Were the conspiracy theorist right about Fluoride?

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

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


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

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3491930/pdf/ehp.1104912.pdf
Conclusions: The results support the possibility of an adverse effect of high fluoride exposure on children’s neurodevelopment. Future research should include detailed individual-level information on prenatal exposure, neurobehavioral performance, and covariates for adjustment.
Content from External Source
 
I was just reading the study and it says it was using water that was well above 1ppm fluoride but couldn't see any exact reading levels. Whats funny is the natural well water in China has a higher fluoride level than Fluoride treated water in the same country?...I'm confused.
 
So is the study basically pointing out that people who live rural areas have a lower IQ and then tries to make a connection with the higher Fluoride in the untreated natural well water?

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

Not all ground water in China has natural fluoride above 1ppm in it. If there is none then they add it. If there is too much then they should remove it, or tell people not to drink it.
 
So is the study basically pointing out that people who live rural areas have a lower IQ and then tries to make a connection with the higher Fluoride in the untreated natural well water?

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

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

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

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

These days the best estimates of its effectiveness I can find are at around 25% cavity reduction. Is medicating more or less the entire continent with no measure of consent using a toxic product the long-term effects of which, both in the individual and in generational consumption, are largely untested and unconsidered a good idea? We know our bodies absorb and hold onto this stuff, we know that it can wreak havoc on bones, especially in males studies show. Having personally developed mild scoliosis and Kyphosis at a very young age, and to have spent my youth to now groaning like an old man whenever I sit/stand, I can't say 'fluoride's to blame' with any real authority, but how can the benefits outweigh costs when we don't even have a firm grasp on what the long-term costs could be?
 
It's also fatal in 'large' doses. (there are something like 23k reports a year of kids suffering sickness or dieing after ingesting a tube of toothpaste.)

Well, not exactly:

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

In 2010, the American Association of Poison Control Centers reported 22,987 exposures involving toothpaste with fluoride.[1]​Only 376 cases were actually treated in the emergency department. Moderate effects were seen in 45 cases, and major effects were seen in none of the cases. No deaths were reported.[1][​
Content from External Source
The 23K number sounds like it's just the number of calls Poison Control got. There were just 45 "Moderate effects", probably considerably less than the number of candy overdoses.
 
When I was a kid we had F-tabs - they were small and white and quite sweet - so much so that I scoffed half a bottle of them one night - couldn't stand them after that!! But no medical attention was required.

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

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

But the BS about it being ineffective, poison, used for mind control, included in chemtrails and all the rest of that stuff is just mind-bogglingly ignorant.
 
And Mike, those were up to you to eat / your folks to feed you. There's no choice where water-fluoridation is involved, except a reverse-osmosis filter, which are expensive as hell.
 
I wasn't talking about F-tabs because they were voluntary - but becaue I scoffed half a bottle of them to no known ill effects.

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

the amount of fluoride in water that is treated is in the order, IIRC, of 1 ppm - which is simply not toxic - it is less than many naturally fluoridated water supplies around the world and inded these days some placesd use defluoridation to reduce natural levels to about that much.
 
There's a difference between 'poisonous' and 'toxic'.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m5NRhtbQTxg
some idiots demonstrating how water can become 'poisonous' before it becomes fatal. I think we can all agree overdosing on fluoride is a rather easier and significantly more harmful in the long-term, so long as you don't water yourself to death.
http://thyroid.about.com/od/drsrichkarileeshames/a/fluoridechange.htm
an interesting article on the connection between fluoride and thyroid conditions. Fluoride baths was classically a well established treatment for an over-active thyroid.
 
Yar Mick, they'd be reporting sicknesses induced from eating toothpaste. Good to know there were no deaths in 2010, and that deaths in general are infrequent. The stuff remains a potentially fatal toxic substance.
http://www.nofluoride.com/presentations/Fluoride%20Lead%20Arsenic%20Comparison.pdf pretty nice little graph illustrating the oddly 'special' treatment of fluoride as a toxin.

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

Despite all those calls, nobody died.

