Ireland has the sickest population in Europe

Ziphius

JJayoo wrote: »

So all your info is based on one wiki page?

No.

JJayoo wrote: »

By categorising people who question the addition of Fluoride as "anit-fluoriders" I take it you are categorising yourself as pro-fluoride.

Having looked at the evidence I feel that the benefit fluoride gives to dental health outweighs the negatives (ie blotches on your teeth (AKA dental flourosis)). If you consider that "pro-fluoride" you can call me that.

JJayoo wrote: »

I just really don't understand the logic behind it. If fluoride is good for teeth why not just leave it in toothpaste and mouthwash.

Because this way you ensure that everyone, regardless of income, has access to healthy fluoridated water. I really don't see what the issue is; it costs each Irish citizen less that €1 per year.

If fluoride is indeed harmful -- ban it. If you find a cheaper method to prevent cavities -- use it. But, please, show me the evidence first.

JJayoo

LOL

China and India are huge countries. So it shouldn't have been a problem to find areas without large levels of fluoride if they thought it would have been an issue.

The report was using existing statistics. So Like I said they were using the statistics which were available to them

Just to remind our readers that it's been pointed out time and time to the anti-fluoride posters that on the continent people drink bottled water and that fluoride is commonly added to salt instead.

As for the oft repeated statistic about 98% rejecting fluoride - European countries with you know what in salt.
http://gaia-health.com/gaia-blog/201...oride-in-salt/
Austria
Czech Republic
France
Germany
Hungary
Scotland
Spain
Switzerland

The inclusion of Fluoride in milk and salt in these countries is not enforced by the government. People in these countries can choose to buy product with the added fluoride if they want. So I am not sure how you can possible compare this to our government adding Fluoride to all drinking water

[QUOTECaries prevalence in 12-year-old children is by 1 to 3 DMFT higher than in Western Europe. For many years to come, modern fluoride-containing toothpastes and dentifrices may not be affordable for the lower socio-economic strata of the populations in Central and Eastern Europe. It is concluded that salt fluoridation, which is by far the cheapest means of lowering caries prevalence, could markedly improve the oral health situation even if the economical situation is slow to improve.][/QUOTE]

This quote means absolutely nothing, did you actually read it?

JJayoo

Ziphius wrote: »

No.



But, please, show me the evidence first.

I feel the exact same way about why should we could continue to use it.

IceFjoem

JJayoo wrote: »

I feel the exact same way about why should we could continue to use it.

You've been provided with evidence in favour of water fluoridation, dissect that information and tell us why it is incorrect.

JJayoo

IceFjoem wrote: »

You've been provided with evidence in favour of water fluoridation, dissect that information and tell us why it is incorrect.

There has never been a single study which examines the long term affect of ingesting fluoride.

drdeadlift

ManMade wrote: »

To sum this up.
In Ireland we drink tap water. We get our fluoride through this.
On the continent they don't drink water. Therefore adding it would be pointless. They add it to their salt.

Want a sneak peak of the sh*te to come:
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056884572&pp=15&page=1

There is nothing wrong with our fluoridated water. Why would the government give people cancer only to pay for the expensive chemo. It's a conspiracy theory at best. At worst it's scaremongering.

Why is it in the water?

IceFjoem

JJayoo wrote: »

There has never been a single study which examines the long term affect of ingesting fluoride.

Fluoridation of drinking-water was introduced in the USA in 1950 [ref: 1], and thus the studies in the USA encompass periods of observation of 20 years or more.

http://monographs.iarc.fr/ENG/Monographs/suppl7/suppl7.pdf


[ref: 1] Refers to the IARC Monograph of 1982, pages; 27, 237-303.

I cannot find the study online and therefore have no idea what its findings are. It could say that fluoridation causes spontaneous human combustion for all I know, the point is that you are incorrect.

Now, I have responded to your assertion, perhaps you would like to respond to mine:

You've been provided with evidence in favour of water fluoridation, dissect that information and tell us why it is incorrect.

Capt'n Midnight

Ziphius wrote: »

Having looked at the evidence I feel that the benefit fluoride gives to dental health outweighs the negatives (ie blotches on your teeth (AKA dental flourosis). If you consider that "pro-fluoride" you can call me that.

