Ireland has the sickest population in Europe

sheesh

guys what ever you do don't tell them about the iodine in the salt

Cienciano

--Kaiser-- wrote: »

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

Another good indication is when they call flouride "industrial waste". If there's a use for "waste", then it's not waste, it's a by-product. But "waste" sounds better, sounds like they're putting something terrible in the water.

IceFjoem

Cienciano wrote: »

Another good indication is when they call flouride "industrial waste". If there's a use for "waste", then it's not waste, it's a by-product. But "waste" sounds better, sounds like they're putting something terrible in the water.

Well before it was used in water fluoridation it was indeed nothing more than industrial waste, so it's not completely erroneous. I take your point though, there's nothing that irks me more than the use of scare tactics and rhetoric in what should simply be a discussion of scientific evidence.

JJayoo

Reminds me of this
"If this stuff gets out into the air, it’s a pollutant; if it gets into the river, it’s a pollutant; if it gets into the lake it’s a pollutant; but if it goes right into your drinking water system, it’s not a pollutant. That’s amazing… There’s got to be a better way to manage this stuff.” Hirzy 2000

ManMade

JJayoo wrote: »

Reminds me of this
"If this stuff gets out into the air, it’s a pollutant; if it gets into the river, it’s a pollutant; if it gets into the lake it’s a pollutant; but if it goes right into your drinking water system, it’s not a pollutant. That’s amazing… There’s got to be a better way to manage this stuff.” Hirzy 2000

You could use that logic for ribena/salt/sugar/tea. If a factory dumped 10000 litres/kgs in a small lough it would be a pollutant. Put a small bit of it in your water and suddenly it's not a pollutant. It's not a pollutant because there's no reliable proof it causes illness. In Europe they add Fluoride to salt because they don't drink tap water ffs.

JJayoo

ManMade wrote: »

In Europe they add Fluoride to salt because they don't drink tap water ffs.

I have heard this a few times. The thing that amuses me most about the "Europe doesn't drink tap water" argument is that most of these countries stopped adding fluoride to their water long before people had the availability of alternatives to tap water.

For example Holland stopped adding fluoride to water in 1973, is this because the dutch weren't drinking tap water in 1973? The concept of bottled water is a relatively new one

http://www.yes4cleanwater.org/Documents/CoutriesRejectedF.pdf

ManMade

JJayoo wrote: »

I have heard this a few times. The thing that amuses me most about the "Europe doesn't drink tap water" argument is that most of these countries stopped adding fluoride to their water long before people had the availability of alternatives to tap water.

For example Holland stopped adding fluoride to water in 1973, is this because the dutch weren't drinking tap water in 1973? The concept of bottled water is a relatively new one

http://www.yes4cleanwater.org/Documents/CoutriesRejectedF.pdf

What a reliable link.... http://www.yes4cleanwater.org/
Fluoridated water prevents cavities

From WHO(The World Health Organisation.)

The effects of too little—and too much—Fluoride

Fluoride is a desirable substance: it can prevent or reduce dental decay and strengthen bones, thus preventing bone fractures in older people. Where the fluoride level is naturally low, studies have shown higher levels of both dental caries (tooth decay) and fractures. Because of its positive effect, fluoride is added to water during treatment in some areas with low levels. But you can have too much of a good thing; and in the case of fluoride, water levels above 1.5mg/litre may have long-term undesirable effects (Table 1: see also fact file on fluorosis). Much depends on whether other sources, such as vegetables, also have high levels. The risk of toxic effect rises with the concentration. It only becomes obvious at much higher levels than 1.5mg/l. The natural level can be as high as 95mg/l in some waters, such as in Tanzania where the rocks are rich in fluoride-containing minerals. Severe effects of excess fluoride have recently been reported from the Assam state in India


In Ireland the legal limit is 0.7 mg. What's the problem?

JJayoo

What a reliable link.... http://www.yes4cleanwater.org/

I take it you didn't read the actual link, and you never answered my question on what alternative water supplies European countries were using in the 70's and 80's? would be interested since you pointed out that " In Europe they add Fluoride to salt because they don't drink tap water ffs"

The only issue I raised is the lack of scientific study on the long term ingestion of Fluoride, I am not arguing it's benefit for your teeth.

