Trigger Hippie
Senior Member.
I think I'm done.
Were the conspiracy theorist right about Fluoride?
- Thread starter Thomas Hughson
- Start date
I think I'm done.
Dan Wilson
Senior Member.
Vitamin A in rice is one example, aka "golden rice."
http://www.gmo-compass.org/eng/grocery_shopping/crops/24.genetically_modified_rice.html
Anyway, the major point here is that the concentration is relatively low in fluoridated water, compared to many other sources of fluoride. Like I said earlier, this is why people get dental fluorosis where there is no artificial or natural fluoride in the water. There is no evidence to suggest, in the face of all those other sources, that 0.7-1.2ppm fluoride is significantly harmful.
Grieves, this is false. Systemic fluoride treatment through ingestion is a real treatment separate from topical treatments with guidelines of recommended dosages and evidence to show that it works. I've been posting plenty of material on that matter and I don't see any evidence to suggest it would be wrong.
This is a very annoying and useless argument. For every new and radical idea that changes a field there are a million bad ones with their own group of "experts" backing it up. See, science is already self-regulating and self-scrutinizing. Go to any research presentation convention and everyone is ruthless. Every researcher's project is drilled for flaws, which is a very good thing and it is mutually understood that none of it is personal. What ultimately boils down to a new good idea is evidence. In this case, evidence to support the idea that fluoridated water is more detrimental than helpful to health just isn't there. I mean, what medical evidence are you talking about? We have already gone over every study you have posted and I have posted ones that show the benefits of fluoridated water.
Grieves
Senior Member
Vitamin A is a vitamin. Vitamins are exceedingly conducive to survival for the most part. Too much of certain vitamins can lead to problems, but they're something the body needs and often produces for itself to meet those needs. Vitamin D, for example, is something we produce due to contact with the sun, and for people who live in often sunless places vitamin D supplements are a great idea. Vitamin A is not a medication.
Chlorine is also put in the water, in relatively high amounts. Some consider this objectionable, and while I don't entirely disagree, I understand the importance given we poop in the water we drink. That's what chlorine in the water supply copes with.. it treats the water to make it drinkable, and isn't intended to treat the person drinking it. Chlorides are also relatively conducive to survival to an extremely minor extent, being a substance our body also needs in exceedingly minute quantities. Fluoride is not a substance our body needs in any quantity. It's not a vitamin, it's not a nutrient, it's not an essential mineral.
in spite of this, many people are still convinced to this day that pregnant women taking fluoride supplements is a good idea, and so they do. This poor information is spread and taken as truth. http://askville.amazon.com/fluoride-supplement-pregnant/AnswerViewer.do?requestId=42506975
Chlorine is also put in the water, in relatively high amounts. Some consider this objectionable, and while I don't entirely disagree, I understand the importance given we poop in the water we drink. That's what chlorine in the water supply copes with.. it treats the water to make it drinkable, and isn't intended to treat the person drinking it. Chlorides are also relatively conducive to survival to an extremely minor extent, being a substance our body also needs in exceedingly minute quantities. Fluoride is not a substance our body needs in any quantity. It's not a vitamin, it's not a nutrient, it's not an essential mineral.
The CDC, ADA, and a whole host of doctors and dentists all stating, on the record, that the function of fluoride where dental health is concerned is topical in nature isn't evidence? The 'systemic' effect of fluoride ingestion is the topical application of fluoride to teeth through saliva. That's what your own links state. When you speak of systemic fluoride treatment, you're speaking of things like 'f-tabs', yes? Those sometimes candy-like, sometimes chewable tablets that were more common in the 70's-80's, and are seeing less and less use? That they used to feed to kids who hadn't even developed teeth yet to systemically fortify them, or to pregnant mothers to promote in their babies a 'healthy' level of fluoride for when their teeth start growing, practices which are now specifically warned against?
This is taken directly from the CDC, here at this link. http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5014a1.htm
in spite of this, many people are still convinced to this day that pregnant women taking fluoride supplements is a good idea, and so they do. This poor information is spread and taken as truth. http://askville.amazon.com/fluoride-supplement-pregnant/AnswerViewer.do?requestId=42506975
This excerpt from a long post heavily espousing flouride in all of its forms highly recommends this pregnant woman start taking fluoride supplements, basically encouraging a woman to do potential harm to her baby based on fictional figures and her own opinions. She even mentions how '95% of pregnant women suffer a fluoride deficiency', directly calling fluoride a nutrient, which it is not. Things like this are why it's dangerous to just accept what you've heard about this sort of thing at face-value. If a doctor prescribes you f-tabs as a specific treatment, I've got no beef with that. That's between you and your doctor. There's a big difference between that and water fluoridation.
I don't understand you're criticism. 'Annoying' I can sort of understand, but why useless? Do you deny that the medical field is one in constant change and development? Do you deny this process is for the unquestionable benefit of everyone? Do you acknowledge that, in spite of this, very important changes in medical science are often long resisted for many complex reasons, sometimes as basic and foolish as the fragile egos of those who swear by the long-held belief or practice? The science against fluoride ingestion is quite entirely solid. It's a neurotoxin and we all know this. The science behind the amounts which are safe is what's shaky, and it's shaky on both ends. As I've stated many times and cited pretty thoroughly if you go back through it, the science promoting water fluoridation is no where near as solid as you seem to firmly believe and as others might hope. The process has never seen a truly thorough and clearly unbiased clinical review. Many of the studies against water fluoridation, suggesting their health risks, have similar weaknesses, so I can entirely understand not becoming alarmed over them or anything, but consider these are small-time studies conducted by various universities/independent doctors/dentists/researchers spread out all over the world and working likely without a great deal of funding. Their lack of more thorough and stringent studies is a bit more forgivable, albeit that makes their data no more conclusive. Water fluoridation is a popular policy adopted by arguably the wealthiest, most prosperous continent on the planet. One would think the medical evidence espousing it would measure up to high clinical standards, which it simply doesn't. Science, especially medical science, isn't 'self-regulating'. It's all dependent on people taking action, sometimes against long-held beliefs that go largely undisputed. Frequently those who initiate this process are tossed out on their asses for years before the evidence for their position becomes overwhelming. Here's a short but solid little discussion by three medical professionals. One is a dentist and proponent for water fluoridation, one is a chemist and an opponent of the process, the other is a professor of dentistry who's on the fence of the issue. It's the last man's opinion I find is best paid attention too, as the chemist mirrors my arguments to an extent and the man from the CDA mirrors yours to an extent.
There's been very brief discussion, and rather rapid dismissal of the studies I've presented, which are just a small handful of many upon many studies that are publicly available both for your perusal and peer review.
Indeed, fluoride is in all sorts of places, many of which you wouldn't expect it, but that's by no means a natural condition of our environment. Unquestionably fluoride exists in minute quantities in all sorts of things, as does uranium, but for the most part its measurable presence in everyday foodstuffs and products is by no means a natural occurrence. Knowing that most of us ingest this substance near every day in some way or another, and having absolutely no way of tracking how much of it we're ingesting, is a steady, cross-population dose of 0.7-1.2ppm (your areas range, mine goes to 1.5, others go higher) a good idea, especially considering the rate at which people drink water is, beyond what's needed to survive, unique to the individual? Even if most people experience absolutely no adverse effects whatsoever, some demographics/individuals might prove more susceptable to adverse effects. Some people might prove to have an allergic response. For some people that response might be obvious and diagnosable, for some people it might not. Dental fluorosis in its more serious cases is an unsightly, life-altering condition, but in it's milder cases it's true, it's just a bit of pale blotching on the teeth that most people wouldn't notice/look twice at. It is none the less evidence of enough fluoride in one's system to produce physical symptoms of its toxicity. That's what dental fluorosis is, the toxic effect of too much fluoride in the system on developing teeth. Can you say Dan, with absolute certainty, that levels of systemic toxicity capable of producing physical symptoms in teeth are having absolutely no other effect on any other part of the body whatsoever? If you can't, and you acknowledge dental fluorosis is a risk even when water isn't fluoridated, don't you think it would be prudent to reexamine the 'necessity' of water fluoridation?
Dan Wilson
Senior Member.
The point was to see the parallels. Rice (water) is being spiked with vitamin A (fluoride) on a mass scale in order to prevent blindness (cavities).
Yes... And they make a clear distinction between topical and systemic. Brushing your teeth and ingesting fluoride are two different kinds of treatments. You need to ingest fluoride for it to be present in your saliva, otherwise your saliva would actually promote the growth of certain microorganisms that will contribute to gingivitis.
As we probably both know, plenty of bad information is spread as truth. I'm not backing that ask webstie and I'm not interested in it, I'm backing the sources I posted which is what you should be addressing. In regards to it, though, the person posting that did mention that fluoride during pregnancy is controversial and fluoride was taken out of prenatal vitamins by the FDA. But that is not the focus of this thread.
Because so many people use it to promote their bad science. People like to say that science is dogmatic and is slow to warm up to new ideas and use that as leverage. That argument by itself is useless because scientists, including medicine, is indeed self-regulating and self-criticizing. You should see medical researchers strip down a paper and analyze it for flaws. I could give you plenty of examples of exciting stories/papers that turned out to be bad science but got a lot of attention before being rejected by this process of self-regulation but then I would be rambling. If a good idea is tossed out at first it's always because the evidence wasn't there yet and then of course it looks obvious in hindsight.
Why is it shaky on the end for its benefits? Fluoride is not acknowledged as an essential supplement but it is acknowledged as a very good thing to have in your diet for the sake of bones and teeth.
http://www.vitaminupdate.com/definition.cfm/id/30.html
http://www.webmd.com/vitamins-suppl...gredientId=1068&activeIngredientName=FLUORIDE
The studies you posted were the best that an argument against fluoride had to offer. The Chinese studies were by far the most extensive and they still could not demonstrate a clear causation between low concentrations of fluoride and IQ. What is wrong with the studies I posted? What makes you think all of the sources I have already posted are wrong? There is no available information to support the idea that 0.7-1.2ppm fluoride (which is the mandatory range for all fluoridated water sources and has been since 1962) is more harmful than helpful. As I started out saying, your teeth and gum health is critical for your overall health. Any serious disease in your gums and teeth can have drastic effects on the health of the rest of your body, especially your heart.
http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/dental/DE00001/NSECTIONGROUP=2
Fluoridated water has been showed to provide benefits to prevent these things. It has risks, but like I said, it is a matter of risk and reward. If the risks fail to outweigh the rewards and it stands to be a good solution, why change it? The only reason to change it would be if something better were implemented. Until then, the research seems to show that there is no significant risk when the benefits are taken into account.