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

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

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

Fluoride, though having none of the appeal of salt, refined sugar, or cheese and an arguably much lesser benefit, is the one of these products a person would have to actually struggle to cut out of their lives. Even if they choose to ditch the toothpastes and the mouth-washes and the bleach-strips and the impregnated dental floss, it's a lot harder to say no to water.
 
Are you suggesting this is an over-precautionary measure of parents and toothpaste producers, putting those labels on their product? Or is the reason that warning is there because the product is potentially dangerous when over-consumed?

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

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


See the following news story from 1997:
http://www.fluoridealert.org/articles/fda-toothpaste/
THE WASHINGTON POSTJune 16, 1997
Toothpaste: How Safe?
By Don Oldenburg
Washington Post Staff Writer

Last month, as 8-year-old Molly Statt stood in the bathroom brushing her teeth, something on the back of the large-size tube of Crest caught her attention. She stopped brushing.
Looking up at her father standing beside her, she motioned to the toothpaste and asked, “Is this poison?”

“Of course not,” Paul Statt reassured his daughter.

“Then why does it say ‘poison’ on it?” she asked.

Statt looked closer at the label on the back of tube. In small print were warnings he hadn’t noticed before, including one that read: “If you accidentally swallow more than used for brushing, seek professional help or contact a poison control center immediately.”

Caught off guard, he didn’t have a good answer for Molly. For a week or so afterward, she didn’t want to brush with toothpaste. Now she is back to using it, but Statt worries that she’s confused about the safety of toothpaste and about the truth of poison labels. “When did they start putting a poison warning on toothpaste tubes?” he asks.
Like most people, the Petersborough, N.H., resident assumed that an over-the-counter health care product like toothpaste, which we are encouraged to put in our mouths “at least twice daily,” must certainly be as safe as the water we drink. But it’s not. And that’s the message of the new warning labels required by the Food and Drug Administration on all fluoride toothpastes and dental care products shipped as of April 7.

None of the caveats that began appearing on toothpaste tubes in 1991 so candidly broached the risks of ingesting too much fluoride. General warnings on toothpaste products that display the American Dental Association seal of approval heretofore cautioned: “Don’t Swallow — Use only a pea-sized amount for children under six,” and “Children under 6 should be supervised while brushing with any toothpaste to prevent swallowing.” The word “poison” wasn’t used.

“When I receive the fluoride here, it has a skull-and-bones on it,” Regina Miskewitz says of containers of the chemical at the Princeton, N.J., laboratories of Church & Dwight Co. Inc., maker of Arm & Hammer products, where she is director of research and development for oral and personal care.

“If a child was to take a big spoonful of this fluoride, I don’t think he could swallow it,” she says, “but if he did get it down, it is a poison and the child could die. If a child ingested a whole tube of toothpaste, he should be taken right to the emergency room and he would either get his stomach pumped or get some kind of antidote.”
Three ingredients found in most toothpastes pose health risks if too much is ingested, according to Miskewitz. Sorbitol, a liquid that keeps toothpaste from drying out, is a laxative that could cause diarrhea in children. Sodium lauryl sulfate, an ingredient that makes toothpaste foam, can also be a diarrheic. But the fluoride poses the most danger if too much toothpaste is swallowed — particularly to younger children.

“Small amounts of this material go a long way in causing disruption in their bodies because they are so small,” Miskewitz says. “The fluoride in toothpaste is considered a drug. Even though it is an over-the-counter drug, we are altering the body when we brush our teeth with a fluoride toothpaste or tooth gel. . . . As normal consumers, you’re not aware of these things. But I’m sure our 800 number is going to get more calls as products with the new warnings show up on store shelves.”

This summer, as toothpaste shipments with the new labeling replace older inventories, consumers will see nearly twice the warnings displayed on the back of tubes and cartons — the ADA’s general warnings along with the new FDA-required statement that starts with: “Keep out of the reach of children under 6 years of age.”
Research has shown that because they aren’t yet in control of their swallowing reflex, children 4 to 6 years old typically swallow toothpaste when brushing. “That’s why it’s recommended that kids get only a pea-size amount of toothpaste,” says Miskewitz, “because most of that goes down their throats.”