A letter from the United States Environmental Protection Agency to Professor Masters of Dartmouth College. http://ebookbrowse.com/masters-epa-01-pdf-d315813666

"To answer your first question on whether we have in our possession empirical scientific
data on the effects of fluosilicic acid or sodium silicofluoride on health and behavior, our answer
is no. Health effects research is primarily conducted by our National Health and Environmental
Effects Research Laboratory (NHEERL). We have contacted our colleagues at NHEERL and
they report that with the exception of some acute toxicity data, they were unable to find any
information on the effects of silicofluorides on health and behavior"

http://www.fluoridealert.org/uploads/thurnau-2000.pdf

Fluosilicic Acid and Sodium Silicofluiride are both used to add fluoride to water.

Department of health and human Services: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

"Types of Fluoride Additives

Community water systems in the United States use one of three additives for water fluoridation. Decisions on which additive to use are based on cost of product, product-handling requirements, space availability, and equipment.

The three additives are:

Fluorosilicic acid: a water-based solution used by most water fluoridation programs in the United States. Fluorosilicic acid is also referred to as hydrofluorosilicate, FSA, or HFS.
Sodium fluorosilicate: a dry additive, dissolved into a solution before being added to water.
Sodium fluoride: a dry additive, typically used in small water systems, dissolved into a solution before being added to water"

http://www.cdc.gov/fluoridation/fact_sheets/engineering/wfadditives.htm

ManMade

I just want a link to a reliable website which shows long term health implications of drinking water with under 1 ppm.

JJayoo

ManMade wrote: »

I just want a link to a reliable website which shows long term health implications of drinking water with under 1 ppm.

And all I'm asking for is some scientific studies on the long term ingestion of fluoride.

Both of our requests don't seem to exist. The closest I could get to your request would be Luke 2001 which shows the Fluoride builds up in the Pineal Gland but they have no scientific proof, as far as i am aware, if this has any affect on it's ability to regulate melatonin.

I'm not some kind of hippy anti-fluoride nut I just find topics like this interesting.

But if you bad mouth Vitamin C I'll kill ya

pennydo

Ok so a month ago i read some articles on fluoride and decide to use myself as an experiment. I replaced tap water with French bottled water and replaced the toothpaste i was using with a fluoride free version i made myself. In the last 3 weeks a rash on my leg has disappeared, my teeth are brighter,my gums are healthier and i have more energy. Now no matter what anyone says they Will Not change my mind about fluoride being bad for human consumption

Ziphius

pennydo wrote: »

Ok so a month ago i read some articles on fluoride and decide to use myself as an experiment. I replaced tap water with French bottled water and replaced the toothpaste i was using with a fluoride free version i made myself. In the last 3 weeks a rash on my leg has disappeared, my teeth are brighter,my gums are healthier and i have more energy. Now no matter what anyone says they Will Not change my mind about fluoride being bad for human consumption

What was your control?

ManMade

pennydo wrote: »

Ok so a month ago i read some articles on fluoride and decide to use myself as an experiment. I replaced tap water with French bottled water and replaced the toothpaste i was using with a fluoride free version i made myself. In the last 3 weeks a rash on my leg has disappeared, my teeth are brighter,my gums are healthier and i have more energy. Now no matter what anyone says they Will Not change my mind about fluoride being bad for human consumption

You must drink one hell of a lot of water.

IceFjoem

JJayoo wrote: »

And all I'm asking for is some scientific studies on the long term ingestion of fluoride.

Both of our requests don't seem to exist.

What about the long term study I posted about in post number of 108 of this thread? I linked it again in post 118 as it seemed as though you didn't read it.

Remember, I proved your assertion that "no long term study exists" to be untrue, remember that?

ManMade

JJayoo wrote: »

And all I'm asking for is some scientific studies on the long term ingestion of fluoride.