Please take time to read some of these.
http://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/pdf/10.2105/AJPH.85.12.1678
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0140673699071615
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1600-0528.1995.tb00192.x/abstract
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jbmr.5650100712/abstract
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/...sCustomisedMessage=&userIsAuthenticated=false
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/...sCustomisedMessage=&userIsAuthenticated=false
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1752-7325.1997.tb02964.x/abstract
Definitely take a look at this:
http://www.ada.org/sections/newsAndEvents/pdfs/fluoridation_facts.pdf
It's apparent that dental fluorosis is a ubiquitous risk but it depends on many factors. The question here is, is water fluoridation a major contributor to that risk? The consensus seems to be no. In order to get a better answer than what has been presented here, look at the epidemiology and known major contributors of dental fluorosis.
http://www.cdc.gov/fluoridation/safety/dental_fluorosis.htm
http://skepticalvegan.com/2012/09/14/dental-fluorosis/
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/databriefs/db53.htm
Urine tests.
Can you provide evidence that fluoridated water is more harmful than helpful? That is the heart of the issue here.
MikeC
Closed Account
And also of course another parallel is that vitamin A is toxic if you have too much of it....
Grieves
Senior Member
The studies I posted were what I, a layman, was able to find in a most basic web-search in short order, and represent a tiny fraction of the studies in respect to fluoride. I've seen nothing presented by anyone in this discussion thus-far which 'debunked' them, either... only typically information pages that talk about 'overwhelming' numbers of studies without citing them. The weight of research being conducted in China and India is massive. I urge you to look into it.
reading through these now. The first explores a supposed connection between fluoride consumption and a form of bone-cancer that afflicts people under 25. Though some of the statistics specific to males suggested there was a risk, the conclusion is that fluoride couldn't be proven a contributing factor to that particular bone-cancer. The second is in regards to fluoride in drinking water and its relationship to hip fractures. The study concludes that there is, indeed, a risk of hip-fracture in individuals with drinking water of 1ppm, but the risk is low, so isn't worth discontinuing water fluoridation. The third is the usual study of fluoride use vs. cavities, as with the fourth... third from british columbia, fourth from Australia. They both use the same methods, and both come to similar conclusions, based on cross-sectional surveys of lifelong consumers. They come to a pro fluoride conclusion, cavities reduced by 20-30%, but the australian study makes an admission the canadian doesn't about the sort of study used:
The remaining studies are similar in nature, but the last answers your question here
So clearly, yes, fluoridated water contributes to dental fluorosis. As stated in your own quote,
and obviously dental fluorosis IS common in the US. Thus if 75% of fluoride ingestion is as a result of what's in our water/beverages, then what's in our water/beverages is in fact the MAJOR contributor to dental fluorosis, as that's the only conclusion which ads up. You should also note that not a single one of those studies is under 10 years old, and a few of the 95/96 studies are using data from the 80's.
The parallels aren't lost on me, but the huge differences shouldn't be lost on you, either. Surely you understand why vitamin A and Fluoride are in nowhere near the same ballpark.
again, the systemic benefit of ingested fluorides on developing teeth have been widely disproved. Though ingested fluoride does insinuate itself into developing teeth, the the result, if there is a noticeable result, is dental fluorosis. Fluoride strengthens the outer enamel of a tooth when applied topically, and that's all any of the modern proponents have to say about it.
Taking a look at it. Pretty interesting stuff. Did you notice the 'Celebrating 60 years of water fluoridation' on the front page, next to a nice little corporate logo of a drop of water sending out ripples? I wonder if I can expect a bias... ;p
Urine tests? How would that work for monitoring your daily intake?
It shouldn't be. Even if water fluoridation is more beneficial than it is harmful, of which I have serious doubts, that absolutely should not be the heart of the issue. The heart of the issue is the community/state/government being able to medicate people without their permission, using a treatment plan and a dosage over which those people often have no control. It tramples individual rights, sets an ominous precedent, and even if it's of mild benefit to many millions of people, if it's dangerous for even a few people, it absolutely shouldn't be in everybody's water.
Dan Wilson
Senior Member.
I was really hoping you would point that one out because the same hold true to almost every study you posted, the reason TH talked about correlation vs. causation.
One of the Chinese studies you posted actually was one of the two most extensive. Earlier I posted information from this book: http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=11571
It references one you posted and another one as the such, go back and look at it if you need to.
All of the studies I posted came to pro-fluoride conclusions, stating that the risks were either insignificant or nonexistent at concentrations of 0.7-1.2ppm.
And then they conclude...
Which is why we saw, in earlier links I posted, dentists praising the EPA's change to fluoride concentrations in water.
Of course, and I have to correct myself and say that it is a significant source, but most dental fluorosis does not reach threatening levels of severity.
http://www.who.int/water_sanitation_health/diseases/fluorosis/en/
Says who with what evidence???
http://jada.ada.org/content/138/3/420.full
Check the references here too: http://www.aapd.org/media/Policies_Guidelines/G_fluoridetherapy.pdf
Not the point, the concept and idea is still the same. See MikeC's post too.
Did you also catch the huge amount of information it offers? What do you think about it?
Yes, urine tests are what researchers in many of the studies you posted use to measure the subjects' fluoride intake.
Here we are assessing the risks/benefits of fluoridated water. The evidence strongly supports the idea that 0.7-1.2 ppm concentrations provide an optimal benefit to oral health care, which is hugely important to overall health. In light of this, I'm not interested in the ethics of it. It isn't in everybody's water, either. It's done based on already present levels of fluoride in the environment. Why/how is 0.7-12.ppm fluoridated water dangerous? None of the studies I've searched through provide evidence that it is. They highlight risks of too much fluoride exposure, way over the levels of fluoridated water, and minor risks associated with fluoridated water.
Clock
Senior Member.
I found an article on skeptic project about Fluoride. I think that's it an interesting read:
-------------------------
By: Dave Sorensen
For thousands of years humans died from tooth decay. Tooth decay occurs when bacteria eats up our left over sugary foods (fruits, etc) and leave behind acids. Over time these acids will destroy tooth enamel, which is the hard outer layer of a tooth. This opens holes for more bacteria to crawl inside and disperse more acid. This is how teeth decay. (1) For a long time dentistry was more of an art than a science. Pulling out teeth and prescribing herbs for pain relief was about as complex a dentist's job would get up until the 18th century. Horace Wells, a Connecticut dentist, discovered that nitrous oxide could be used to render patients unconscious. (2) (Finally those teeth could be yanked out without feeling it) Other methods and practices developed such as filling cavities with gold, large productions of toothbrushes and toothpaste. Toothpaste started off as simple mixtures of chalk and soap, but in 1896, Colgate Dental Cream was introduced which included Sodium Lauryl Sulphate and Sodium Ricinoleate as ingredients. (3)
In the 1930's a Colorado dentist named Frederick S. McKay became convinced that the origins of brown stains on his patients' teeth were connected to their local water supply. McKay's research verified that drinking water with high levels of naturally occurring fluoride was associated with mottled enamel.(Brown spots on teeth) By the early 1940s, H. Trendley Dean determined that taking out the right amount of fluoride would both eliminate the mottling problem and prevent tooth decay. In 1945, Newburgh, New York, and Grand Rapids, Michigan would all regulate sodium fluoride in their water systems. A lot of citizens, unaware that fluoride naturally exists in rivers and springs, feared that this was a health risk and an obstruction of personal choice. Reflecting on the past 50 years dozens of epidemological studies from around the world indicate that water fluoridation is both effective in preventing tooth decay and very safe. (4) Water fluoridation has been considered by the Center of Disease control to be one of the top ten public health achievements for the 20th century. (5) Why do people still doubt the safety of fluoride?
Humans should not consume Fluoride. It is a toxin and its unnatural
The saying goes, it's the dose that makes the poison. Yes Fluoride is toxic if you consume too much of it, but so is water, vitamin D, calcium or virtually any kind of vitamin. To say its unnatural is flat out false. It exists naturally in water and in much higher traces! As explained in the brief history section, one of the reasons for the many cases of brown spots and fluorosis (changes in teeth formation) was because there was too much natural fluoride in the water supply. The amount of fluoride in the water supply has been reduced since the 1950's to an optimal amount of 0.1-1.2 ppm depending on where you live. How much fluoridated water would you have to drink before you die from toxicity? It is actually impossible to consume the amount required. You would need to in get 5-10 grams at one time. This is 10,000 times the amount of fluoride is an 8 oz cup of fluoridated water. (1) But what about the amount in toothpaste? This is something I had worries about until I did the math. While I am not mathematician, I have estimated that the lethal dosage for toothpaste to be around an entire tube! This obviously does not mean that you should eat toothpaste. Consuming too much toothpaste can result in fluorosis.
Fluoridated water causes cancer
50 epidemiological studies done in different populations at different times have failed to demonstrate an association. These studies were done by the United States, Japan, the UK, Canada and Australia. (5) This assertion arises from a flawed study from the 1970's comparing cancer rates in 10 large fluoridated cities versus ten large nonfluoridated cities. The National Cancer Institute concluded that the study was flawed for numerous methodological reasons. A review by other researchers concluded that the level of industrialization was much higher in the fluoridated cities than the nonfluoridated. (6) There are known cancer threats with factories and pollution and this seems to fit the data much better than fluoridation. Although the flouridated cities had a higher rate of cancer, both had the same rate of increase over the years. (15%)
Studies done on the toxicity of fluoride itself have been done as well. Two animal studies were conducted by the National Tooxicology Program of the National Institue of Environmental Health Sciences and The Proctor and Gamble Company. (7)(8) There was eight groups of animals each with its own sex and species. The animals were given 25, 75 and 175 ppm of fluoride respectively. The studies concluded that "Taken together the two animal studies fail to establish an association between fluoride and cancer."