Blotches on teeth aren't likely at our levels of fluoride

it's normally associated with very excessive levels of natural fluoride

Ziphius

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Blotches on teeth aren't likely at our levels of fluoride

it's normally associated with very excessive levels of natural fluoride

Agreed. My understanding is that dental fluorosis is very rare but is the worst side effect associated with fluoridated water. (Naturally, I mean water fluoridated to an optimum level).

JJayoo

IceFjoem wrote: »

http://monographs.iarc.fr/ENG/Monographs/suppl7/suppl7.pdf


[ref: 1] Refers to the IARC Monograph of 1982, pages; 27, 237-303.

I cannot find the study online and therefore have no idea what its findings are. It could say that fluoridation causes spontaneous human combustion for all I know, the point is that you are incorrect.

Now, I have responded to your assertion, perhaps you would like to respond to mine:

I think you are missing the point. I don't care if Fluoride is good for your teeth or not I have no issue with it being in toothpaste or mouthwash.

To answer your assertion I will repeat my original point :there have been no studies to show that ingesting large amounts of Fluoride over long periods of time is safe.

The quote you added refers to it's affect on dental health, but like you said "I cannot find the study online and therefore have no idea what its findings are"

JJayoo

huming wrote: »

oh, my god. why this ugly M2 Smartphone Android 4.1 is so popular in the world? why? so ugly, but so popular. I can't believe. can you explain it to me? see: http://baseurl.de/su

I blame the fluoride.

Capt'n Midnight

JJayoo wrote: »

The report was using existing statistics. So Like I said they were using the statistics which were available to them

you just won't admit that levels of fluoride we use are below many of the levels used in the controls, and that the high levels just don't happen here.

The inclusion of Fluoride in milk and salt in these countries is not enforced by the government. People in these countries can choose to buy product with the added fluoride if they want. So I am not sure how you can possible compare this to our government adding Fluoride to all drinking water

if the public didn't buy it then it would be taken off the market

Caries prevalence in 12-year-old children is by 1 to 3 DMFT higher than in Western Europe.

This quote means absolutely nothing, did you actually read it?

That abstract says by 12 children in countries that stopped fluoridation have more Decayed Missing Filled Teeth (DMFT) than those in the West. You can come up with all sorts of theories , but Occam's Razor would be to ask "what's changed ?"

JJayoo

you just won't admit that levels of fluoride we use are below many of the levels used in the controls, and that the high levels just don't happen here.

Of course we are below these levels, that wasn't the issue at all.

if the public didn't buy it then it would be taken off the market

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make, are you agreeing with me? My point was that products such as milk and salt which have added fluoride allow the consumer to choose as they can pick milk/salt which do not contain fluoride, which seems to be the point your making?

That abstract says by 12 children in countries that stopped fluoridation have more Decayed Missing Filled Teeth (DMFT) than those in the West. You can come up with all sorts of theories , but Occam's Razor would be to ask "what's changed

I'm afraid you're incorrect on this one. It is simply stating that children in poorer countries have higher cases of DMFT. This could be down to numerous issues. The abstract went on to say that in the future if toothpaste containing fluoride became too expensive then adding fluoride to salt would be the cheapest way to get it into consumption.

Firefox11

Sacramento wrote: »

Oh God not this again!

Yep, I was going to roll out the Dr Strangelove clip again but it's been done to death by this time........ah what the hell!!:p

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eB5Vvs2cdqY

JJayoo

Moving away from Fluoride use in dental health, I find this interesting. The pineal gland is a tiny organ in the middle of the brain.

"In conclusion, the human pineal gland contains the highest concentration of fluoride in the body. Fluoride is
associated with depressed pineal melatonin synthesis by prepubertal gerbils and an accelerated onset of sexual
maturation in the female gerbil. The results strengthen the hypothesis that the pineal has a role in the timing of
the onset of puberty. Whether or not fluoride interferes with pineal function in humans requires further
investigation."

Luke 2001, has an interesting study on the possible impacts of fluoride ingestion on the pineal gland.

JJayoo

Firefox11 wrote: »

Yep, I was going to roll out the Dr Strangelove clip again but it's been done to death by this time........ah what the hell!!:p

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eB5Vvs2cdqY

Finally Proof

IceFjoem

JJayoo wrote: »

I think you are missing the point. I don't care if Fluoride is good for your teeth or not I have no issue with it being in toothpaste or mouthwash.