Both of our requests don't seem to exist. The closest I could get to your request would be Luke 2001 which shows the Fluoride builds up in the Pineal Gland but they have no scientific proof, as far as i am aware, if this has any affect on it's ability to regulate melatonin.

I'm not some kind of hippy anti-fluoride nut I just find topics like this interesting.

But if you bad mouth Vitamin C I'll kill ya

Seems so. All I want is definitive facts and proof. The positives aren't brilliant but are nice but I can't find any negatives with backed recent studies.

I won't bad mouth Vitamin C if you don't bad mouth Vitamin D

JJayoo

IceFjoem wrote: »

What about the long term study I posted about in post number of 108 of this thread? I linked it again in post 118 as it seemed as though you didn't read it.

Remember, I proved your assertion that "no long term study exists" to be untrue, remember that?

But you didn't post a study. You had a quote from a source you couldn't find, and you linked something I tried to understand but since it contained no page numbers and numerous font sizes and pretty much no structure. Ok searched it again and found the linked area. Without seeing any of the actual studies it's hard to judge this information correctly as it seems the studies are from the 70's and are only concerned with cancer.

If you could find the source of your quote it would be interesting to see.

My assumption that there are no studies stems from this letter from the EPA
http://ebookbrowse.com/masters-epa-01-pdf-d315813666

I would like to hear your opinion on this.

Edit]Ok searched it again and found the linked area. Without seeing any of the actual studies it's hard to judge this information correctly as it seems the studies are from the 70's and are only concerned with cancer.

JJayoo

ManMade wrote: »

I won't bad mouth Vitamin C if you don't bad mouth Vitamin D

I love Vitamin D3, 5000iu should be mandatory :pac:

pennydo

Rather than asking other people to prove an argument right or wrong...prove it to yourself,experiment with your own diet/health and see how you feel after a couple of weeks of lovely clean water. Then you'll know if its harmful or not without relying on other peoples studies. Go on try it i dare ya

WoollyRedHat

LordChessington wrote: »

Jesus tap dancing christ...

Prefer the break dancing one myself.

ManMade

pennydo wrote: »

Rather than asking other people to prove an argument right or wrong...prove it to yourself,experiment with your own diet/health and see how you feel after a couple of weeks of lovely clean water. Then you'll know if its harmful or not without relying on other peoples studies. Go on try it i dare ya

I eat too much sh*te and take to much supplements to do a clean experiment. Although recently I started drinking two litres of tap water (still free!) and felt great. I think most people would benefit from drinking more water, fluoride or not. Although I'm running to the jacks a lot more

IceFjoem

JJayoo wrote: »

But you didn't post a study. You had a quote from a source you couldn't find, and you linked something I tried to understand but since it contained no page numbers and numerous font sizes and pretty much no structure.

If you could find the source of your quote it would be interesting to see.

My assumption that there are no studies stems from this letter from the EPA
http://ebookbrowse.com/masters-epa-01-pdf-d315813666

I would like to hear your opinion on this.

1) I never said I posted a study. What I did do, was provide a link to a review of studies by the International Agency for Research on Cancer. Contained in the linked document was irrefutable evidence of the existence of at least one long term study.


2) The first three pages of that pdf document shows a list of substances. That list is clearly arranged alphabetically and the very first entry under 'F' was fluorides. The list is very obviously a table of contents, as such, if you had spent 3-4 seconds and scrolled through the document, you would have easily found the review of fluorides on page 201 (assuming you're familiar with the English alphabet).


3) (Again) The study on the long term affects of water fluoridation is a document by the IARC from 1982. I spent all of 5 seconds looking for it before giving up as it's possible that it's not archived online and only exists as a hard copy. However, it was not my intention to provide the study for you, I just wanted to prove (which I did) that such studies exist, and that you were wrong to say they didn't.


4) I have no interest in doing your research for you, if you are genuinely interested you can try find it yourself. Either way, I think it's fair to say that you no longer have the right to claim that no long term studies exist.


As for the letter you linked:1) Nowhere does it mention anything about long term studies on water fluoridation, nor does it say that they don't exist.