Studies from the New Jersey Department of Health have now confirmed a 6.9 fold increase in bone cancer in young males
In April 2006, a preliminary study was published that observed an association between exposure to fluoride in drinking water and the incidence of osteosarcoma in young males. The author initially acknowledged that this study had limitations and further research is required to confirm or refute this observation. After reviewing the study:
"The principal investigator for the overall study cautions against over interpreting or generalizing the results of the Bassin analysis, stressing that preliminary analysis of a second set of cases does not appear to replicate the findings."(8)
"A number of studies regarding water fluoridation and osteosarcoma have been published in the past. At this time, the weight of the scientific evidence, as assessed by independent committees of experts, comprehensive systematic reviews, and review of the findings of individual studies does not support an association between water fluoridated at levels optimal for oral health and the risk for cancer." -Center for Disease Control
Other conclusions regarding cancer risks have been the same:
"Many studies, in both humans and animals, have shown no association between fluoridated water and risk for cancer." -National Cancer Institute
"there has been nodetectable cancer risk to humans as evidenced by extensive human epidemiological data reported to date" -Public Health Service
"In 1993, the Subcommittee on Health Effects of Ingested Fluoride of the National Research Council, part of the National Academy of Sciences, conducted an extensive literature review concerning the association between fluoridated drinking water and increased cancer risk. The review included data from more than 50 human epidemiological studies and six animal studies. The Subcommittee concluded that none of the data demonstrated an association between fluoridated drinking water and cancer." (1b)
Fluoridated water causes osteoscheloris and other bone altering illnesses
This claim is true but misleading. In a survey of 170,000 people's xrays from Texas and Oklahoma, who had lived in communities whose water supply contained 4ppm-8ppm of fluoride, only 23 cases of osteoschelorsis had been found. Not one case of the more severe skeletal fluorosis. (2) Other studies have determined that toxicity may occur 10 years after exposure to HIGH levels. (over 5ppm) (3) N0te that this is much higher than the optimal safety guidelines. The reason that there are still communities today with more than 5ppm in their water supply is due mainly to the fact that they use natural water supplies (rivers, lakes). Another study done where community water supplies contained even higher amounts of fluorides (20 ppm) concluded that there was no evidence of advanced skeletal fluorosis. In the past 35 years, there has only been 5 documented cases of advanced bone disorders that may be linked to fluoridated water. (4)
Several European countries have banned water fluoridation
This is entirely false. Not one European country has banned water fluoridation. The United Kingdom uses water fluoridation extensively. One of the reasons this claim is so common is the fact that a lot of European countries have adopted alternatives to water fluoridation such as salt fluoridation. Salt fluoridation regulates fluoride intake in food, whereas we regulate it in our drinks. For example, in 2003, Basel, Switzerland voted to switch from water fluoridation to salt fluoridation because of technical and practical reasons. (10) Even in countries that don't require salt or water fluoridation like Sweden and the Netherlands, they still approve of the World Health Organization's recommendations regarding fluoridation as a preventative health measure. They also support fluoride toothpastes, mouthwash, and other fluoride supplements. (11) Other reasons for a country's choice not to adopt water fluoridation come down to complex water system issues, (pipes and maintenance), practicality and politics. Water fluoridation is used in 60 different counties worldwide, and it's safety has been unanimously agreed upon everywhere.
Water Fluoridation is ineffective
The evidence is overwhelming that fluoridated water helps prevent tooth decay. Gran Rapids, Michigan, which was the first city to fluoridate was observed in a study showed children who consumed fluoridated water had 50-63% less dental decay than children examined during the original baseline survey completed in non fluoridated Michigan. Other studies which in some cases analyzed 113 studies from 23 countries came to the same conclusions. (12)(13)(14)(15)
Nazis put fluoride in the water supply at the concentration camps
This claim may just be an internet fabrication as most sites promoting either lack a source or tell you to read " The Crime and Punishment of I.G. Farben". But let's just accept it for now. It is claimed that the Nazi's used fluoridated water to "dumb down" everyone at the concentration camps. If this is true, how much fluoride did they use? Given that they did not abide to a then nonexistent EPA regulation of 0.7-1.2 ppm, and that they have indeed added extra fluoride to the water supply, this amount would have to be much higher than what was naturally occuring in the German and Austrian river and creeks. As explained before where natural water contains 20ppm. So how much fluoride does it take to make people docile or better yet affect their behavior in any way? Since we have no Nazi fluoride records, we can only speculate. A 1995 study done on rats who consumed up to 125 times the EPA limit showed behavioral changes and cognitive deficits but even this study was critisized for lacking proper identification of the control groups. For the sake of argument let's assume that the study was done correctly. The study showed that 125 ppm of fluoride was neurotoxic for rats, not humans. Humans would require much more because of the obvious size difference. The Nazi's would have had to add at least 200 ppm of fluoride to the water supply at the concentration camps which is 200X the amount in our water. Even if the nazi story were true it is a non sequitur.
Another problem with the Nazi water fluoridation claim is that the Nazi's themselves would have to get their water from somewhere else. Why would the contaminate the entire water supply with large amounts of fluoride when they could control the people there with guns and putting up barbed wire fences?( which we know they did. )
Scientific American agrees that fluoride is bad
I'm sure there are many other sites that took advantage of this article, but i will focus on how infowars misrepresented a Scientific American article about fluoride entitled "Second thoughts about fluoride". Infowars had the following headline on their website: "Scientific Study Finds Fluoride Horror Stories Factual Industrial by-product consumed by millions of Americans lowers IQ, causes cancer" (17)
Let's see what the actual article concludes.
"About 200,000 Americans--and several million people in China, India, the Middle East, Africa and Southeast Asia--drink concentrations higher than the limit, but their excess fluoride comes from naturally occurring runoff from fluoride-...The report is, however, prompting some researchers to wonder whether even 1 mg/L is too much in drinking water, in light of the growing recognition that food, beverages and dental products are also major sources of fluoride, especially for young children." (18)
The US wide average is .79 ppm, but the EPA limit is set at around 4 ppm. One of the questions that is still open is if they should reduce the EPA limit, but as the quoted passage stated, it was questionable if that even 1ppm may be too high considering the growing recognition that a lot of food and beverages now contain fluoride.
"Consuming foods and beverages with large amounts of fluoride can put a diet above this range. Below are typical trace levels of fluoride, measured in parts per million (ppm), found in foods and drinks tested at the University of Iowa College of Dentistry."
A couple examples include: raisins (2.34ppm), brewed black tea (3.73ppm) and white wine (2.02ppm).Since there is a lot more fluoride used in products today, future studies could show that there too fluoride, and necessary measures would instate safer regulations. But this is speculative. Yes it is possible but this article in no way claims that the fluoride does lower IQ, or that it causes cancer. The ADA, FDA, WHO and numerous other agencies still maintain that fluoridated water is very safe. The article also mentions studies done in China which have not been repeated anywhere else in the world, and the studies themselves did not display a high correlation. (see china studies section) Even if a new study finds 1ppm to be too high, this does not mean that we had been poisoned or dumbed down by the the whole time resulted from a big government conspiracy. One reason would be that there has been hardly any cases of fluorosis since the fluoridated water systems started. This would have been a warning that people were consuming too much fluoride.
"Historically, dental fluorosis was quite widespread in the USA. Originally the problem was termed "mottled enamel" or, local to Colorado Springs, as "Colorado brown strain". In 1930, the link was made between mottled enamel
and high levels of fluoride in drinking-water supplies (2.0-13.7 mg l-1) and the term fluorosis was adopted...."
Driscoll et al. (1983) noted that more than 700 communities in the USA were thought to have water supplies that contained at least twice the recommended optimum level of fluoride (i.e. 2.4 mg l-1 and above). They found mean fluoride concentrations in Illinois between 1.06 and 4.07 mg l-1. In a study in Texas (Segreto et al., 1984), fluoride concentrations varied between 0.3 and 4.3 mg l-1. At the highest fluoride concentration only 5.2 per cent of children were considered to have normal teeth or questionable mottling." (19)
Chinese studies indicate that high levels of fluoride can lower IQ
This claim is partially true, but misleading. There have been about a dozen studies done in China that may show a potential link. But China's water supply was not very safe to begin with, as its contains high levels of fluoride.
"Drinking water with high levels of fluoride is widespread in China and has been seen in all provinces, municipalities and autonomous regions with the exception of Shanghai, and it has been estimated (Guifan, pers. com.) that there are over 1,200 counties and almost 150,000 villages affected by fluorosis (including coal pollution derived fluorosis)."
Dental fluorosis in China has been recognized for some time (Anderson, 1932)." (20)
China has also had high rates of fluorosis, a clear sign that their citzens are consuming too much fluoride.
"It has been estimated that over 26 million people in China suffer from dental fluorosis due to elevated fluoride in their drinking-water, with a further 16.5 million cases of dental fluorosis resulting from coal smoke pollution (Liang
et al., 1997)." (20)
China does not fluoridate its water (except "the people's republic of china", so they get their water from natural sources. It's also worth mentioning that the lower IQ link may be from fluoride gases coming from coal/clay pollution, or from arsenic which is also in the water supply. (21)(22)
"we saw arsenic levels in the water that represent more than fifty times the EPA-recommended limit for consumption of fish and shellfish." (Dartmouth biologists)
The best way to understand these studies' findings, is to track the journals down and read the conclusions they've reached. This is from a study done in 2007.
"Additionally, we recognize that children in our study groups attend school and therefore are exposed to different levels of As (arsenic) while not at home. All the complications and limitations of our study design, however, would not lead to systematic errors that would challenge the main findings: that 10-year-old Chinese children's IQ scores were lowered by 5-10 points when they were exposed to drinking water containing 150-200 μg/L As. However, we emphasize the need for more careful evaluation of the effects of fluoride on intelligence." (23)
"Children's intelligence and growth can be affected by high concentrations of As (arsenic) or fluoride. The IQ scores of the children in the high-As group were the lowest among the four groups we investigated. It is more significant that high concentrations of As affect children's intelligence. It indicates that arsenic exposure can affect children's intelligence and growth."
In conclusion, the claim that high levels of fluoride cause a decline in IQ is inconclusive. The Chinese water supply is very different then the US water supply and contains other toxic elements that correlate with the cognitive decline. This is likely considering the studies done on rats indicated that cognitive decline required up to 75 times the epa limit. When you look at the totality of the evidence on water fluoridation safety, a link between lowered IQ and fluoridated water becomes unlikely.