Fair enough, we'll leave that alone so.

JJayoo wrote: »

To answer your assertion I will repeat my original point :there have been no studies to show that ingesting large amounts of Fluoride over long periods of time is safe.

First of all, I provided you with evidence that there exists at least one study on the affects of water fluoridation in my last post, thus proving your assertion, that none existed, to be incorrect.

Secondly, the above is slightly different to your original statement:

There has never been a single study which examines the long term affect of ingesting fluoride.

You've added requirements that the study should specifically deal with the examination of cases where "large amounts" of fluoride are ingested, you've also added that the study should now examine the safety implications of ingesting these 'large amounts' of fluoride.

A "large amount" is a subjective quantity anyway so I'm just going to go ahead and say that the study did in fact deal with large amounts, thereby fulfilling your new requirements.

The study I provided you with was indeed concerned with the 'safety' implications of water fluoridation so that's irrelevant.

JJayoo wrote: »

The quote you added refers to it's affect on dental health, but like you said "I cannot find the study online and therefore have no idea what its findings are"

I can see that you didn't read it. I'll post the quote here in context so that you can see that the quote is in reference to a study on the link between water fluoridation and cancer and has nothing to do with dental health.

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Fluoridation of drinking-water was introduced in the USA in 1950 [ref: 1], and thus the [/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]studies in the USA encompass periods of observation of 20 years or more. Studies of areas with [/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]different levels of naturally fluoridation cover longer periods of exposure [ref: 1,6]. The studies have [/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]shown no consistent tendency for people living in areas with high concentrations of fluoride in the [/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]water to have higher cancer rates than those living in areas with low concentrations or for cancer [/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]mortality rates to increase following fluoridation.[/FONT]

http://monographs.iarc.fr/ENG/Monographs/suppl7/suppl7.pdf


You seem to be going in circles tbh. I'd much rather examine some of your evidence than spend time nit-picking, that is, if your intention is indeed to prove that water fluoridation is harmful. Maybe it's not though?

Jimoslimos

JJayoo wrote: »

I don't understand your point. The article sums up a published paper by Harvard.
The "quack" as you call him is not adding any new information, he is just taking bullet points from the Harvard study which shows that there is a link between Fluoride and IQ levels in children.

Unless you think Harvard is a Quack institution? Here is the link to download the actual report.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/?term=10.1289/ehp.1104912

That paper has been dissected in detail in a previous thread.
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056717761

I couldn't care less whether it came from Harvard, Yale, Oxford, etc......people are drawing conclusions of neurotoxicity from IQ tests. That's poor research regardless.

I fcuking Q tests. Because that's been shown to be a reliable, non-biased way to measure intelligence differences before.:rolleyes:

feelgoodinc27

My name is URL wrote: »

. Ireland is always behind the curve when it comes to issues like public health.. what makes anyone think that we have it right regarding water fluoridation?

Based on what? It was Irish authorities that blew the lid on the use of horsemeat by food processors, an ongoing practice in numerous other European countries.

alph

Can I just ask, why don't they just stop putting it into water and see what happens? Is that likely to cost us a fortune or something?

Assuming it doesn't, what's the worst that could happen?

IceFjoem

alph wrote: »

Can I just ask, why don't they just stop putting it into water and see what happens? Is that likely to cost us a fortune or something?

Assuming it doesn't, what's the worst that could happen?

It's a nice idea but it could be construed as an admission of guilt on the part of the State, opening the flood gates for all kinds of compensation cases. It would be a catastrophe.

Cabaal

AnonoBoy wrote: »

Correlation does not imply causation.

Where's the actual evidence that it causes all these things?

Yes it does!

The steady decline in the number of pirates over the years CLEARLY has resulted in global warming

Lets look at the figures shall we?

alph

IceFjoem wrote: »

It's a nice idea but it could be construed as an admission of guilt on the part of the State, opening the flood gates for all kinds of compensation cases. It would be a catastrophe.

Can't they just do it the same way the rest of Europe did?

IceFjoem

alph wrote: »

Can't they just do it the same way the rest of Europe did?

I'm not aware of the circumstances in which other European countries ceased water fluoridation but I have it on good authority (probably doesn't count for much on an anonymous forum I suppose ) that this would be a serious concern for members of Government should an end be brought to water fluoridation.

alph

Fair enough.