2) It does say that in January 2001, a number of groups "met to discuss a number of water related issues including Fluoridation."

They identified two areas of research that required attention, both of which are to do with the research into the chemistry of fluoride. This letter has nothing to do with the health implications of water fluoridation.


Your assumption that no long term studies existed was based on absolutely nothing.

No offense but your research skills require a lot of work.


A word of advice - your laziness of research and obtuse dodging of evidence has left me (and almost certainly others) with the impression that any future evidence you provide will be flawed. If you want to be taken seriously and avoid being labelled a crank you should sharpen up, the way you're debating is massively hurting your credibility.

JJayoo

A word of advice - your laziness of research and obtuse dodging of evidence has left me (and almost certainly others) with the impression that any future evidence you provide will be flawed. If you want to be taken seriously and avoid being labelled a crank you should sharpen up, the way you're debating is massively hurting your credibility.

Genuine lol, never understand the need to talk down to people on forums.

As for the letter you linked:1) Nowhere does it mention anything about long term studies on water fluoridation, nor does it say that they don't exist.

2) It does say that in January 2001, a number of groups "met to discuss a number of water related issues including Fluoridation."

They identified two areas of research that required attention, both of which are to do with the research into the chemistry of fluoride. This letter has nothing to do with the health implications of water fluoridation.

My fault I put up the wrong letter

http://www.fluoridealert.org/uploads/thurnau-2000.pdf This is the letter I had intended to link

"We have received your letter dated September 27, 2000, requesting empirical scientific
data we may have on the health effects of fluosilicic acid or sodium silicofluoride and manganese
neurotoxicity.
To answer your first question on whether we have in our possession empirical scientific
data on the effects of fluosilicic acid or sodium silicofluoride on health and behavior, our answer
is no. Health effects research is primarily conducted by our National Health and Environmental
Effects Research Laboratory (NHEERL). We have contacted our colleagues at NHEERL and
they report that with the exception of some acute toxicity data, they were unable to find any
information on the effects of silicofluorides on health and behavior."

It states that neither the EPA or the NHEERL have any empirical scientific data on the effects of fluosilicic acid or sodium silicofluoride on health and behavior. These two chemicals are used to add fluoride to water

Your assumption that no long term studies existed was based on absolutely nothing.

No it is based on the correct letter that I have now posted, I have quoted it for easy reading.

My initial statement which seems to have really bothered you, to the point of throwing insults, is.

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

which as I have now explained is based on the response from the EPA and the NHEERL

The study which you have shown revolves solely around cancer and no other conditions. I have never once stated that Fluoride causes cancer.

About this study you have said

"Essentially what is being said here is that the 7 studies on which the findings were based, indicated that there were no apparent links of water fluoridation to cancer but that all 7 studies were somewhat flawed in the first place, therefore the evidence is inadequate.

I agree with you that there is apparently no good evidence to show a link between water fluoridation and cancer and I remain unconvinced as to the supposed ill effects of water fluoridation, but I'm not happy knowing that the NCRI and/or the Department of Health's stance on the carcinogenicity of water fluoridation is based on a review of fundamentally flawed studies that are over 25 years old.

I think it's time for a new study."

So you have poked holes in the study. So I have to wonder do you have an issue with me instead of the content of the discussion?

So instead of saying "There has never been a single study which examines the long term affect of ingesting fluoride"

I should have said " I don't think any adequate studies have been done on the long term affects of ingesting fluoride and by adequate I mean studies which look at a broad spectrum of potential symptoms/conditions".

Jimoslimos

pennydo wrote: »

Ok so a month ago i read some articles on fluoride and decide to use myself as an experiment. I replaced tap water with French bottled water and replaced the toothpaste i was using with a fluoride free version i made myself. In the last 3 weeks a rash on my leg has disappeared, my teeth are brighter,my gums are healthier and i have more energy. Now no matter what anyone says they Will Not change my mind about fluoride being bad for human consumption

Regression to the mean. Happy for you anyway.