The US IQ average has dropped in the past 50 years
According to most IQ researchers, the national IQ has actually been rising since the 1930's. This increase has been observed all around the world, and not just with IQ tests but with episodic and semantic memory tests. (25) This observation has been called the "Flynn effect". Some explanations for the "Flynn effect" are improved nutrition and better education.
"Average scores on intelligence tests are rising substantially and consistently, all over the world. These gains have been going on for the better part of a century--essentially ever since tests were invented." (25)
In fact, according to the data, the average IQ in the 1930's was 80! Right now the national average is 98. So the claim that the IQ has dropped since the introduction of fluoridated water is complete bunk. But intelligence really can't be measured by IQ tests alone. There are many other factors influencing one's ability to communicate, perform physical tasks and remember information, which are all part of intelligence too.
Fluorosis rates have increased in the United States in the past 30 years
True. According to the Center for Disease Control:
"Prevalence of enamel fluorosis has increased in cohorts born since 1980. This increase should be evaluated in the context of total fluoride exposure." (26)
About 10% of the cases of fluorosis can be attributed to fluoridated water. (27) The other 90% most likely comes from children who swallow toothpaste either by accident or because they think it tastes like candy. (28) Also note that the fluorosis that occurs now are extremely mild, to a point where they are more of a cosmetic problem than a health problem. Only 1% of the population suffers from fluorosis that has been listed as severe or moderate. Most of these cases are children. Overall, fluorosis is not a big problem, and the best way to prevent it is to make sure your kids don't eat any toothpaste.
* For any other questions or concerns, I highly recommend the American Dentistry Association's fact sheet on fluoride released in 2005. (16)
-------------------------
By: Dave Sorensen
A brief history of fluoridation:
For thousands of years humans died from tooth decay. Tooth decay occurs when bacteria eats up our left over sugary foods (fruits, etc) and leave behind acids. Over time these acids will destroy tooth enamel, which is the hard outer layer of a tooth. This opens holes for more bacteria to crawl inside and disperse more acid. This is how teeth decay. (1) For a long time dentistry was more of an art than a science. Pulling out teeth and prescribing herbs for pain relief was about as complex a dentist's job would get up until the 18th century. Horace Wells, a Connecticut dentist, discovered that nitrous oxide could be used to render patients unconscious. (2) (Finally those teeth could be yanked out without feeling it) Other methods and practices developed such as filling cavities with gold, large productions of toothbrushes and toothpaste. Toothpaste started off as simple mixtures of chalk and soap, but in 1896, Colgate Dental Cream was introduced which included Sodium Lauryl Sulphate and Sodium Ricinoleate as ingredients. (3)
In the 1930's a Colorado dentist named Frederick S. McKay became convinced that the origins of brown stains on his patients' teeth were connected to their local water supply. McKay's research verified that drinking water with high levels of naturally occurring fluoride was associated with mottled enamel.(Brown spots on teeth) By the early 1940s, H. Trendley Dean determined that taking out the right amount of fluoride would both eliminate the mottling problem and prevent tooth decay. In 1945, Newburgh, New York, and Grand Rapids, Michigan would all regulate sodium fluoride in their water systems. A lot of citizens, unaware that fluoride naturally exists in rivers and springs, feared that this was a health risk and an obstruction of personal choice. Reflecting on the past 50 years dozens of epidemological studies from around the world indicate that water fluoridation is both effective in preventing tooth decay and very safe. (4) Water fluoridation has been considered by the Center of Disease control to be one of the top ten public health achievements for the 20th century. (5) Why do people still doubt the safety of fluoride?
Humans should not consume Fluoride. It is a toxin and its unnatural
The saying goes, it's the dose that makes the poison. Yes Fluoride is toxic if you consume too much of it, but so is water, vitamin D, calcium or virtually any kind of vitamin. To say its unnatural is flat out false. It exists naturally in water and in much higher traces! As explained in the brief history section, one of the reasons for the many cases of brown spots and fluorosis (changes in teeth formation) was because there was too much natural fluoride in the water supply. The amount of fluoride in the water supply has been reduced since the 1950's to an optimal amount of 0.1-1.2 ppm depending on where you live. How much fluoridated water would you have to drink before you die from toxicity? It is actually impossible to consume the amount required. You would need to in get 5-10 grams at one time. This is 10,000 times the amount of fluoride is an 8 oz cup of fluoridated water. (1) But what about the amount in toothpaste? This is something I had worries about until I did the math. While I am not mathematician, I have estimated that the lethal dosage for toothpaste to be around an entire tube! This obviously does not mean that you should eat toothpaste. Consuming too much toothpaste can result in fluorosis.
Fluoridated water causes cancer
50 epidemiological studies done in different populations at different times have failed to demonstrate an association. These studies were done by the United States, Japan, the UK, Canada and Australia. (5) This assertion arises from a flawed study from the 1970's comparing cancer rates in 10 large fluoridated cities versus ten large nonfluoridated cities. The National Cancer Institute concluded that the study was flawed for numerous methodological reasons. A review by other researchers concluded that the level of industrialization was much higher in the fluoridated cities than the nonfluoridated. (6) There are known cancer threats with factories and pollution and this seems to fit the data much better than fluoridation. Although the flouridated cities had a higher rate of cancer, both had the same rate of increase over the years. (15%)
Studies done on the toxicity of fluoride itself have been done as well. Two animal studies were conducted by the National Tooxicology Program of the National Institue of Environmental Health Sciences and The Proctor and Gamble Company. (7)(8) There was eight groups of animals each with its own sex and species. The animals were given 25, 75 and 175 ppm of fluoride respectively. The studies concluded that "Taken together the two animal studies fail to establish an association between fluoride and cancer."
Studies from the New Jersey Department of Health have now confirmed a 6.9 fold increase in bone cancer in young males
In April 2006, a preliminary study was published that observed an association between exposure to fluoride in drinking water and the incidence of osteosarcoma in young males. The author initially acknowledged that this study had limitations and further research is required to confirm or refute this observation. After reviewing the study:
"The principal investigator for the overall study cautions against over interpreting or generalizing the results of the Bassin analysis, stressing that preliminary analysis of a second set of cases does not appear to replicate the findings."(8)
"A number of studies regarding water fluoridation and osteosarcoma have been published in the past. At this time, the weight of the scientific evidence, as assessed by independent committees of experts, comprehensive systematic reviews, and review of the findings of individual studies does not support an association between water fluoridated at levels optimal for oral health and the risk for cancer." -Center for Disease Control
Other conclusions regarding cancer risks have been the same:
"Many studies, in both humans and animals, have shown no association between fluoridated water and risk for cancer." -National Cancer Institute
"there has been nodetectable cancer risk to humans as evidenced by extensive human epidemiological data reported to date" -Public Health Service
"In 1993, the Subcommittee on Health Effects of Ingested Fluoride of the National Research Council, part of the National Academy of Sciences, conducted an extensive literature review concerning the association between fluoridated drinking water and increased cancer risk. The review included data from more than 50 human epidemiological studies and six animal studies. The Subcommittee concluded that none of the data demonstrated an association between fluoridated drinking water and cancer." (1b)
Fluoridated water causes osteoscheloris and other bone altering illnesses
This claim is true but misleading. In a survey of 170,000 people's xrays from Texas and Oklahoma, who had lived in communities whose water supply contained 4ppm-8ppm of fluoride, only 23 cases of osteoschelorsis had been found. Not one case of the more severe skeletal fluorosis. (2) Other studies have determined that toxicity may occur 10 years after exposure to HIGH levels. (over 5ppm) (3) N0te that this is much higher than the optimal safety guidelines. The reason that there are still communities today with more than 5ppm in their water supply is due mainly to the fact that they use natural water supplies (rivers, lakes). Another study done where community water supplies contained even higher amounts of fluorides (20 ppm) concluded that there was no evidence of advanced skeletal fluorosis. In the past 35 years, there has only been 5 documented cases of advanced bone disorders that may be linked to fluoridated water. (4)
Several European countries have banned water fluoridation
This is entirely false. Not one European country has banned water fluoridation. The United Kingdom uses water fluoridation extensively. One of the reasons this claim is so common is the fact that a lot of European countries have adopted alternatives to water fluoridation such as salt fluoridation. Salt fluoridation regulates fluoride intake in food, whereas we regulate it in our drinks. For example, in 2003, Basel, Switzerland voted to switch from water fluoridation to salt fluoridation because of technical and practical reasons. (10) Even in countries that don't require salt or water fluoridation like Sweden and the Netherlands, they still approve of the World Health Organization's recommendations regarding fluoridation as a preventative health measure. They also support fluoride toothpastes, mouthwash, and other fluoride supplements. (11) Other reasons for a country's choice not to adopt water fluoridation come down to complex water system issues, (pipes and maintenance), practicality and politics. Water fluoridation is used in 60 different counties worldwide, and it's safety has been unanimously agreed upon everywhere.
Water Fluoridation is ineffective
The evidence is overwhelming that fluoridated water helps prevent tooth decay. Gran Rapids, Michigan, which was the first city to fluoridate was observed in a study showed children who consumed fluoridated water had 50-63% less dental decay than children examined during the original baseline survey completed in non fluoridated Michigan. Other studies which in some cases analyzed 113 studies from 23 countries came to the same conclusions. (12)(13)(14)(15)
Nazis put fluoride in the water supply at the concentration camps
This claim may just be an internet fabrication as most sites promoting either lack a source or tell you to read " The Crime and Punishment of I.G. Farben". But let's just accept it for now. It is claimed that the Nazi's used fluoridated water to "dumb down" everyone at the concentration camps. If this is true, how much fluoride did they use? Given that they did not abide to a then nonexistent EPA regulation of 0.7-1.2 ppm, and that they have indeed added extra fluoride to the water supply, this amount would have to be much higher than what was naturally occuring in the German and Austrian river and creeks. As explained before where natural water contains 20ppm. So how much fluoride does it take to make people docile or better yet affect their behavior in any way? Since we have no Nazi fluoride records, we can only speculate. A 1995 study done on rats who consumed up to 125 times the EPA limit showed behavioral changes and cognitive deficits but even this study was critisized for lacking proper identification of the control groups. For the sake of argument let's assume that the study was done correctly. The study showed that 125 ppm of fluoride was neurotoxic for rats, not humans. Humans would require much more because of the obvious size difference. The Nazi's would have had to add at least 200 ppm of fluoride to the water supply at the concentration camps which is 200X the amount in our water. Even if the nazi story were true it is a non sequitur.