A 1995 study at the Medical College of Georgia School of Dentistry found that about half the children this age don’t spit out or rinse out — they swallow the toothpaste instead. Making matters worse, they tend to use too much toothpaste on their own — especially when they use flavored children’s toothpastes.

While the cavity-preventing effectiveness of fluoride has been demonstrated, too much fluoride not only can be dangerous, it can cause a condition known as fluorosis that discolors or spots developing teeth. Research conducted by the School of Dental Medicine at the University of Connecticut Health Center concluded that brushing with more than a pea-size amount of toothpaste more than once daily contributed to most of the fluorosis cases it observed in young children. In areas where the drinking water contains fluoride, children who swallow even the pea-size amount of toothpaste are getting too much fluoride and are at risk for fluorosis.

“I haven’t heard of problems beyond fluorosis, but that’s a valid concern. There are some kids getting too much fluoride,” says Nancy Rosenzweig, vice president of corporate communication and market development at Tom’s of Maine, which in 1975 introduced the first “natural” toothpaste on the market.
“That’s why Tom Chappell started making toothpaste. He was in his bathroom reading ingredient labels and saying ‘You know, there’s a lot of stuff in here that you really shouldn’t be putting into your mouth.’ ”

Besides its natural toothpastes that contain fluoride, the small Kennebunkport-based company makes a nonfluoride toothpaste in flavors including “cinnamint” and “fennel.” When Tom’s recently began marketing its new line of natural toothpaste for children, it left out the synthetic sweeteners, neon colors and bubble gum flavors. But the toothpastes, called Silly Strawberry and Outrageous Orange, contain the same levels of fluoride as competitors’ toothpastes.

“It is always kind of a trade-off,” explains Rosenzweig. “We made a decision to have only fluoride toothpaste for children because that has been proven to be the overall benefit of toothpaste for children. We feel the benefit outweighs the negative.”

As for natural fruit flavorings being more attractive to a child’s taste buds than mint-flavored adult toothpastes, Rosenzweig says Tom’s chose wholesome flavors that would lure children to brushing. “You have to get the education across to your kids that you don’t suck the toothpaste down, just as you have to work with your kids to brush their teeth,” she says. “The alternative is they don’t brush. I guess we don’t feel like the risk factor is that high to make that trade-off.”

In fact, many in the toothpaste industry feel the new FDA warnings may be overstating the risks.
“Our position was that they went a little too far,” says Clifford Whall, director of product evaluations on the ADA’s Council on Scientific Affairs. “There wasn’t really a need for the cautionary statement about the danger of poisoning if you’ve ingested too much.
“If children were to sit around the bathroom eating toothpaste, which younger children could do, there is not enough fluoride in the toothpaste to cause them any acute harm. That just doesn’t happen. . . . If you tried to eat a lot of toothpaste, you’d throw it up.”
While Whall concedes that poison control centers do receive reports of fluoride “poisonings” every year, he says the ADA isn’t aware of any of those cases resulting in adverse effects. “It just hasn’t proven to be that kind of a problem. . . . We didn’t think you needed a label like that because it could unnecessarily scare consumers into not using toothpaste.”
Content from External Source
 

Attachments

  • 171736497.pdf
    347.7 KB · Views: 800
  • 162920539.pdf
    388.1 KB · Views: 1,373
In areas where the drinking water contains fluoride, children who swallow even the pea-size amount of toothpaste are getting too much fluoride and are at risk for fluorosis.

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

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17014382
a publicly released medical report on a 54 year old man who's severe neck pain was diagnosed as skeletal fluorosis. The culprit? Toothpaste, combined with all the other daily sources of fluoride.
 
A family member has low thyroid function, and we avoid fluoridated water for that reason. Things that are normally well tolerated by the average person (wheat, soy, chamomile,
 
I have low thyroid function and a friend's grown daughter had to have her thyroid destroyed. I know others with both problems and NO ONE has ever been told to avoid Fluoridated water.
 