IceFjoem

JJayoo wrote: »

My fault I put up the wrong letter

http://www.fluoridealert.org/uploads/thurnau-2000.pdf This is the letter I had intended to link

"We have received your letter dated September 27, 2000, requesting empirical scientific
data we may have on the health effects of fluosilicic acid or sodium silicofluoride and manganese
neurotoxicity.
To answer your first question on whether we have in our possession empirical scientific
data on the effects of fluosilicic acid or sodium silicofluoride on health and behavior, our answer
is no. Health effects research is primarily conducted by our National Health and Environmental
Effects Research Laboratory (NHEERL). We have contacted our colleagues at NHEERL and
they report that with the exception of some acute toxicity data, they were unable to find any
information on the effects of silicofluorides on health and behavior."

It states that neither the EPA or the NHEERL have any empirical scientific data on the effects of fluosilicic acid or sodium silicofluoride on health and behavior. These two chemicals are used to add fluoride to water

The problem here is that you're assuming that there exists no long term studies anywhere based on the archives of just two agencies. I'll admit, it is indeed rather curious that the EPA have no long term studies but you were evidently wrong to make the above assumption or any assumption for that matter. Making assumptions like that is bad science and it can and will get you in trouble in a debate like this.

JJayoo wrote: »

The study which you have shown revolves solely around cancer and no other conditions. I have never once stated that Fluoride causes cancer.

I'm aware of both those facts, they were never in question.

JJayoo wrote: »

About this study you have said

"Essentially what is being said here is that the 7 studies on which the findings were based, indicated that there were no apparent links of water fluoridation to cancer but that all 7 studies were somewhat flawed in the first place, therefore the evidence is inadequate.

I agree with you that there is apparently no good evidence to show a link between water fluoridation and cancer and I remain unconvinced as to the supposed ill effects of water fluoridation, but I'm not happy knowing that the NCRI and/or the Department of Health's stance on the carcinogenicity of water fluoridation is based on a review of fundamentally flawed studies that are over 25 years old.

I think it's time for a new study."

So you have poked holes in the study. So I have to wonder do you have an issue with me instead of the content of the discussion?

I don't have an issue with you personally, but essentially yes, my issue lies mostly with way you've handled this discussion.

JJayoo wrote: »

So instead of saying "There has never been a single study which examines the long term affect of ingesting fluoride"

I should have said " I don't think any adequate studies have been done on the long term affects of ingesting fluoride and by adequate I mean studies which look at a broad spectrum of potential symptoms/conditions".

You'd still have been asked to define the subjective terms "broad spectrum", but ye that would have more or less prevented this whole thing.

JJayoo wrote: »

Genuine lol, never understand the need to talk down to people on forums.

Although it's admittedly pretty condescending, it was honestly genuine advice. Anyway, thank you for your response.

Capt'n Midnight

pennydo wrote: »

Ok so a month ago i read some articles on fluoride and decide to use myself as an experiment.

I think you've made a rash decision :pac:

Capt'n Midnight

JJayoo wrote: »

Luke 2001 which shows the Fluoride builds up in the Pineal Gland

It's more a case that Calcium Fluoride is insoluble and will accumulate anywhere where calcium normally accumulates.

On that note has anyone checked for Fluoride in Kidney Stones ?

JJayoo

IceFjoem wrote: »

Although it's admittedly pretty condescending, it was honestly genuine advice. Anyway, thank you for your response.

First time I have heard the words condescending,honest and genuine used to describe a comment

assuming you're familiar with the English alphabet

I'm assuming this is also a genuine and honest remark. Thank you for your concern and yes I have come across the English alphabet before.

JJayoo

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

It's more a case that Calcium Fluoride is insoluble and will accumulate anywhere where calcium normally accumulates.

But it still leads to a build up of Fluoride in the Pineal gland "By old age, the pineal gland has readily accumulated F and its F/Ca ratio is higher than bone"

The Pineal Gland is kinda interesting as " Unlike much of the rest of the mammalian brain, the pineal gland is not isolated from the body by the blood–brain barrier system, it has profuse blood flow, second only to the kidney.