Another problem with the Nazi water fluoridation claim is that the Nazi's themselves would have to get their water from somewhere else. Why would the contaminate the entire water supply with large amounts of fluoride when they could control the people there with guns and putting up barbed wire fences?( which we know they did. )
Scientific American agrees that fluoride is bad
I'm sure there are many other sites that took advantage of this article, but i will focus on how infowars misrepresented a Scientific American article about fluoride entitled "Second thoughts about fluoride". Infowars had the following headline on their website: "Scientific Study Finds Fluoride Horror Stories Factual Industrial by-product consumed by millions of Americans lowers IQ, causes cancer" (17)
Let's see what the actual article concludes.
"About 200,000 Americans--and several million people in China, India, the Middle East, Africa and Southeast Asia--drink concentrations higher than the limit, but their excess fluoride comes from naturally occurring runoff from fluoride-...The report is, however, prompting some researchers to wonder whether even 1 mg/L is too much in drinking water, in light of the growing recognition that food, beverages and dental products are also major sources of fluoride, especially for young children." (18)
The US wide average is .79 ppm, but the EPA limit is set at around 4 ppm. One of the questions that is still open is if they should reduce the EPA limit, but as the quoted passage stated, it was questionable if that even 1ppm may be too high considering the growing recognition that a lot of food and beverages now contain fluoride.
"Consuming foods and beverages with large amounts of fluoride can put a diet above this range. Below are typical trace levels of fluoride, measured in parts per million (ppm), found in foods and drinks tested at the University of Iowa College of Dentistry."
A couple examples include: raisins (2.34ppm), brewed black tea (3.73ppm) and white wine (2.02ppm).Since there is a lot more fluoride used in products today, future studies could show that there too fluoride, and necessary measures would instate safer regulations. But this is speculative. Yes it is possible but this article in no way claims that the fluoride does lower IQ, or that it causes cancer. The ADA, FDA, WHO and numerous other agencies still maintain that fluoridated water is very safe. The article also mentions studies done in China which have not been repeated anywhere else in the world, and the studies themselves did not display a high correlation. (see china studies section) Even if a new study finds 1ppm to be too high, this does not mean that we had been poisoned or dumbed down by the the whole time resulted from a big government conspiracy. One reason would be that there has been hardly any cases of fluorosis since the fluoridated water systems started. This would have been a warning that people were consuming too much fluoride.
"Historically, dental fluorosis was quite widespread in the USA. Originally the problem was termed "mottled enamel" or, local to Colorado Springs, as "Colorado brown strain". In 1930, the link was made between mottled enamel
and high levels of fluoride in drinking-water supplies (2.0-13.7 mg l-1) and the term fluorosis was adopted...."
Driscoll et al. (1983) noted that more than 700 communities in the USA were thought to have water supplies that contained at least twice the recommended optimum level of fluoride (i.e. 2.4 mg l-1 and above). They found mean fluoride concentrations in Illinois between 1.06 and 4.07 mg l-1. In a study in Texas (Segreto et al., 1984), fluoride concentrations varied between 0.3 and 4.3 mg l-1. At the highest fluoride concentration only 5.2 per cent of children were considered to have normal teeth or questionable mottling." (19)
Chinese studies indicate that high levels of fluoride can lower IQ
This claim is partially true, but misleading. There have been about a dozen studies done in China that may show a potential link. But China's water supply was not very safe to begin with, as its contains high levels of fluoride.
"Drinking water with high levels of fluoride is widespread in China and has been seen in all provinces, municipalities and autonomous regions with the exception of Shanghai, and it has been estimated (Guifan, pers. com.) that there are over 1,200 counties and almost 150,000 villages affected by fluorosis (including coal pollution derived fluorosis)."
Dental fluorosis in China has been recognized for some time (Anderson, 1932)." (20)
China has also had high rates of fluorosis, a clear sign that their citzens are consuming too much fluoride.
"It has been estimated that over 26 million people in China suffer from dental fluorosis due to elevated fluoride in their drinking-water, with a further 16.5 million cases of dental fluorosis resulting from coal smoke pollution (Liang
et al., 1997)." (20)
China does not fluoridate its water (except "the people's republic of china", so they get their water from natural sources. It's also worth mentioning that the lower IQ link may be from fluoride gases coming from coal/clay pollution, or from arsenic which is also in the water supply. (21)(22)
"we saw arsenic levels in the water that represent more than fifty times the EPA-recommended limit for consumption of fish and shellfish." (Dartmouth biologists)
The best way to understand these studies' findings, is to track the journals down and read the conclusions they've reached. This is from a study done in 2007.
"Additionally, we recognize that children in our study groups attend school and therefore are exposed to different levels of As (arsenic) while not at home. All the complications and limitations of our study design, however, would not lead to systematic errors that would challenge the main findings: that 10-year-old Chinese children's IQ scores were lowered by 5-10 points when they were exposed to drinking water containing 150-200 μg/L As. However, we emphasize the need for more careful evaluation of the effects of fluoride on intelligence." (23)
"Children's intelligence and growth can be affected by high concentrations of As (arsenic) or fluoride. The IQ scores of the children in the high-As group were the lowest among the four groups we investigated. It is more significant that high concentrations of As affect children's intelligence. It indicates that arsenic exposure can affect children's intelligence and growth."
In conclusion, the claim that high levels of fluoride cause a decline in IQ is inconclusive. The Chinese water supply is very different then the US water supply and contains other toxic elements that correlate with the cognitive decline. This is likely considering the studies done on rats indicated that cognitive decline required up to 75 times the epa limit. When you look at the totality of the evidence on water fluoridation safety, a link between lowered IQ and fluoridated water becomes unlikely.
The US IQ average has dropped in the past 50 years
According to most IQ researchers, the national IQ has actually been rising since the 1930's. This increase has been observed all around the world, and not just with IQ tests but with episodic and semantic memory tests. (25) This observation has been called the "Flynn effect". Some explanations for the "Flynn effect" are improved nutrition and better education.
"Average scores on intelligence tests are rising substantially and consistently, all over the world. These gains have been going on for the better part of a century--essentially ever since tests were invented." (25)
In fact, according to the data, the average IQ in the 1930's was 80! Right now the national average is 98. So the claim that the IQ has dropped since the introduction of fluoridated water is complete bunk. But intelligence really can't be measured by IQ tests alone. There are many other factors influencing one's ability to communicate, perform physical tasks and remember information, which are all part of intelligence too.
Fluorosis rates have increased in the United States in the past 30 years
True. According to the Center for Disease Control:
"Prevalence of enamel fluorosis has increased in cohorts born since 1980. This increase should be evaluated in the context of total fluoride exposure." (26)
About 10% of the cases of fluorosis can be attributed to fluoridated water. (27) The other 90% most likely comes from children who swallow toothpaste either by accident or because they think it tastes like candy. (28) Also note that the fluorosis that occurs now are extremely mild, to a point where they are more of a cosmetic problem than a health problem. Only 1% of the population suffers from fluorosis that has been listed as severe or moderate. Most of these cases are children. Overall, fluorosis is not a big problem, and the best way to prevent it is to make sure your kids don't eat any toothpaste.
* For any other questions or concerns, I highly recommend the American Dentistry Association's fact sheet on fluoride released in 2005. (16)
Grieves
Senior Member
heeere we go.
Highly, highly misleading spin. This person implies that the discovery of high levels of fluorosis in the Colorado area means that A.) fluoride consumption is 'perfectly natural', and that B.) high-level fluoride content in drinking water is universal. That naturally occurring fluoride is a substance in certain water supplies doesn't mean it's natural for us to consume it, or that our systems/organs are meant to process it. As is pointed out, the people consuming this water were experiencing fluorosis to a high degree, which as I've stated before is a physical symptom of high fluoride toxicity in a persons system. There's a tapped mineral spring in the UK which offers up Sulfer-rich water. That's 'perfectly natural' too. And though some people in olden times found drinking small quantities a wondrous remedy for intestinal worms, there would be nothing 'natural' about drinking it as your only source. Where fluoride is naturally occurring in considerable levels there's often a history of fluorosis, dental and skeletal, as pointed out earlier in the thread. Fluoride also isn't present in significant amounts in the majority of the world's fresh-water supply, or at least wasn't in 1940. So the idea that citizens protesting fluoridated water as a violation of their rights is just a silly misunderstanding given fluoride levels in water have actually been reduced is nonsense. It's been reduced in areas where it was causing obvious harm, but it's been increased in areas where it wasn't notably present before, and that's most of the areas where it's in effect.
Completely untrue. More documented cases have been cited in this thread.
We've got official figures, previously presented by defenders of fluoridation, stating that the vast majority of fluoride in a person's system comes from that ingested in water and drinks.
Dan Wilson
Senior Member.
When did anyone post evidence of skeletal fluorosis in areas with artificially fluoridated water sources? The only cases discussed were those in China and India, where exposure is significantly higher that 0.7-1.2ppm.
The figures suggest that questionable to mild cases of dental fluorosis have been associated with modified drinking water. No evidence suggests that the concentrations found in artificially fluoridated drinking water causes severe dental fluorosis or skeletal fluorosis.
http://www.health.ny.gov/prevention/dental/fluoridation/safety.htm
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11021861
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/stor...et/5650220120_ftp.pdf?v=1&t=hecu5kiy&2f095c98
In the case of skeletal fluorosis, the only "evidence" that exists for opponents of water fluoridation is speculation. They speculate that symptoms of arthritis could actually be early signs of skeletal fluorosis, when arthritis can take many different forms and has a number of common possible sources already. Meanwhile, there are no studies that suggest fluoridated water is directly causing these signs and symptoms. It would be an interesting thing to study, but since most opponent sources say that the two are indistinguishable, finding the source would be difficult. The point is, there certainly isn't enough to strongly suspect that fluoridated water of 0.7-1.2ppm is causing any serious problems.
