decreased granular cells, and vacuolations were noted in discrete brain regions of the fluoride-treated group. In the T-maze experiments, the fluoride-treated group showed poor acquisition and retention and higher latency when compared with the control. The alterations were more profound in the third generation when compared with the first- and second-generation fluoride-treated group. Changes in the thyroid hormone levels in the present study might have imbalanced the oxidant/antioxidant system, which further led to a reduction in learning memory ability. Hence, presence of generational or cumulative effects of fluoride on the development of the offspring when it is ingested continuously through multiple generations is evident from the present study.

So the study suggests that fluoride's cumulative effects, including thyroid dysfunction and a reduction in cognitive ability, persist and compound in later generations.
Our own massive communal increase in fluoride consumption started about three or four generations ago, didn't it?
 

Cairenn

Senior Member.
That study was done with VERY high levels of fluoride, not the amounts we get in water and even by using toothpaste.

It would be like baking cookies and instead of using a teaspoon of salt or vanilla, you used a 100 teaspoons, and of course the cookies are not edible. So then you announce that the recipe was bad.
 

Grieves

Senior Member
Not so high as you imply, certainly not higher than toothpaste. It's true Cairenn, fluoride content in water rarely exceeds 4 ppm. Toothpaste, on the other hand, a common part of the daily routine of North Americans, typically twice a day if you're doing it right, usually has 1000-1100 ppm, with some brands containing as much as 1300-1500 ppm. Mouthwashes which contain fluoride typically are in the 900 ppm range. Of course you're not supposed to ingest toothpaste and mouthwash, but it's relatively inevitable considering you're applying the stuff to your mouth. That already high daily dosage of the substance is being perpetually supplemented with every glass of water, every shower, every bottle of juice. In minute amounts surely, but this is a substance which accumulates in your body, every 'dosage', no matter how small, retained to an extent within your system.

My parents were born several years after fluoride became a staple of the North-American diet. This means my grandparents were likely already consuming it when they were born. From birth to adulthood it is entirely likely they were getting daily doses of fluoride, in their toothpaste and their water. I inevitably have as well. So long as the trend of fluoride use continues, it's likely my children, should I have any, will grow up in similar conditions unless I make an aggressive effort to curb their consumption. If fluoride is documented as having negative effects on thyroid, brain, and bone function, we know it accumulates in our bodies over time, and studies suggest the negative effects of accumulation of fluoride pass on and compound from generation to generation, how in the world could a policy of heavy daily fluoride consumption be a good thing for us in the long run?
 

MikeC

Closed Account
Indeed - perhaps it is due to there actually being no such evidence of negative effects at eh sort of doses we actualy take - since those doses have ben taken by humans for THOUSANDS of generations - not just 2 or 3..
 

Grieves

Senior Member
That's simply not true, Mike. Not true in the slightest. The negative effects of over-consumption of fluoride are thoroughly and scrupulously documented. I don't know what you mean by this statement.
 

Grieves

Senior Member
Your edit makes very little sense. Natural fluoride consumption, though greater in regions who's mineral-water contains higher concentrations, has been minimal up until the introduction and marketing of the substance as a dental product. Yes, in some places of the world you could get a pretty concentrated dose of the stuff from certain wells, but it hardly compared to daily oral contact with/ingestion of 1000 ppm+, coupled with 4 ppm in every water-source available to you. That's a modern deal.
 

MikeC

Closed Account
That's simply not true, Mike. Not true in the slightest. The negative effects of over-consumption of fluoride are thoroughly and scrupulously documented. I don't know what you mean by this statement.

The negative effects you listed weer in a study that used massive doses that we simply do not take.

human being have been taking fluoride from natural sources for thousands of generations - those doses have been taken by every generation raised on such water supplies. At those doses, over thousands of generations, there are no known negative effects of the types you have listed.

Around the world millions of pepole have received naturally fluoridated water in Africa, the mid-east, Asia

800px-Groundwater-fluoride-world.svg.png

the blue areas are where natural levels are above 1.5mg/l.