Maybe fluoride is good for the Pineal gland, I have no idea but I would think that it deserves some research.

micosoft

ManMade wrote: »

You could use that logic for ribena/salt/sugar/tea. If a factory dumped 10000 litres/kgs in a small lough it would be a pollutant. Put a small bit of it in your water and suddenly it's not a pollutant. It's not a pollutant because there's no reliable proof it causes illness. In Europe they add Fluoride to salt because they don't drink tap water ffs.

Reminds me of http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-21614304

The solution to pollution is dilution. Everything is a pollutant in sufficient quantity but not if sufficiently diluted. Unless you are a Homoeopath. Then it's "medicine".

jd

micosoft wrote: »

Reminds me of http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-21614304

The solution to pollution is dilution. Everything is a pollutant in sufficient quantity but not if sufficiently diluted. Unless you are a Homoeopath. Then it's "medicine".

Well actually, if you are a homeopath, the more you dilute it the stronger its effects!

griffdaddy

Is this argument not basically the old 'feeling rough today after 10 pints last night, must've been a dodgy burger on the way home' on a much larger scale?

IceFjoem

micosoft wrote: »

Reminds me of http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-21614304

The solution to pollution is dilution. Everything is a pollutant in sufficient quantity but not if sufficiently diluted.

I see what you're saying, but that logic doesn't necessarily apply to everything. Heavy metals like mercury or lead are cumulative and will continue to built up in your system regardless of how 'dilute' they are.

Incidentally, there is apparently evidence that fluoride too accumulates in the body in a similar way, I am however, unfamiliar with the evidence and will not endorse it until I've had a chance to look at it.

Daithi 1

IceFjoem wrote: »

I see what you're saying, but that logic doesn't necessarily apply to everything. Heavy metals like mercury or lead are cumulative and will continue to built up in your system regardless of how 'dilute' they are.

Incidentally, there is apparently evidence that fluoride too accumulates in the body in a similar way, I am however, unfamiliar with the evidence and will not endorse it until I've had a chance to look at it.

This is true. Fluoride accumulates in our bones mostly and it builds up over time.

This from the national academy of sciences:
http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=11571

Download the free pdf ^

Page 78

Measuring the fluoride content of teeth and bones can give an indication
of chronic or cumulative fluoride exposure, although after cessation of
fluoride exposure, bone fluoride concentrations slowly decrease because of
resorption of bone.

JJayoo

IceFjoem wrote: »

Incidentally, there is apparently evidence that fluoride too accumulates in the body in a similar way, I am however, unfamiliar with the evidence and will not endorse it until I've had a chance to look at it.

Fluoride Deposition in the Aged Human Pineal Gland: Jennifer Luke, 2001
http://www.icnr.com/articles/fluoride-deposition.html

"This study has added new knowledge on the fate and distribution of fluoride in the body. It has shown for the first time that fluoride readily accumulates in the human pineal gland although there was considerable inter-individual variation (14-875 mg F/kg). By old age, the average pineal gland contains about the same amount of fluoride as teeth (300 mg F/kg) since dentine and whole enamel contain 300 and 100 mg F/kg, respectively [Newbrun, 1986]."

"In conclusion, this study presented evidence that fluoride readily accumulates in the aged pineal. Fluoride may also accumulate in a child's pineal because significant amounts of calcification have been demonstrated in the pineals from young children [Cooper, 1932; Wurtman, 1968; Kerényi and Sarkar, 1968; Tapp and Huxley, 197 1; Doskocil, 1984]. In fact, calcification of the developing enamel organs and the pineal gland occur concurrently. If fluoride does accumulate in the child's pineal (this needs verification), the pinealocytes will be exposed to relatively high local concentrations of fluoride. This could affect pineal metabolism in much the same way that high local concentrations of fluoride in the developing enamel organ affect ameloblast function. Research is presently underway to discover whether fluoride affects pineal physiology during childhood: specifically pineal synthesis of melatonin."