Grieves
Senior Member
http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/fluoridegate/
an interesting documentary on the subject of water fluoridation in America. Within the first 35 minutes or so it details how a Senior Science Adviser for the EPA, one William Markus, was fired from his position on fabricated grounds, and following a court's decision that the Termination was indeed entirely unjust, was harassed by the EPA to the point that a second lawsuit had to be filed... all because he wrote a memo pointing out the inaccuracies and false conclusions in the EPA's study/report on water fluoridation safety, and suggesting their own studies implied fluoride, even in small amounts, as a human carcinogen. This man was the only toxicologist of repute on the EPA's staff, and they tried to fire him for being honest.
an interesting documentary on the subject of water fluoridation in America. Within the first 35 minutes or so it details how a Senior Science Adviser for the EPA, one William Markus, was fired from his position on fabricated grounds, and following a court's decision that the Termination was indeed entirely unjust, was harassed by the EPA to the point that a second lawsuit had to be filed... all because he wrote a memo pointing out the inaccuracies and false conclusions in the EPA's study/report on water fluoridation safety, and suggesting their own studies implied fluoride, even in small amounts, as a human carcinogen. This man was the only toxicologist of repute on the EPA's staff, and they tried to fire him for being honest.
Dan Wilson
Senior Member.
Most of what I found was on the story of him getting fired. The judge did rule in his favor, but I don't really care about the politics, I would care more about why he said what he said. What studies did he do to lead him to that conclusion? The best I can find is that he read reports on how fluoride was causing osteosarcomas in rats and mice, the details of the study he wrote a memo on are as follows.
http://health.gov/environment/ReviewofFluoride/MAJfind.htm#can
He criticized the report for calling the results "equivocal." That assertion and the suggestion for more research makes that assessment seem fine to me. Here are some other studies on water fluoridation in rats.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12637966
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7837981
It does seem as though he was unjustly fired but that doesn't necessarily mean he is completely right in his memo. Other studies of water fluoridation in rats suggest that high levels of fluoride are required to cause significant carcinogenic damage to bone in rats and mice. Something hugely important to note here is that animal model studies are not always directly attributable to humans. Plenty of things that go on in rats can happen completely differently in humans. This is why we have amazing experiments that result in cures for neurodegenerative diseases like Alzheimer's and Parkinson's in rats and fruit flies, but those same methods are not nearly as easy to do with humans. So that means we should look at the human studies for a more direct and satisfying answer on this topic. We have already done a lot of that, but just to revisit a couple things, I have some information here.
A review from Harvard University was done on the IQ studies that were carried out in China and India. Their statements were similar to what I have been discussing here.
http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/files/2012/07/Media-Statement_Fluoride-9-12-12-Revised.pdf
Although the current literature demonstrates no significant risk associated with water fluoridation, studies concerning those risks are incomplete at best. We do, however, know a lot more about the benefits it provides, which I would again recommend reading about here.
http://www.ada.org/sections/newsAndEvents/pdfs/fluoridation_facts.pdf
There are much worse things in our water supply to worry about than relatively small amounts of fluoride.
http://health.gov/environment/ReviewofFluoride/MAJfind.htm#can
He criticized the report for calling the results "equivocal." That assertion and the suggestion for more research makes that assessment seem fine to me. Here are some other studies on water fluoridation in rats.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12637966
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7837981
It does seem as though he was unjustly fired but that doesn't necessarily mean he is completely right in his memo. Other studies of water fluoridation in rats suggest that high levels of fluoride are required to cause significant carcinogenic damage to bone in rats and mice. Something hugely important to note here is that animal model studies are not always directly attributable to humans. Plenty of things that go on in rats can happen completely differently in humans. This is why we have amazing experiments that result in cures for neurodegenerative diseases like Alzheimer's and Parkinson's in rats and fruit flies, but those same methods are not nearly as easy to do with humans. So that means we should look at the human studies for a more direct and satisfying answer on this topic. We have already done a lot of that, but just to revisit a couple things, I have some information here.
A review from Harvard University was done on the IQ studies that were carried out in China and India. Their statements were similar to what I have been discussing here.
http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/files/2012/07/Media-Statement_Fluoride-9-12-12-Revised.pdf
Although the current literature demonstrates no significant risk associated with water fluoridation, studies concerning those risks are incomplete at best. We do, however, know a lot more about the benefits it provides, which I would again recommend reading about here.
http://www.ada.org/sections/newsAndEvents/pdfs/fluoridation_facts.pdf
There are much worse things in our water supply to worry about than relatively small amounts of fluoride.
Grieves
Senior Member
One of the major concerns William Markus had with the evidence of fluoride causing bone-cancers in rats is that the life-cycle of rats is typically far too short for bone-cancers to develop. He also has major concerns about the possibility of fluoride acting in tandem with mercury in newborns/infants/children, as mercury is present in several vaccines and certain kinds of fillings kids are likely to come in contact with, and those two substances working together drastically increase the toxic effects of each (one study he references in the documentary details how exposing a group of 40 or so rats to something like 20 ppm fluoridated water led to no deaths in that group, exposing another group of rats to something like 20ppm mercury in water that led to 1 death in the group of rats, but exposing a group to 10ppm fluoride and 10 ppm mercury led to the entire group's death).
He also speaks as to why minority communities are at much greater risk of experiencing adverse affects from fluoride ingestion, not just because poor nutrition, a problem many minority communities in America face, greatly encourages the negative effects of fluoride (remember the refugee kids in the congo suffering serious dental and in some cases skeletal fluorosis drinking water at only 2ppm, as a result of their poor nutrition) but also because subtle differences in their physiology allows for more of the toxins to be absorbed.
Again, if you can find the time, I encourage you to actually watch the documentary, so you can get the opinions of all the speakers. Feel free to skip over the rabble-rousing 'kids with speeches their parents wrote' deal, and get right to the interviews with pertinent professionals in various medical and scientific fields. There's a history with each of the EPA, CDC, and similar organizations completely ignoring their findings, and refusing to address very serious issues, like the disproportionate harm in minorities.
He also speaks as to why minority communities are at much greater risk of experiencing adverse affects from fluoride ingestion, not just because poor nutrition, a problem many minority communities in America face, greatly encourages the negative effects of fluoride (remember the refugee kids in the congo suffering serious dental and in some cases skeletal fluorosis drinking water at only 2ppm, as a result of their poor nutrition) but also because subtle differences in their physiology allows for more of the toxins to be absorbed.
If you watch the documentary, you'll find out why. You don't have to sit through the whole thing, just look for the scenes with William Markus if you have too... the guy has an incredibly distinctive face. YOU may not care about the politics, but the EPA, an organization that's supposed to be a watchdog for environmental and health risks, clearly does... to the point that they'd be willing to groundlessly fire their leading toxicologists for having serious doubts about water fluoridation, and sharing those doubts with another member of the scientific community. That's a pretty clear example of the EPA choosing the politics of the fluoridation policy over the science.
Perhaps, but he's knowledgeable enough to have a pretty damn good idea of what he's talking about, no? So if he feels there's strong evidence Fluoride in the water isn't safe, and the EPA tried to fire him for expressing that opinion through entirely reasonable channels, doesn't that directly suggest there's a political will to protect the policy of water fluoridation in spite of science? Can we seriously assume, given this guy was a senior scientist of the EPA itself, that the EPA and other organizations haven't similarly ignored and dismissed other scientific assessments of the water fluoridation policy?
So Harvard University states it cannot say with any certainty that fluoride ingestion at the levels seen in the US doesn't have a negative impact on the developing brain. That means a negative effect on the brain, according to Harvard University, is a real possibility. They recommend far more research on the subject. In other words, we're all ingesting a medication the side-effects we're not even yet fully aware of.
Perhaps, but it's a government policy that's putting fluoride in our water supply, giving major industries a break on waste-disposal costs. Its not like old pipes or 'recycled' pharmaceuticals... its something that could actually be stopped relatively instantaneously and without a whole lot of effort if enough people adamantly demanded it.
Again, if you can find the time, I encourage you to actually watch the documentary, so you can get the opinions of all the speakers. Feel free to skip over the rabble-rousing 'kids with speeches their parents wrote' deal, and get right to the interviews with pertinent professionals in various medical and scientific fields. There's a history with each of the EPA, CDC, and similar organizations completely ignoring their findings, and refusing to address very serious issues, like the disproportionate harm in minorities.
"All substances are poisons; there is none which is not a poison. The right dose differentiates a poison…." Paracelsus (1493-1541)
Toxicology law 1 Dose makes the poison.
Understanding this is key to understanding the safety of water fluoridation and the proper suggested use of dental hygiene products.
This video explains pretty well while not discounting all concerns.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MAXwv7j_jbY
Toxicology law 1 Dose makes the poison.
Understanding this is key to understanding the safety of water fluoridation and the proper suggested use of dental hygiene products.
This video explains pretty well while not discounting all concerns.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MAXwv7j_jbY
Grieves
Senior Member
Soul, 1 dose may not make a poison, but what dosage of fluoride is a person ingesting in a given day? Do you have any idea? Does anyone? Daily dosage is wholly dependent on age, height, weight, lifestyle, rate of consumption, ect. ect. Can you honestly say a good dose of fluoride in the water for a 30 year old white male is going to be the same for a 6 month old black infant? Obviously you cant, as the CDC recommends infants not be exposed to fluoridated water. That doesn't mean infants aren't still drinking fluoride in their water of course, as many sources still recommend high doses of fluoride in infants in a throwback to what was taught in the 50's/60's/70's, with some products intended for baby formula still being fluoride-heavy.
Since 1948, 60 years of introducing fluoride to the systems of infant-children! Woops...
Fluoride is the only medication I'm aware of where the dosage is universal/irrelevant, and the only medication I'm aware of still being marketed as being for infants in spite of being verified as harmful to infants.
Since 1948, 60 years of introducing fluoride to the systems of infant-children! Woops...
Fluoride is the only medication I'm aware of where the dosage is universal/irrelevant, and the only medication I'm aware of still being marketed as being for infants in spite of being verified as harmful to infants.
Grieves
Senior Member
Yes, obviously. I think you're missing my point. Where fluoride is concerned, dosage is quite apparently irrelevant to policy-makers, as all the people in a fluoridated community who drink the water, regardless of all the influencing factors on a proper personal dosage (age, height, weight, ect.ect.ect.) are given the same levels of fluoride in the water, with no consideration of how much water they're drinking / the other sources of fluoride present in their daily routine. This is one of the reasons why fluoride in the water is an exceedingly questionable practice. It's a policy rooted in, as you said, a lack in the understanding of toxicology, and the importance of proper dosage for the individual where medications are involved.