What if they just stop putting it in and don't tell anybody .

nozzferrahhtoo

JJayoo wrote: »

The study implies that the less fluoride in drinking water the less damage. So would it not be safe to say that zero fluoride is best??

I am a neutral on the issue as I know very little about it so I am not biased in saying this but: No it would not be "safe to say" this at all.

Human Health rarely works in this way with a linear graph. More often than not it is actually a graph that tends towards an n or curve shape where zero of some variable X is bad but so is lots of X. With some "ideal" level in between.

Even water itself is a good example of this. Too little of it and clearly you die. But too much of it and it also becomes a poison. There is an ideal level somewhere between none and lots. The same is true for many things we ingest.

So no, varying a factor of human nutrition and noticing some improvement in no way suggests that going to the extreme of that direction is a good thing. Alas many people do not understand this and when one media outlet or another churns out a claim that X is good/bad for you people tend to rush to either eliminate X from their diet, or flood their systems with X and rarely is this a good thing.

AnonoBoy

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Even water itself is a good example of this. Too little of it and clearly you die. But too much of it and it also becomes a poison. There is an ideal level somewhere between none and lots. The same is true for many things we ingest.

'The dose makes the poison' is the phrase that I think a lot of anti-fluoride people should listen to.

Cienciano

IceFjoem wrote: »

http://monographs.iarc.fr/ENG/Monographs/suppl7/suppl7.pdf


[ref: 1] Refers to the IARC Monograph of 1982, pages; 27, 237-303.

I cannot find the study online and therefore have no idea what its findings are. It could say that fluoridation causes spontaneous human combustion for all I know, the point is that you are incorrect.

Now, I have responded to your assertion, perhaps you would like to respond to mine:

You dont know how these threads work. You dissect someones evidence that flouride is bad for us and prove it's lazy science and wrong, then come back with strong evidence that it's good. That evidence will be ignored. You'll be given more "evidence" to "prove" it's bad which you will prove wrong with 30 seconds of googling. Repeat over and over again!

Wattle

Ireland: The Sick Elephant of Europe.

AnonoBoy

alph wrote: »

Can I just ask, why don't they just stop putting it into water and see what happens? Is that likely to cost us a fortune or something?

Assuming it doesn't, what's the worst that could happen?

Well since the objections to it are that it causes damage to people's health in the longterm there would be no discernable effect in the short term (except possibly for dental issues). So it would take years and years for anything to change and even then it would be hard to see if it was the removal of fluoride that was the cause since people seem to be claiming it's responsible for all sorts of things.

Brussels Sprout

Any actual evidence to support the claim in the thread title? I don't doubt it but I would be interested in reading it.

bedrock#1

Surely then, if the evidence is not conclusive either way it comes down to the constitutionality of the argument?

Article 40 of the constitution sets down that you have a right not to have your body or person interfered with. This means that the State may not do anything to harm your life or health.

This places the burden of proof on the State. In saying that, if I don't want to be medicated against my will surly I have a constitutional right not to be?

Also can the State guarantee this is not harmful to every citizen?

Article 40.3.1 -

Unenumerated rights -

Right to bodily integrity - Ryan v Attorney General (1965)

Article 40.4 - No citizen shall be deprived of his personal liberty save in accordance with law

Where is the law stating that I must submit to unethical mass medication? This article 40.4 can be read as deprivation of liberty through detention but also has a broader interpretation.

Dont worry, once we start paying the water charges and everybody pays the house hold tax everything will be better. Better water Better Hospitals ! !

Capt'n Midnight

alph wrote: »

Can I just ask, why don't they just stop putting it into water and see what happens? Is that likely to cost us a fortune or something?

Assuming it doesn't, what's the worst that could happen?

look at my post about what happened when they stopped putting in the water in Eastern European countries

Capt'n Midnight

Cabaal wrote: »

Yes it does!

The steady decline in the number of pirates over the years CLEARLY has resulted in global warming

It should come as no surprise that the country with the lowest carbon emissions is Somalia.

FACT !

My name is URL

feelgoodinc27 wrote: »

Based on what? It was Irish authorities that blew the lid on the use of horsemeat by food processors, an ongoing practice in numerous other European countries.

lol.. does the discovery of horse DNA by Irish officials undo the long history the country has of conservatism in science and its unwillingness to progress due to religious dogma?