If you think that natural levels of fluoride result in "minimal...consumption" then you must also think that fluoridated water supplies also provide only minimal consumption - since they are at the same OR LOWER levels as naturally occur around much of the world!
 

Grieves

Senior Member
I do indeed think that artificial fluoridation levels, in North America at least, are relatively minimal. I simply also think they're highly unnecessary and likely detrimental when used in areas where substitute sources of concentrated fluoride are highly available and actively encouraged in near every facet of society. I also think it's a violation of a persons rights to subject them to the consumption of a pharmaceutical product (or an industrial waste product, both of which apply) without their consent/awareness. I'm pretty sure American law rather strictly agrees with me on that front.

I get the impression you're trying to use the same reasoning as in the whole chem-trail argument about aluminum content in the soil and such. I'm sorry, but it doesn't apply here in the slightest. You might also note that many of the regions on your map are regions where skeletal fluorosis is a major problem.
 

Cairenn

Senior Member.
But our water doesn't have 4 ppm in it. Most is closer to 1.2 ppm, and very few are over 2 ppm. That is half of what you are saying it is. Over half it leaves the body as well. You mentioned getting fluoride in the shower, HUH? It is not absorbed that way. Where are you getting the high amount of 1000ppm in toothpaste and mouthwash. There are toothpastes and mouthwashes that do NOT have any fluoride. You can also make your own toothpaste with baking soda and salt.

Your numbers are not realistic.
 

MikeC

Closed Account
. I also think it's a violation of a persons rights to subject them to the consumption of a pharmaceutical product (or an industrial waste product, both of which apply) without their consent/awareness. I'm pretty sure American law rather strictly agrees with me on that front.

So prosecute away using that existing law......

I get the impression you're trying to use the same reasoning as in the whole chem-trail argument about aluminum content in the soil and such. I'm sorry, but it doesn't apply here in the slightest.

and that would be because your impresion is wholely wrong.

I am arguing against your use of a study where rats were dosed with truly MASSIVE amounts of fluoride that affected subsequent generations to justify opposition to levels of fluoride that are entirely within humanities historical exposure for all of our history as a species on the basis that it causes similar effects over generations.

You might also note that many of the regions on your map are regions where skeletal fluorosis is a major problem.

I might - if I had any evidence to support that - but I don't have any such evidence. I am happy to look at any that you have - noting that the areas on the map are where there is >1.5mg/l with no upper limit. so if ther eis some concentration of effects due to HIGH fluoride levels I would EXPECT them to be in eth areas so identified! that is probably why many palced defluoride high natural levels!

Which still is irrelevant to artificial dosing at about 1.0mg/l - or even less in many cases now - indeed the restriction of any effecdts to areas of high fluoride is indicitive that there is NO effect at lower levels!
 

Jay_Bee

New Member
For the ordinary person, I don't think fluoride has much of an effect. But if 70% of a person's thyroid is shot and the remainder ain't feelin so good, then ANYTHING that interferes with what is left is problematic. Here is one Russian study that found that in patients with thyroid disease, fluoridated water decreased the active form of thyroid hormone (T3) and it increased TSH, which is an indicator of greater disorder. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/4088985

Combined with the epidemiology that links fluoride exposure to thyroid issues and numerous studies that demonstrate the biochemical mechanism for the interference, we thought it would be a good idea to replace tap water with reverse osmosis water. Do I know for sure where the threshold for negative effects is? No. Can I say for sure that this action helped? No. But overall, the disease in our household has been in near remission for many years, contrary to what the doctors predicted. The potential negative effects of an adult avoiding fluoridated water are quite small, while in this case, there might be moderate benefits.
 

MikeC

Closed Account
Again that study is about RAISED levels of fluorine in the water - not NORMAL levels - as it quite clearly states:

The amounts are given - "122 +/- 5 mumol/l with the normal value of 52 +/- 5 mumol/l" - you can translate these into ug/ml at this handy site
- and the result is that 122 = 2.32 mg/l, vs "normal" of 0.99.