When the family member first went to an endocrinologist, they asked "Is there any lifestyle factor that I can change to deal with this?" and they were told "No, don't worry about it - we will monitor it, when your thyroid burns out from the Hashimoto's autoimmune reaction, we will give you synthroid." We did research on our own and found that about 40% of people with that autoimmune condition improved on a gluten free diet. That diet led to remarkable improvement in symptoms in our case, and improvement in lab tests - T3, T4, and TSH are in the normal reference range, anti-thyroid hormone is much lower, but still indicates Hashimotos. We were not told to avoid soy or chamomile, but it has been shown that these can interfere with thyroid ('goitrogens'), and simply by observing these in the diet and noting symptoms and body temperature, we can say they are a factor. For fluoride, we avoid it due to the epidemiological evidence that it can interfere with the thyroid - it may be an effect that is slight for many, it may be slow to accumulate, but fluoride competes with iodide in the thyroid. We have also noted that seafood can modulate the disease - sometimes for better, sometimes for worse. This is not something we were told by the highly paid specialist. Also - we use L-tyrosine, which is an essential, rate limiting precursor of thyroxine production in the body - another thing that most doctors won't tell patients.
 
Another public release from the same source, a site I'm really starting to dig.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21755305

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

So the study suggests that fluoride's cumulative effects, including thyroid dysfunction and a reduction in cognitive ability, persist and compound in later generations.
Our own massive communal increase in fluoride consumption started about three or four generations ago, didn't it?
 
That study was done with VERY high levels of fluoride, not the amounts we get in water and even by using toothpaste.

It would be like baking cookies and instead of using a teaspoon of salt or vanilla, you used a 100 teaspoons, and of course the cookies are not edible. So then you announce that the recipe was bad.
 
Not so high as you imply, certainly not higher than toothpaste. It's true Cairenn, fluoride content in water rarely exceeds 4 ppm. Toothpaste, on the other hand, a common part of the daily routine of North Americans, typically twice a day if you're doing it right, usually has 1000-1100 ppm, with some brands containing as much as 1300-1500 ppm. Mouthwashes which contain fluoride typically are in the 900 ppm range. Of course you're not supposed to ingest toothpaste and mouthwash, but it's relatively inevitable considering you're applying the stuff to your mouth. That already high daily dosage of the substance is being perpetually supplemented with every glass of water, every shower, every bottle of juice. In minute amounts surely, but this is a substance which accumulates in your body, every 'dosage', no matter how small, retained to an extent within your system.

My parents were born several years after fluoride became a staple of the North-American diet. This means my grandparents were likely already consuming it when they were born. From birth to adulthood it is entirely likely they were getting daily doses of fluoride, in their toothpaste and their water. I inevitably have as well. So long as the trend of fluoride use continues, it's likely my children, should I have any, will grow up in similar conditions unless I make an aggressive effort to curb their consumption. If fluoride is documented as having negative effects on thyroid, brain, and bone function, we know it accumulates in our bodies over time, and studies suggest the negative effects of accumulation of fluoride pass on and compound from generation to generation, how in the world could a policy of heavy daily fluoride consumption be a good thing for us in the long run?
 
Indeed - perhaps it is due to there actually being no such evidence of negative effects at eh sort of doses we actualy take - since those doses have ben taken by humans for THOUSANDS of generations - not just 2 or 3..
 
That's simply not true, Mike. Not true in the slightest. The negative effects of over-consumption of fluoride are thoroughly and scrupulously documented. I don't know what you mean by this statement.
 
Your edit makes very little sense. Natural fluoride consumption, though greater in regions who's mineral-water contains higher concentrations, has been minimal up until the introduction and marketing of the substance as a dental product. Yes, in some places of the world you could get a pretty concentrated dose of the stuff from certain wells, but it hardly compared to daily oral contact with/ingestion of 1000 ppm+, coupled with 4 ppm in every water-source available to you. That's a modern deal.
 
That's simply not true, Mike. Not true in the slightest. The negative effects of over-consumption of fluoride are thoroughly and scrupulously documented. I don't know what you mean by this statement.