Interestingly, the ethical approval for adding fluoride to water in Ireland came from the 'Guild of Saint Luke, Saint Cosmas, and Saint Damian'.. which was established by Archbishop John Charles McQuaid. The same group that advised that contraception, homosexuality and abortion remained illegal for so many years.

Capt'n Midnight

My name is URL wrote: »

Interestingly, the ethical approval for adding fluoride to water in Ireland came from the 'Guild of Saint Luke, Saint Cosmas, and Saint Damian'..

Time for the Godwin card.

Interestingly, the first place to ban cigarettes because of the link to cancer was Nazi Germany.

JJayoo

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

look at my post about what happened when they stopped putting in the water in Eastern European countries

This is the full abstract

"For decades Central European countries have been interested in preventive dentistry. Water fluoridation played a major role in the former German Democratic and Czechoslovak Republics and a minor one in Poland. These schemes were abandoned after 1989. Extensive research on all aspects of salt fluoridation was conducted in Hungary from 1966 to 1984 but attempts to introduce it in the country have had little success. Salt fluoridation was implemented in the Czech and the Slovak Republics in the mid-nineties. The market share of the fluoridated domestic salt appears to have reached 35% in the Czech Republic; it became eventually part of a preventive strategy comprising school-based dental health education including topical fluoride. Another four countries have been considering salt fluoridation but schemes did not materialize. Antifluoridation activities occasionally impeded caries prevention, and for years some respected dentists declared their position against fluorides. Caries prevalence in 12-year-old children is by 1 to 3 DMFT higher than in Western Europe. For many years to come, modern fluoride-containing toothpastes and dentifrices may not be affordable for the lower socio-economic strata of the populations in Central and Eastern Europe. It is concluded that salt fluoridation, which is by far the cheapest means of lowering caries prevalence, could markedly improve the oral health situation even if the economical situation is slow to improve."

"Caries prevalence in 12-year-old children is by 1 to 3 DMFT higher than in Western Europe"

But then the abstract says

"For many years to come, modern fluoride-containing toothpastes and dentifrices may not be affordable for the lower socio-economic strata of the populations in Central and Eastern Europe"

People belonging to "the lower socio-economic strata" would usually have a poorer diet and would not be able to afford to go to the dentist as much as people belonging to wealthier parts of Europe.

Maybe the full study goes into more detail and compares statistics between this population before and after they stopped adding fluoride, but from the abstract above there is no actual proof.

Jimoslimos

My name is URL wrote: »

Interestingly, the ethical approval for adding fluoride to water in Ireland came from the 'Guild of Saint Luke, Saint Cosmas, and Saint Damian'.. which was established by Archbishop John Charles McQuaid. The same group that advised that contraception, homosexuality and abortion remained illegal for so many years.

What has that got to do with anything, other than a gross misunderstanding of how ethics approval works? For any scientific experiment or trial involving humans or animals a committee is drawn consisting of experts, lay people and religious groups. That's standard everywhere, not just Ireland.

To most scientists chagrin, ethics approval isn't merely based on the scientific merit of the project. Like it or not (and I don't), religious groups represent many peoples views on a range of controversial topics, (e.g use of stem cells from embryos)

charlemont

My name is URL wrote: »

lol.. does the discovery of horse DNA by Irish officials undo the long history the country has of conservatism in science and its unwillingness to progress due to religious dogma?

Interestingly, the ethical approval for adding fluoride to water in Ireland came from the 'Guild of Saint Luke, Saint Cosmas, and Saint Damian'.. which was established by Archbishop John Charles McQuaid. The same group that advised that contraception, homosexuality and abortion remained illegal for so many years.

I'v long suspected the church in Ireland had a hand in this. If what people are saying about flouride is true then it would be type of thing the church would do and get away with here.

My name is URL

Jimoslimos wrote: »

What has that got to do with anything, other than a gross misunderstanding of how ethics approval works? For any scientific experiment or trial involving humans or animals a committee is drawn consisting of experts, lay people and religious groups. That's standard everywhere, not just Ireland.

To most scientists chagrin, ethics approval isn't merely based on the scientific merit of the project. Like it or not (and I don't), religious groups represent many peoples views on a range of controversial topics, (e.g use of stem cells from embryos)

Well, that group are touted as the ones who gave ethical approval for the practice? Of course it has something to do with it.