You do your case no favours with such blatant misreading (I'm being kind!) of your "evidence".
 

Jay_Bee

New Member
No, Mike, I don't think I am blatantly misreading the study in any sense of the word - I suggest that your perspective is skewed. If the normal levels of fluoride in water are 0.99 mg/L, and that study found detrimental effects at 2.32 (slightly more than double the dose), I think that it raises real concerns - the best one could say is that there is a narrow margin of safety - and that requires making an assumption with no real information.... what is the shape of the curve by which fluoride impairs the thyroid? What level of additional thyroid impairment/fluoride consumption do we consider to be of no concern when a person is frequently cold, lethargic, and miserable? And why does an adult need fluoride in their water? - the tooth matrix is already established, for adults, a topical use of fluoride in toothpaste or mouthwash might strengthen the surface of the enamel, but internal consumption is of benefit to the teeth in developing children.
 

MikeC

Closed Account
the study found that EXCESS fluoride - ABOVE "normal levels" had the effect. It checked how much "normal levels" affected the thyroid - and found that they did not have any effect.

And it compared that to elevated levels of fluoride, and it found that ELEVATED levels had the effect.

So your "shape of the curve" is right there in the abstract for you to read.

More over one of the links on that page gives a further insight - "Fluorine and thyroid gland function: a review of the literature", which found in 1984:

So not only is the effect "slight", but to get that "slight effect" you have to have doses "greatly in excess of those recommended for caries prevention"

And more recently a study of iodine and fluorine in mice - "Long-term Effects of Various Iodine and Fluorine Doses on the Thyroid and Fluorosis in Mice.":

The interaction between Iodine and Fluorine was basically that if you are deficient in iodine then you will uptake more fluorine and get more effects from it:

ID = iodine deficient diet (0 iodine)
FE = fluorine excess (water at 30mg/l)
IN = iodine neutral
IE - iodine excess

These papers are NOT saying what you think they say.
 

Jay_Bee

New Member
the study found that EXCESS fluoride - ABOVE "normal levels" had the effect. It checked how much "normal levels" affected the thyroid - and found that they did not have any effect. And it compared that to elevated levels of fluoride, and it found that ELEVATED levels had the effect. So your "shape of the curve" is right there in the abstract for you to read.

No, there is absolutely nothing like a toxicity curve in that abstract. The study compared exactly two levels of fluoride, and it found that the higher level led to disorder even in normal people. It gave us no clue as to what a safe level of fluoride is for people who are hypothyroid. It did not compare 'normal' (ie, customary) levels of fluoride to much lower levels to see if the customary levels were truly benign. And it doesn't matter how much you capitalize the word excess, it was only 2.3x above the level that is customarily put in water... that is a very thin margin of safety.

Let's put this in terms of a therapeutic index, where the effective dose is compared to the toxic dose - the effective dose is what is put in the water (0.5 or 1.0 mg/L). The toxic dose according to the research is 2.32. That gives us a therapeutic index of somewhere between 2.33 and 4.66. That is a very poor showing, it is an indicator of potential problems.

Here's wikipedia's take on the therapeutic index: "The therapeutic index varies widely among substances: most forgiving among the opioid analgesics is remifentanyl, which offers a therapeutic index of 33,000:1; tetrahydrocannabinol, a sedative and analgesic of herbal origin (genus Cannabis), has a safe therapeutic index of 1000:1, while diazepam, a benzodiazepine sedative-hypnotic and skeletal muscle relaxant has a less-forgiving index of 100:1 and morphine, a sedative, antidepressant, and analgesic also of herbal origin (genus Papaver) has an index of 70:1[2] (which, however, is still considered very safe). Less safe are cocaine, a stimulant and local anaesthetic; ethanol, a widely available sedative consumed world-wide: the therapeutic indices for these substances are 15:1 and 10:1 respectively. Even less-safe are drugs such as digoxin, a cardiac glycoside; its therapeutic index is approximately 2:1."