The Center for Disease Control flatly states infant children should not drink fluoridated water. Those are fluoridated water products intended for consumption by infants. The amount, to me, is irrelevant. That's a product going against the recommendations of the CDC in an issue of infant-safety. I reference these products to point out the fact that public opinion and policy regarding infant fluoride ingestion hasn't caught up to the science on the subject, or even to the recommendations of the monitoring bodies of the policy.
Grieves
Senior Member
That's just silly....
besides, the products aren't the truly significant issue, albeit they're potentially harmful. The significant issue is the fluoride in tap-water, which isn't a product people buy, but something many millions quite simply depend upon for day-to-day survival. If a mother cant afford a reverse-osmosis filter or purified bottled water, tap water is their only option for making formula for their infants... which means their only option of making formula for their infants goes against the recommendations of the CDC in an issue of infant-safety. Odd medicine, that.
Clearly if this was such a huge problem then there would be literally thousands (hundreds of thousands?) of children and adults suffering from dental fluorosis and other diseases. While you give credible reason for concern, you give false information, if only partially.
http://www.cdc.gov/fluoridation/safety/infant_formula.htm
[h=4]Can I use optimally fluoridated tap water to mix infant formula?[/h]Yes, you can use fluoridated water for preparing infant formula. However, if your child is exclusively consuming infant formula reconstituted with fluoridated water, there may be an increased chance for mild dental fluorosis. To lessen this chance, parents can use low-fluoride bottled water some of the time to mix infant formula; these bottled waters are labeled as de-ionized, purified, demineralized, or distilled.
http://www.nurserywater.com/info/faq.php
Nursery® water has a fluoride level of up to 0.7 ppm. Consult with your pediatrician or dental professional if you have questions.
http://www.cdc.gov/fluoridation/safety/infant_formula.htm
[h=4]Can I use optimally fluoridated tap water to mix infant formula?[/h]Yes, you can use fluoridated water for preparing infant formula. However, if your child is exclusively consuming infant formula reconstituted with fluoridated water, there may be an increased chance for mild dental fluorosis. To lessen this chance, parents can use low-fluoride bottled water some of the time to mix infant formula; these bottled waters are labeled as de-ionized, purified, demineralized, or distilled.
http://www.nurserywater.com/info/faq.php
Nursery® water has a fluoride level of up to 0.7 ppm. Consult with your pediatrician or dental professional if you have questions.
Grieves
Senior Member
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/databriefs/db53.htm
that's a near 1/4 of the population who experienced dental fluorosis in some form as of 2004. All studies on the subject suggest that figure is increasing. 2% had moderate cases, 1% had severe cases, with severe cases being most common in infants/children. 1% of the 2004 population in America is about 2.9 million people.
I'll have to dig around for it (i'm quite certain I've posted it in one of these threads before) but there's recent reports from the CDC stating fluoride has no benefit in infants who's teeth have not yet erupted, and that fluoride shouldn't be given to such children. That piece on formula is a surprise to me/worrisome.
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]The data brief does not deal with infants or give the amount of fluoride in the water supply in any given place.
The CDC does not deny fluoride can be an issue with infants.
[/FONT]
http://www.cdc.gov/fluoridation/safety/infant_formula.htm[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
[/FONT][h=4]Why is there a focus on infant formula as a source of fluoride?[/h]Infant formula manufacturers take steps to assure that infant formula contains low fluoride levels—the products themselves are not the issue. Although formula itself has low amounts of fluoride, if your child is exclusively consuming infant formula reconstituted with fluoridated water, there may be an increased chance for mild dental fluorosis.
Infants consume little other than breast milk or formula during the first 4 to 6 months of life, and continue to have a high intake of liquids during the entire first year. Therefore, proportional to body weight, fluoride intake may be higher for younger or smaller children than for older children, adolescents, or adults.
[h=4]What types of infant formula may increase the chance of dental fluorosis?[/h]There are three types of formula available in the United States for infant feeding. These are powdered formula, which comes in bulk or single-serve packets, concentrated liquid, and ready-to-feed formula. Ready-to-feed formula contains little fluoride and does not contribute to development of dental fluorosis. Those types of formula that require mixing with water—powdered or liquid concentrates—can be a child’s main source of fluoride intake (depending upon the fluoride content of the water source used) and may increase the chance of dental fluorosis.
Until I see documented evidence of your claims I will be skeptical. I don't just equate no benefit to harmful effects. I agree that care should be taken with regards to fluoride ingestion and children, especially infants.
The CDC does not deny fluoride can be an issue with infants.
[/FONT]
http://www.cdc.gov/fluoridation/safety/infant_formula.htm[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
[/FONT][h=4]Why is there a focus on infant formula as a source of fluoride?[/h]Infant formula manufacturers take steps to assure that infant formula contains low fluoride levels—the products themselves are not the issue. Although formula itself has low amounts of fluoride, if your child is exclusively consuming infant formula reconstituted with fluoridated water, there may be an increased chance for mild dental fluorosis.
Infants consume little other than breast milk or formula during the first 4 to 6 months of life, and continue to have a high intake of liquids during the entire first year. Therefore, proportional to body weight, fluoride intake may be higher for younger or smaller children than for older children, adolescents, or adults.
[h=4]What types of infant formula may increase the chance of dental fluorosis?[/h]There are three types of formula available in the United States for infant feeding. These are powdered formula, which comes in bulk or single-serve packets, concentrated liquid, and ready-to-feed formula. Ready-to-feed formula contains little fluoride and does not contribute to development of dental fluorosis. Those types of formula that require mixing with water—powdered or liquid concentrates—can be a child’s main source of fluoride intake (depending upon the fluoride content of the water source used) and may increase the chance of dental fluorosis.
Until I see documented evidence of your claims I will be skeptical. I don't just equate no benefit to harmful effects. I agree that care should be taken with regards to fluoride ingestion and children, especially infants.
@Grieves
All other facts or non-facts aside. Dose makes the poison applies to everything. Although I'm sure it would be hard to administer a dose that small, theoretically a dose could be one molecule of a substance. I'm not even sure if there are any substances that could cause sufficient health problems at that small a dose. Maybe a protein allergy? Hypothetically speaking, even if at a later time (like you fear) it is determined that infants should not ingest fluoride (for whatever reason) the publishers of the paper/study would need to show exactly how much fluoride really is too much. I have a hard time believing it would be determined that a dose so small, as to say any amount given to infants will be the cause of the results of the studies you use as evidence. Unless such a study also determined that the recommended levels of fluoride added to the water supply for adults was too high, I would not just throw out all other relevant data that has already gone through peer review and cherry pick one bad result and change my mind about the overall safety and effectiveness of water fluoridation.
Paracelsus's theory is widely accepted in the medical community.
All other facts or non-facts aside. Dose makes the poison applies to everything. Although I'm sure it would be hard to administer a dose that small, theoretically a dose could be one molecule of a substance. I'm not even sure if there are any substances that could cause sufficient health problems at that small a dose. Maybe a protein allergy? Hypothetically speaking, even if at a later time (like you fear) it is determined that infants should not ingest fluoride (for whatever reason) the publishers of the paper/study would need to show exactly how much fluoride really is too much. I have a hard time believing it would be determined that a dose so small, as to say any amount given to infants will be the cause of the results of the studies you use as evidence. Unless such a study also determined that the recommended levels of fluoride added to the water supply for adults was too high, I would not just throw out all other relevant data that has already gone through peer review and cherry pick one bad result and change my mind about the overall safety and effectiveness of water fluoridation.
Paracelsus's theory is widely accepted in the medical community.
Dan Wilson
Senior Member.
With that kind of concern, you would have to look at how much mercury a child or average person is exposed to. I'd appreciate it if you could post the actual studies you reference here in the future so that we can all read them. Anyways, mercury exposure is a real problem to be aware of.
http://www.epa.gov/hg/exposure.htm
Which has practically nothing to do with vaccines and tooth fillings...
You suggest that fluoride working with mercury can cause what, exactly? And what research is there to support any possible risks?
You could make a similar argument and say that the other scientists know better, which is all very silly and why I say we should focus on the science, which I addressed in my previous post.
I think that much was obvious. We have been discussing this whole time whether or not there is evidence of that possibility. The point of that Harvard study was to demonstrate that, to date, there is no significant evidence of there being an imminent threat in the U.S. concerning water fluoridation.
Not what I was referring to (or as dangerous) but also not the point. We can watch that documentary all we want but at the end of the day I want to see the experiments/research. I've posted all plenty of articles and papers here on the topic and none of them indicate a severe risk for water fluoridation at the specified concentrations.
Dan Wilson
Senior Member.
The percentages you are talking about refer to persons aged 6-49. So the 1% does not equal 2.9 million people.
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/databriefs/db53.htm
Last edited by a moderator:
Grieves
Senior Member
The figures are meant to reflect the general population. 6-49 is a good round figure for gauging this particular condition, as children younger than 6 aren't going to show any real signs of dental fluorosis, and 50+ is the age around which dentures would become a major influencing factor in results. 1% of the population suffering severe effects may not be exactly 2.9 million, but its a fair estimate based on the study. Also note that the study is about a decade old, and all the data around it since suggests those numbers are increasing.
You're also aware of the fact that I've posted several studies, some of them quite significant, that indicate there are very real risks associated with fluoride ingestion, even at relatively low doses. You've dismissed these out of hand on the basis that there's a greater body of scientific evidence suggesting fluoride is perfectly safe, or at least inconclusive as a danger. You like to point out the studies I post lacking in certain checks and balances, but refuse to acknowledge the pro-fluoride studies universally lack the very same checks and balances. No proper RCT has ever been conducted on the subject of water fluoridation. The drug is untested, we don't know what possible negative side effects it might have with any certainty whatsoever, there's a real potential for serious negative side effects besides dental flourosis, the impact of which on a persons life is systematically downplayed as being 'purely cosmetic' (as if physical appearance isn't a significant factor inmany if not all of the relationships we engage in from childhood on, and tooth-pitting carries no further risks), and yet it's being administered to massive populations without consent. Why in the world are huge populations unknowingly ingesting a drug that's never gone through a randomized controlled trial?