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

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

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

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

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

If you think that natural levels of fluoride result in "minimal...consumption" then you must also think that fluoridated water supplies also provide only minimal consumption - since they are at the same OR LOWER levels as naturally occur around much of the world!
 
I do indeed think that artificial fluoridation levels, in North America at least, are relatively minimal. I simply also think they're highly unnecessary and likely detrimental when used in areas where substitute sources of concentrated fluoride are highly available and actively encouraged in near every facet of society. I also think it's a violation of a persons rights to subject them to the consumption of a pharmaceutical product (or an industrial waste product, both of which apply) without their consent/awareness. I'm pretty sure American law rather strictly agrees with me on that front.

I get the impression you're trying to use the same reasoning as in the whole chem-trail argument about aluminum content in the soil and such. I'm sorry, but it doesn't apply here in the slightest. You might also note that many of the regions on your map are regions where skeletal fluorosis is a major problem.
 
But our water doesn't have 4 ppm in it. Most is closer to 1.2 ppm, and very few are over 2 ppm. That is half of what you are saying it is. Over half it leaves the body as well. You mentioned getting fluoride in the shower, HUH? It is not absorbed that way. Where are you getting the high amount of 1000ppm in toothpaste and mouthwash. There are toothpastes and mouthwashes that do NOT have any fluoride. You can also make your own toothpaste with baking soda and salt.

Your numbers are not realistic.
 
. I also think it's a violation of a persons rights to subject them to the consumption of a pharmaceutical product (or an industrial waste product, both of which apply) without their consent/awareness. I'm pretty sure American law rather strictly agrees with me on that front.

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

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

and that would be because your impresion is wholely wrong.

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

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

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

Which still is irrelevant to artificial dosing at about 1.0mg/l - or even less in many cases now - indeed the restriction of any effecdts to areas of high fluoride is indicitive that there is NO effect at lower levels!
 
For the ordinary person, I don't think fluoride has much of an effect. But if 70% of a person's thyroid is shot and the remainder ain't feelin so good, then ANYTHING that interferes with what is left is problematic. Here is one Russian study that found that in patients with thyroid disease, fluoridated water decreased the active form of thyroid hormone (T3) and it increased TSH, which is an indicator of greater disorder. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/4088985

Combined with the epidemiology that links fluoride exposure to thyroid issues and numerous studies that demonstrate the biochemical mechanism for the interference, we thought it would be a good idea to replace tap water with reverse osmosis water. Do I know for sure where the threshold for negative effects is? No. Can I say for sure that this action helped? No. But overall, the disease in our household has been in near remission for many years, contrary to what the doctors predicted. The potential negative effects of an adult avoiding fluoridated water are quite small, while in this case, there might be moderate benefits.
 
Again that study is about RAISED levels of fluorine in the water - not NORMAL levels - as it quite clearly states:

The results led to a conclusion that excess of fluorine in drinking water was a risk factor of more rapid development of thyroid pathology.
Content from External Source
The amounts are given - "122 +/- 5 mumol/l with the normal value of 52 +/- 5 mumol/l" - you can translate these into ug/ml at this handy site
- and the result is that 122 = 2.32 mg/l, vs "normal" of 0.99.

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

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

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

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

Review of the literature shows that some authors have found an inhibition by fluoride of various steps of thyroid hormone biosynthesis in animal experiments. By and large, the inhibition was only slight and it was elicited only with fluoride doses greatly in excess of those recommended for caries prevention.
Content from External Source
So not only is the effect "slight", but to get that "slight effect" you have to have doses "greatly in excess of those recommended for caries prevention"

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

Excessive fluorine caused fluorosis of incisors and limb bones. In addition, iodine and fluorine do have mutually interacting effects on both goiter and fluorosis in the experimental mice.
Content from External Source
The interaction between Iodine and Fluorine was basically that if you are deficient in iodine then you will uptake more fluorine and get more effects from it:

The rate and degree of the incisor fluorosis, the fluorine contents in the bone were significantly higher in the ID+FE group than those in the IN+FE and IE+FE groups.
Content from External Source
ID = iodine deficient diet (0 iodine)
FE = fluorine excess (water at 30mg/l)
IN = iodine neutral
IE - iodine excess