Of course, they are constructing the therapeutic index using different measures of toxicity - one can use the LD50 (required to kill half the test population) or some other measure of toxicity or disease. But regardless - the article shows that even for healthy people, the prolonged consumption of slightly more fluoride can impair the thyroid gland. How can you guarantee that those who already have impaired thyroids will not experience the same effects at somewhat lower doses (perhaps half the dose, or right around the levels allowed in the water)?? You can't make such a statement based on evidence - the question is open.
 

Cairenn

Senior Member.
You still fail to show that there is anything more than your feeling that fluoride is bad for those with a less active thyroid. Low thyroid function is fairly common and where are the folks effected by it? Name just one that has been, without something odd, like eating tubes of toothpaste
 

Jay_Bee

New Member
That study said "The results led to a conclusion that excess of fluorine in drinking water was a risk factor of more rapid development of thyroid pathology." That study defined excess as only 2x to 4x more than is typically found - that is not a large margin of safety. We don't know the concentration where the effects drop to zero, or some 'acceptably' small level.

There is other evidence - epidemiology, studies where isolated thyroid cells were exposed to different levels of fluoride. You are welcome to say that you are not convinced that it is absolutely proven beyond all doubt - you are right, we don't have absolute certainty on these narrowly defined question of how fluoride affects the thyroid.

Others choose use the precautionary principle, to recognize that there is some evidence that it may be harmful, and to act proactively and prudently. The potential risk for an adult with thyroid disease to avoid fluoride is very low, close to zero IMO. The risk for the same person to consume fluoride is not known exactly (more research is needed) but it appears to be higher. My view of the world suggests that the smart course of action is for people with hypothyroid function to consider avoiding anything that might reasonably be expected to further limit their production of T3; you are welcome to make your own lifestyle choices as you see fit. Some will choose a course of action where 'if it is not proven dangerous, it must be safe.'
 

Dan Wilson

Senior Member.
The fluoride debate is kind of a weighing of risk and reward. Artificially fluoridating water can be argued as excessive, but the fluoride is so diluted that it is unlikely to be major contributor to any major health problems. We ingest fluoride from food as well. Point being, I don't think there is a major conspiracy when it comes to artificially fluoridated water.
http://www.fortcollinscwa.org/pages/fluoride.htm
The rewards of fluoride should also be appreciated. Keeping teeth healthy is extremely important to your overall health. Your gums are dense with blood vessels which is why gum disease is so serious. Microbes that you don't want start growing on your teeth, whether you eat something or not, after about 4 hours. This is why dentists recommend 2 brushings every day. If you don't brush and floss regularly and allow gum disease to thrive then that is a very quick way to shorten your life span. Since your gums are so vascular, it can lead to problems elsewhere in the body. For example, you are at a much higher risk of having heart complications with bad gum health. If you were to contract cancer in your mouth, bad gum health can also help the cancer in metastasizing, which would be very bad news. Humans' longer life span has dental health to thank as a big part of it. Medicine often has to be looked at as a risk/reward system and in this case the rewards of fluoride are greater than its risks, especially at the concentrations most developed countries are exposed to.
 

Grieves

Senior Member
I might - if I had any evidence to support that - but I don't have any such evidence. I am happy to look at any that you have -
If you say so...
800px-Groundwater-fluoride-world.svg.png



http://drinkingwateradvisor.com/2012/04/06/skeletal-fluorosis-endemic-in-india/ <--- skeletal fluorosis is a massive problem in India.

http://www.fluorideresearch.org/383/files/383178-184.pdf <--- Skeletal fluorosis is quite common in Chinese villages, and not at all unheard of in rural areas.

http://books.google.ca/books?id=BDZ...EwAA#v=onepage&q=Kazakhstan fluorosis&f=false <--- a link (should it work) to an article on medical geology, discussing the severe fluorosis in places like the Ukraine and Kazakhstan.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19049520 <--- a study of how dental and skeletal fluorosis is prevailent in refugee children living in the West Saharan.The study seems to suggest this is the result of 2 ppm fluoride in the water, combined with poor hygiene/nutrition.