I don't see the harm in mentioning it anyway.. it's something that most people would be unaware of, and given the guild's track record on other issues I think it's interesting that they were, at the time; the only group consulted regarding the ethics surrounding it.

As I said in my first post on this thread, the whole thing needs to be revisited. New studies are needed, and more contemporary ethical questions need to be asked about the process of medicating the population. Everything about it is outdated and based on 50+ year old knowledge.

hatrickpatrick

Why are people so dismissive of anyone who objects to flouridation?

I'm not saying I object to it myself, but I find it a little disturbing how anyone who does is automatically dismissed as a crank

ManMade

My name is URL wrote: »

lol.. does the discovery of horse DNA by Irish officials undo the long history the country has of conservatism in science and its unwillingness to progress due to religious dogma?

Interestingly, the ethical approval for adding fluoride to water in Ireland came from the 'Guild of Saint Luke, Saint Cosmas, and Saint Damian'.. which was established by Archbishop John Charles McQuaid. The same group that advised that contraception, homosexuality and abortion remained illegal for so many years.

Ahh. I knew the church would be brought up eventually thank you so much. Irish Godwins Law; the longer a thread goes on the probability that the church/religion is brought up/bashed equals 1. Congrats you win.

Roman Catholic Church: 0
Anti Fluoride Conspiracy Theorists :1

Knasher

Daithi 1 wrote: »

• the highest cancer incidence of all European countries, even as far as Russia.

• the highest incidence of neurological illness

• the highest incidence of cardiovascular illness

• and the highest incidence of diabetes.

Had a quick look at some of these. Ireland doesn't have the highest rate of cancer in Europe. Denmark does, although Denmark doesn't fluoridate its water.

Ireland doesn't have the highest death rate of cardiovascular illness. I wasn't able to find data related to incidence, but unless you are claiming that our health service is better than other European countries, then it is reasonable to assume there is a very strong correlation between incidence and death rate.

Ireland doesn't have the highest incidence of diabetes, not even close. In fact from what I could tell we are below the European average. Though Dabities Ireland believes that a lot of people aren't seeking treatment and that the true rate could be higher.

I didn't check neurological illness, so I've no idea if you are correct about that one or not.

My name is URL

ManMade wrote: »

Ahh. I knew the church would be brought up eventually thank you so much. Irish Godwins Law; the longer a thread goes on the probability that the church/religion is brought up/bashed equals 1. Congrats you win.

Roman Catholic Church: 0
Anti Fluoride Conspiracy Theorists :1

My post has absolutely nothing to do with 'the church'... And what conspiracy are you referring to? I certainly never mentioned any conspiracy.

--Kaiser--

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Why are people so dismissive of anyone who objects to flouridation?

I'm not saying I object to it myself, but I find it a little disturbing how anyone who does is automatically dismissed as a crank

You get dismissed as a crank when you start saying stuff like fluoridation causes cancer....based on nothing

Jimoslimos

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Why are people so dismissive of anyone who objects to flouridation?

I'm not saying I object to it myself, but I find it a little disturbing how anyone who does is automatically dismissed as a crank

Well TBH there is probably room for a serious debate on the effectiveness of mass fluoridation of water as a public health policy.

I'm in the camp where I believe it to be most cost-effective method of reaching the entire population with an acceptable (statistically insignificant) level of risk. In other words the benefits outweigh the drawbacks. If people want to argue that then fine, I'm all ears.

It's when people start rowing in behind misinformed, scientifically illiterate posters to somehow 'point-score' that the debate descends into farce. Claims that fluoride 'causes' cancer, diabetes, CVD, neurological defects are more befitting of DM tabloidism.

JJayoo

--Kaiser-- wrote: »

You get dismissed as a crank when you start saying stuff like fluoridation causes cancer....based on nothing

Who has stated this?

My only real concern with the ingestion of fluoride is its build up in the pineal gland.