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

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

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

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

Of course, they are constructing the therapeutic index using different measures of toxicity - one can use the LD50 (required to kill half the test population) or some other measure of toxicity or disease. But regardless - the article shows that even for healthy people, the prolonged consumption of slightly more fluoride can impair the thyroid gland. How can you guarantee that those who already have impaired thyroids will not experience the same effects at somewhat lower doses (perhaps half the dose, or right around the levels allowed in the water)?? You can't make such a statement based on evidence - the question is open.
 
You still fail to show that there is anything more than your feeling that fluoride is bad for those with a less active thyroid. Low thyroid function is fairly common and where are the folks effected by it? Name just one that has been, without something odd, like eating tubes of toothpaste
 
That study said "The results led to a conclusion that excess of fluorine in drinking water was a risk factor of more rapid development of thyroid pathology." That study defined excess as only 2x to 4x more than is typically found - that is not a large margin of safety. We don't know the concentration where the effects drop to zero, or some 'acceptably' small level.

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

Others choose use the precautionary principle, to recognize that there is some evidence that it may be harmful, and to act proactively and prudently. The potential risk for an adult with thyroid disease to avoid fluoride is very low, close to zero IMO. The risk for the same person to consume fluoride is not known exactly (more research is needed) but it appears to be higher. My view of the world suggests that the smart course of action is for people with hypothyroid function to consider avoiding anything that might reasonably be expected to further limit their production of T3; you are welcome to make your own lifestyle choices as you see fit. Some will choose a course of action where 'if it is not proven dangerous, it must be safe.'
 
The fluoride debate is kind of a weighing of risk and reward. Artificially fluoridating water can be argued as excessive, but the fluoride is so diluted that it is unlikely to be major contributor to any major health problems. We ingest fluoride from food as well. Point being, I don't think there is a major conspiracy when it comes to artificially fluoridated water.
http://www.fortcollinscwa.org/pages/fluoride.htm
The rewards of fluoride should also be appreciated. Keeping teeth healthy is extremely important to your overall health. Your gums are dense with blood vessels which is why gum disease is so serious. Microbes that you don't want start growing on your teeth, whether you eat something or not, after about 4 hours. This is why dentists recommend 2 brushings every day. If you don't brush and floss regularly and allow gum disease to thrive then that is a very quick way to shorten your life span. Since your gums are so vascular, it can lead to problems elsewhere in the body. For example, you are at a much higher risk of having heart complications with bad gum health. If you were to contract cancer in your mouth, bad gum health can also help the cancer in metastasizing, which would be very bad news. Humans' longer life span has dental health to thank as a big part of it. Medicine often has to be looked at as a risk/reward system and in this case the rewards of fluoride are greater than its risks, especially at the concentrations most developed countries are exposed to.
 
I might - if I had any evidence to support that - but I don't have any such evidence. I am happy to look at any that you have -
If you say so...
800px-Groundwater-fluoride-world.svg.png



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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

I'm not saying 'down with toothpaste', even if it is the most obvious source of over-concentration of fluoride in North America. As you said, there are alternatives... and though folks don't choose them, they're easily chosen. Tap-water is not something you can just 'kick', especially if you're living at or below the poverty line. But seeing as we all have relatively easy access to toothpaste and dental hygiene products, even the impoverished, what is the point of fluoridating the water? Recent studies by the World Health organization could find no solid difference in tooth-decay figures between fluoridated and non-fluoridated regions, we know for a fact the effectiveness of fluoride isn't nearly as grandiose as was claimed when we started doing it, and that many north american children experience gum disease as a result of too much fluoride in their system. If they're absorbing enough to demonstrate the physical effects of fluorosis, who's to say they aren't also experiencing the detrimental effect on cognition? If their kids are born and experience dental fluorosis themselves, who's to say that cognitive effect isn't compounding? The benifits are shaky, the risks real and under-studied. So why keep doing it?
 
Back
Top