http://www.scienceinafrica.co.za/2004/july/fluoride.htm A discussion of the Fluorosis situation in Tanzania, and how they're beginning to move away from fluoridated water in an effort to curb the cases. http://www.mah.se/CAPP/Country-Oral-Health-Profiles/AFRO/Uganda/Oral-Diseases/Fluorosis/ a quick reference to a study suggesting 28.5 % of the Ugandan population suffers fluorosis of some description.

http://nora.nerc.ac.uk/10086/1/WC99036.pdf A study discussing the many threats to health in the groundwater of Argentina. Arsenic is the primary concern, but fluoride is also discussed as a big problem.

so if ther eis some concentration of effects due to HIGH fluoride levels I would EXPECT them to be in eth areas so identified! that is probably why many palced defluoride high natural levels!
Right, but now you're admitting that fluoride consumption, even at 'high' but 'natural' levels, can lead to concentration of negative effects. Can't have it both ways.


You mentioned getting fluoride in the shower, HUH? It is not absorbed that way.
Yes, yes it is. Your skin is an absorbent organ, and you're also breathing it on the steam.
Where are you getting the high amount of 1000ppm in toothpaste
The side of the toothpaste tube. And yes, people can make toothpaste out of baking soda and salt. Do you know many people who do? Have you ever heard such a practice encouraged on TV? Or does every single facet of mainstream society encourage you to use regular toothpaste? You live in a pretty nifty community if everyone forgoes the convenience of crest for an old-fashioned solution.

I'm not saying 'down with toothpaste', even if it is the most obvious source of over-concentration of fluoride in North America. As you said, there are alternatives... and though folks don't choose them, they're easily chosen. Tap-water is not something you can just 'kick', especially if you're living at or below the poverty line. But seeing as we all have relatively easy access to toothpaste and dental hygiene products, even the impoverished, what is the point of fluoridating the water? Recent studies by the World Health organization could find no solid difference in tooth-decay figures between fluoridated and non-fluoridated regions, we know for a fact the effectiveness of fluoride isn't nearly as grandiose as was claimed when we started doing it, and that many north american children experience gum disease as a result of too much fluoride in their system. If they're absorbing enough to demonstrate the physical effects of fluorosis, who's to say they aren't also experiencing the detrimental effect on cognition? If their kids are born and experience dental fluorosis themselves, who's to say that cognitive effect isn't compounding? The benifits are shaky, the risks real and under-studied. So why keep doing it?
 