Trigger Hippie
Senior Member.
Let's clear up some of your errors.
No, the study does not say that one percent had severe dental fluorosis. They state quite clearly that less than one percent had severe dental fluorosis.
In 2005 the population of the US was about 276,990,000. About 17,000,000 were under the age of 5 and about 92,000,000 were over 50. That leaves approximately 168,000,000. One percent of that is 1,680,000. So less than 1,680,000 people had severe dental fluorosis. Almost half of your figure.
Don't do that. You used the values from the study to get to your 2.9 million number. You didn't account for the age groups involved and you produced bunk that was off by almost half. Now you're trying to wiggle out of your mistake.
No, the study does not say that one percent had severe dental fluorosis. They state quite clearly that less than one percent had severe dental fluorosis.
In 2005 the population of the US was about 276,990,000. About 17,000,000 were under the age of 5 and about 92,000,000 were over 50. That leaves approximately 168,000,000. One percent of that is 1,680,000. So less than 1,680,000 people had severe dental fluorosis. Almost half of your figure.
Don't do that. You used the values from the study to get to your 2.9 million number. You didn't account for the age groups involved and you produced bunk that was off by almost half. Now you're trying to wiggle out of your mistake.
Woody
Member
My daughter is a vet tech and is now in school to become a nurse with my grandson who was at the time an infant reliant solely on formula. My sister is a dental assistant and we had an in depth conversation about this. My sister lives in the iron range and has often encountered individual who use well water that is sometimes saturated with fluoride, and others with too little and is usually exposed over time and through the children's teeth development. She told me that over amounts of fluoride will cause the teeth to often times have speckles of white in them, and although they have few cavities, there are other known effects of high fluoride intake over time, including problems with the thyroid. Too little fluoride causes the teeth to decay, and as she put it, with the amount of sugar in our diets today, it is necessary. Here they deliver it at a rate of 1.2 due to our climate and consumption of less water than warmer climates. Fluoride can be calculated into a normal dosage allowance per body weight, and the larger you are the more water you need to offset ones usage. Here is the problem, my daughter went to the doctor and was told by the doctor that city water was fine, but does not even know the lethal amounts for an infant, nor did she ask the current amount in the water system. When the calculations were complete, and because water is the primary ingredient in an infants formula, it was found that 1 tablespoon of city water was enough fluoride for each day at his body weight. My daughter, completely against this concept in the beginning, and after looking at all the figure bought a distilling machine. Look at your toothpaste next time and the warning label, it can kill your kid. As adults we can filter any abundance, the children can't and need time to develop.
Grieves
Senior Member
They didn't poll the entire population of the united states, man.... they polled a pertinent sample of the population to get a general figure. People under 6 weren't polled for very obvious reasons. People over 50 weren't polled for very obvious reasons. The figure is none the less meant to be a reflection of the general population. Maybe your figure of 1.6 million is indeed more accurate. Remember the comment I was responding too?
I'm not trying to wiggle out of anything. I made a guess based on the 2004 information from the CDC. You're suggesting that because the CDC didn't poll -6 or +49 year-olds, those age-groups bound to provide inconclusive results, the figures in the poll aren't reflective of the general population.... going so far as to subtract those people from the general population and produce a figure that assumes no one over 49 has dental fluorosis and no one under 7 is going to get it.
I agree entirely. So why isn't the dosage of fluoride, if it is truly so essential we ingest it instead of just using it as a strictly topical substance, an individual matter, like any other medication, be it prescribed or over-the-counter? Aspirin doesn't say 'have as many as you want, whenever you want' on the side.... and if it did most people would know enough about it to know better. Why is fluoride different? Why is an ambiguous dosage of a medication which the 'patient' might not even be remotely aware they're taking ok?
Probably a very smart choice, and a clear example of how fluoridated water is something you have to spend your way out of if you don't want your kids effected by it. The poor have no option in that regard... some folks have been bold enough to suggest they shouldn't have one.
Dan Wilson
Senior Member.
Which studies? None of them demonstrated that the current recommended dosage is dangerous and that's what I and Harvard have pointed out. The studies for danger are lacking while the evidence for the benefits is quite satisfactory. Remember that it's about risk/reward consequences. Water fluoridation has been demonstrated to be beneficial. Without it, people are at higher risk for cavities and tooth decay, which can be extremely detrimental to your overall health and lifespan.
http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/vi...0698.001.0001/acprof-9780195150698-chapter-14
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5014a1.htm
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5014a1.htm
There is very good research out there to suggest that it is safe and that the rewards outweigh the risks. As I've been saying, we don't know everything and more research is always welcome, but you have presented nothing to suggest that the whole process needs to be pulled, that the risks outweigh the rewards.
Which studies specifically demonstrate that the recommended levels of fluoride in drinking water (0.7-1.2ppm) are more dangerous than helpful?
Grieves
Senior Member
Its a half-decent study that doesn't meet the clinical benchmark. None of them do. Shouldn't they, given the prevalence of the treatment?
There are many studies on the subject. Here's a useful list of just a bit of the research. Also keep in mind the recommended level is by no means reflective of any individuals daily dosage of fluoride, as explained above and below.
http://cof-cof.ca/science-research-list-view/
http://cof-cof.ca/2008/08/5964/
So a seemingly strong connection between low IQ and frequent fluorosis. Maybe its 2.9 million, maybe its 1.6 million, maybe its 700k, maybe its 10k. If even just a thousand, even just five-hundred, even just fifty kids suffered a developmental detriment to their intelligence as a result of the water fluoridation policy, isn't that enough to reconsider it?
From the same list of studies you give.
http://cof-cof.ca/1990/12/national-...rtment-of-health-and-human-services-dec-1990/
Conclusions: Under the conditions of these 2-year dosed water studies, there was equivocal evidence of carcinogenic activity of sodium fluoride in male F344/N rats, based on the occurrence of a small number of osteosarcomas in dosed animals. “Equivocal evidence” is a category for uncertain findings defined as studies that are interpreted as showing a
marginal increase of neoplasms that may be related to chemical administration. There was no evidence of carcinogenic activity in female F344/N rats receiving sodium fluoride at concentrations of 25, 100, or 175 ppm (11, 45, or 79 ppm fluoride) in drinking water for 2 years. There was no evidence of carcinogenic activity of sodium fluoride in male or female mice receiving sodium fluoride at concentrations of 25, 100, or 175 ppm in drinking water for 2 years. Dosed rats had lesions typical of fluorosis of the teeth and female rats receiving drinking water containing 175 ppm sodium fluoride had increased osteosclerosis of long bones.
http://cof-cof.ca/1990/12/national-...rtment-of-health-and-human-services-dec-1990/
Conclusions: Under the conditions of these 2-year dosed water studies, there was equivocal evidence of carcinogenic activity of sodium fluoride in male F344/N rats, based on the occurrence of a small number of osteosarcomas in dosed animals. “Equivocal evidence” is a category for uncertain findings defined as studies that are interpreted as showing a
marginal increase of neoplasms that may be related to chemical administration. There was no evidence of carcinogenic activity in female F344/N rats receiving sodium fluoride at concentrations of 25, 100, or 175 ppm (11, 45, or 79 ppm fluoride) in drinking water for 2 years. There was no evidence of carcinogenic activity of sodium fluoride in male or female mice receiving sodium fluoride at concentrations of 25, 100, or 175 ppm in drinking water for 2 years. Dosed rats had lesions typical of fluorosis of the teeth and female rats receiving drinking water containing 175 ppm sodium fluoride had increased osteosclerosis of long bones.
Grieves
Senior Member
Studies involving sodium fluoride are of interest, and there has been a fairly decent amount of research surrounding sodium fluoride, but keep in mind sodium fluoride, though typically what's present in toothpaste/what you get at the dentist, is not the product used to fluoridate water in most all areas that observe the policy. The substance used in water fluoridation is typically hexafluorisilicic acid. The drinking water standards were established for calcium fluoride, a slightly less toxic substance than sodium fluoride, and a MUCH less toxic substance than hexafluorisilicic acid. Most of the pro-fluoridation studies you'll find involve sodium fluoride, and neglect hexafluorisilicic acid outright. An interesting fact is that though some European countries (Ireland for sure, maybe others) fluoridate their water with hexafluorisilicic acid, they at the same time have banned its use biocide, as the data on its potential harm to people and the environment isn't clear enough.
Dan Wilson
Senior Member.
What makes it "half-decent?"
That is not a study. Where is the science to back up any of that? Fluoride activates G-proteins and cascades involved in muscle contraction. So what?
Not true.
http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Risk/fluoridated-water
You can't control how much fluoride an individual takes in, but you can't control a lot of things you're exposed to. If a healthy human adult drinks 3L of water in a day, then they are taking in a grand total of about 2.1mg of fluoride a day in staggered amounts. This would be less for a child or infant. Evidence has shown that at this concentration, risks of bone fracture, severe enamel fluorosis, and skeletal fluorosis are practically zero.
http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=11571&page=350
For children, the risks are certainly different. But where is the evidence that it is more harmful than helpful? Where are the links between fluoride in water and severe health drawbacks? A lot of what is suggested here in regards to that has been theoretical, that there could be a risk or that a risk can't be ruled out.
That is another study from China, which is not relevant to the exposure conditions we are discussing here.
It would be, but in this case that's not what happened, nor is there any evidence that it is happening in water fluoridated areas, so no. Dental health is so crucial to overall health and fluoridated water has been demonstrated to be a useful tool in promoting good dental health in the U.S. Every risk mentioned here has been demonstrated to either be insignificant, or insignificant yet requiring more research. That does not warrant throwing out a useful preventative measure.
Dan Wilson
Senior Member.
Fluorisillic acid, like the other fluoride compounds, dissociate to the F- ion in water. When you say "MUCH" more toxic, how exactly are you quantifying that?
Dan Wilson
Senior Member.
What were the calculations, exactly? And adults only filter about 33% of the fluoride they take in. Children filter less but they also consume less.
Hexafluorosilicic acid has a higher Ld50 than sodium fluoride making it less toxic.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hexafluorosilicic_acid
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodium_fluoride
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hexafluorosilicic_acid
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodium_fluoride
Similar threads