"Fluoride deposition in the aged human pineal gland, Luke 2001"

Abstract "The purpose was to discover whether fluoride (F) accumulates in the aged human pineal gland. The aims were to determine (a) F-concentrations of the pineal gland (wet), corresponding muscle (wet) and bone (ash); (b) calcium-concentration of the pineal. Pineal, muscle and bone were dissected from 11 aged cadavers and assayed for F using the HMDS-facilitated diffusion, F-ion-specific electrode method. Pineal calcium was determined using atomic absorption spectroscopy. Pineal and muscle contained 297+/-257 and 0.5+/-0.4 mg F/kg wet weight, respectively; bone contained 2,037+/-1,095 mg F/kg ash weight. The pineal contained 16,000+/-11,070 mg Ca/kg wet weight. There was a positive correlation between pineal F and pineal Ca (r = 0.73, p<0.02) but no correlation between pineal F and bone F. By old age, the pineal gland has readily accumulated F and its F/Ca ratio is higher than bone."

Paul Connett, Professor of Chemistry, St. Lawrence University. March 27, 2001.

"The wheels of science grind very slowly. Finally, the first half of the work that was the subject of Jennifer Luke's Ph.D. thesis has been published in Caries Research (see abstract).

In my view this work is of enormous importance and could be (or should be) the scientific straw that breaks the camel's back of fluoridation. Many of our subscribers are familiar with the details but let me repeat them here.

When Luke found out that the pineal gland - a little gland in the center of the brain, responsible for a very large range of regulating activities (it produces serotonin and melatonin) -was also a calcifying tissue, like the teeth and the bones, she hypothesized it would concentrate fluoride to very high levels. The gland is not protected by the blood brain barrier and has a very high perfusion rate of blood, second only to the kidney.

Luke had 11 cadavers analyzed in the UK. As she predicted she found astronomically high levels of fluoride in the calcium hydroxy apatite crystals produced by the gland. The average was 9000 ppm and went as high as 21,000 in one case. These levels are at, or higher, than fluoride levels in the bones of people suffering from skeletal fluorosis. It is these findings which have just been published.

It is the ramifications of these findings which have yet to be published. In the second half of her work she treated animals (Mongolian gerbils) with fluoride at a crack pineal gland research unit at the University of Surrey, UK (so there is no question about the quality of this work). She found that melatonin production (as measured by the concentration of a melatonin metabolite in the urine) was lower in the animals treated with high fluoride levels compared with those treated with low levels.

Luke hypothesizes that one of the four enzymes needed to convert the amino acid tryptophan (from the diet) into melatonin is being inhibited by fluoride. It could be one of the two enzymes which convert tryptophan to serotonin or one of the two which convert serotonin to melatonin.

Significance? Huge. Melatonin is reponsible for regulating all kinds of activities and there is a vast amount of work investigating its possible roles in aging, cancer and many other life processes. The one activity that Luke is particularly interested in is the onset of puberty. The highest levels of melatonin ( produced only at night) is generated in young children. It is thought that it is the fall of these melatonin levels which acts like a biological clock and triggers the onset of puberty. In her gerbil study she found that the high fluoride treated animals were reaching puberty earlier than the low fluoride ones.

We know from recent studies - and considerable press coverage - that young girls are reaching puberty earlier and earlier in the US. Luke is not saying that fluoride (or fluoridation) is the cause but her work waves a very worrying red flag. Fluoride's role in earlier puberty needs more thorough investigation. Of an interesting historical note, in the Newburgh versus Kingston fluoridation trial (1945-1955), it was found that the girls in fluoridated Newburgh were reaching menstruation, on average, five months earlier than the girls in unfluoridated Kingston, but the result was not thought to be significant at the time (Schlessinger et al, 1956).

When one considers the seriousness of a possible interference by fluoride on a growing child's pineal gland (and for that matter, elderly pineal glands) it underlines the recklessness of fluoridation. The precautionary principle would say, as would basic common sense, that you don't take these kind of risks with our children for a benefit which, at best, amounts to 0.6 tooth surfaces out of 128 tooth surfaces in a child's mouth (Brunelle and Carlos, 1990, Table 6)."

--Kaiser--

JJayoo wrote: »

Who has stated this?

/QUOTE]

Christ man! First post in the thread it was stated! Stop drinking so much water, it's clearly blocking your pineal gland

JJayoo

--Kaiser-- wrote: »

JJayoo wrote: »

Who has stated this?

/QUOTE]

Christ man! First post in the thread it was stated! Stop drinking so much water, it's clearly blocking your pineal gland

I meant that you should aim your conspiracy chants at the people who make these claims instead of tarnishing everyone with the same brush. I don't think fluoride causes cancer, but i do believe it's important for people to ask questions, or at least have the right to ask questions without people like you making comments like above.