Thread starter Related Articles Forum Replies Date
Mick West Ghost Doll Reflection - Mistakes Were Made UFOs, Aliens, Monsters, and the Paranormal 1
Cube Radio Donald Trump initially said he thought there were "bombs" on the planes on 9/11 9/11 44
Mick West Why Were There Contrails Today, But Not Yesterday? It's the Weather! Contrails and Chemtrails 21
Keith Johnson CLAIM: Dispatch Log Shows CT State Police Were at Sandy Hook School Hours Before the Shooting Sandy Hook 1
TemplarJLS Debunked:"If I were reincarnated, I would wish to be... - Prince Philip Quotes Debunked 3
M Claim: Malaysian experts were shot at by Ukraine SU-25 and by GRAD Flight MH17 10
Mick West Debunked: Why were Life Star helicopters not deployed to Sandy Hook School? Sandy Hook 208
scombrid Is any crisis real? Yes, even the mall attacks in Kenya were fake. Conspiracy Theories 6
Mick West How to Tag someone in a post to let them know they were mentioned How To 3
Joe Newman MKULTRA - Were children involved, and was the focus only to find a truth serum? Conspiracy Theories 7
Titus Dafoe General Wesley Clark: Wars Were Planned - Seven Countries In Five Years Conspiracy Theories 61
sunyatajon If Chemtrails were real, they would affect the perpetrators Contrails and Chemtrails 24
George B WTC: Were the buildings up to code? 9/11 126
Fred259 WTC: Were the planes drones, how hard is flying a 767 into a building? 9/11 58
Juror No. 8 Obama kills Osama: What if real reporters were allowed White House press passes? General Discussion 0
T Is it less rational to believe in several conspiracy theories than only one? Conspiracy Theories 31
C Iran promotes anti-semetic conspiracy theories via American Herald Tribune Conspiracy Theories 0
GeorginaB Twitter is banning accounts linked to QAnon conspiracy Conspiracy Theories 0
Agent K Ghislaine Maxwell was arrested in New Hampshire Current Events 11
A Why 9/11 Truthers Are Wrong About The Facts | (Part 1 w/ Mick West) 9/11 1
Mick West Discussing 5G EMF Concerns, Theories, and Conspiracy Theories 5G and Other EMF Health Concerns 15
JFDee 9/11 Conspiracy Idea Slipped into Academic Course Material (France) 9/11 8
Mick West TFTRH #33 – Anthony Magnabosco: Street Epistemology and Conspiracy Theories Tales From the Rabbit Hole Podcast 1
Mick West TFTRH #31: Professor Elizabeth Loftus – Memory and Conspiracy Tales From the Rabbit Hole Podcast 6
Mick West TFTRH #15: Brad - Math vs. Conspiracy Theories Tales From the Rabbit Hole Podcast 21
Mick West TFTRH #13: Professor David Keith – Geoengineering Research and the Chemtrails Conspiracy Theory Tales From the Rabbit Hole Podcast 2
Marin B Facebook moderators believing in conspiracy theories Conspiracy Theories 4
Critical Thinker Russia's role in promoting conspiracy theories General Discussion 20
Rory The Conspiracy Theory Spectrum Practical Debunking 12
Mick West Conspiracy Theory or "Devil Theory" of Politics Conspiracy Theories 0
Mick West Alex Jones Deplatforming and Related Conspiracy Theories Current Events 49
Mick West Paper: How paranoid are conspiracy believers? Practical Debunking 21
Mick West Eruption of Kilauea Volcano in Hawaii – Conspiracies and Science Current Events 34
Mick West Perspective on the popularity of conspiracy theories. Practical Debunking 23
Leifer The Where's Waldo game, and the Conspiracy version. General Discussion 15
qed Roy Moore yearbook signature faked? Conspiracy Theories 111
M Bornong Can Belief in Chemtrails and/or other Conspiracy Theories Lead to Violence? Contrails and Chemtrails 4
G Applications of Game Theory to Assessing the Plausibility of Conspiracy Theories Practical Debunking 1
skephu Solar geoengineering and the chemtrails conspiracy on social media Contrails and Chemtrails 3
DannyBoy2k Are There Any Professional Groups Rebutting 9/11 Conspiracy Theories? 9/11 13
Mick West Explained: Unburned trees next to burned down structures as evidence of secret "energy weapons" Wildfires 120
Cube Radio What British Muslims think about 9/11 Conspiracy Theories 9/11 26
ZoomBubba Las Vegas Massacre - Surveillance Footage? Conspiracy Theories 115
Mick West Debunked: Hurricane Harvey, Project Stormfury, Conspiracy Theories Current Events 40
Mick West Dylan Avery - Director of the 9/11 Conspiracy Film "Loose Change" Escaping The Rabbit Hole 2
Mick West Hurricane Harvey. Cat 4. Major flooding. Conspiracy Theories. Current Events 10
Mick West Consensus Messaging vs. Message Targeting in Science Communication Practical Debunking 16
Mick West 2016 Berlin Truck Attack Conspiracy Theories Current Events 13
Mick West Current Events Forum Guidelines Current Events 0
skephu Changing Conspiracy Beliefs through Rationality and Ridiculing Practical Debunking 25
Related Articles


















































Related Articles

Top