Daithi 1

The pineal gland, a calcifying organ
that lies near the center of the brain but outside the blood-brain barrier, has
been found to accumulate fluoride (Luke 2001). Fluoride concentrations in
adipose tissue and brain are generally thought to be about 20% of plasma or
less (Whitford 1996). The blood-brain barrier is thought to reduce fluoride
transfer, at least in short-term experiments (Whitford 1996). It is possible
that brain T/P ratios are higher for exposure before development of the
blood-brain barrier.

Melatonin secretion is well correlated with the amount of uncalcified
pineal tissue (Kunz et al. 1999) but not with the size of pineal calcification
(Vígh et al. 1998; Kunz et al. 1999). An increase in calcification of the pineal
gland in humans probably represents a decrease in the number of functioning
pinealocytes and a corresponding decrease in the individual’s ability to
produce melatonin (Kunz et al. 1999). The degree of calcification, relative
to the size of an individual’s pineal gland, has been suggested as a marker
of the individual’s decreased capability to produce melatonin (Kunz et al.
1999).

http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=11571

Daithi 1

From Harvard.


Impact of fluoride on neurological development in children.


July 25, 2012 — For years health experts have been unable to agree on whether fluoride in the drinking water may be toxic to the developing human brain. Extremely high levels of fluoride are known to cause neurotoxicity in adults, and negative impacts on memory and learning have been reported in rodent studies, but little is known about the substance’s impact on children’s neurodevelopment. In a meta-analysis, researchers from Harvard School of Public Health (HSPH) and China Medical University in Shenyang for the first time combined 27 studies and found strong indications that fluoride may adversely affect cognitive development in children. Based on the findings, the authors say that this risk should not be ignored, and that more research on fluoride’s impact on the developing brain is warranted.

The study was published online in Environmental Health Perspectives on July 20, 2012.

The researchers conducted a systematic review of studies, almost all of which are from China where risks from fluoride are well-established. Fluoride is a naturally occurring substance in groundwater, and exposures to the chemical are increased in some parts of China. Virtually no human studies in this field have been conducted in the U.S., said lead author Anna Choi, research scientist in the Department of Environmental Health at HSPH.

Even though many of the studies on children in China differed in many ways or were incomplete, the authors consider the data compilation and joint analysis an important first step in evaluating the potential risk. “For the first time we have been able to do a comprehensive meta-analysis that has the potential for helping us plan better studies. We want to make sure that cognitive development is considered as a possible target for fluoride toxicity,” Choi said.

Choi and senior author Philippe Grandjean, adjunct professor of environmental health at HSPH, and their colleagues collated the epidemiological studies of children exposed to fluoride from drinking water. The China National Knowledge Infrastructure database also was included to locate studies published in Chinese journals. They then analyzed possible associations with IQ measures in more than 8,000 children of school age; all but one study suggested that high fluoride content in water may negatively affect cognitive development.

The average loss in IQ was reported as a standardized weighted mean difference of 0.45, which would be approximately equivalent to seven IQ points for commonly used IQ scores with a standard deviation of 15.* Some studies suggested that even slightly increased fluoride exposure could be toxic to the brain. Thus, children in high-fluoride areas had significantly lower IQ scores than those who lived in low-fluoride areas. The children studied were up to 14 years of age, but the investigators speculate that any toxic effect on brain development may have happened earlier, and that the brain may not be fully capable of compensating for the toxicity.

“Fluoride seems to fit in with lead, mercury, and other poisons that cause chemical brain drain,” Grandjean says. “The effect of each toxicant may seem small, but the combined damage on a population scale can be serious, especially because the brain power of the next generation is crucial to all of us.”

http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/features/fluoride-childrens-health-grandjean-choi/

Ziphius

Probably been said before but the above paper was conducted in China so that the researchers could study the effects of fluoride leves far higher than those seen in Western nations.

"Opportunities for epidemiological studies depend on the existence of comparable population groups exposed to different levels of fluoride from drinking water. Such circumstances are difficult to find in many industrialized countries, because fluoride concentrations in community water are usually no higher than 1 mg/L, even when fluoride is added to water supplies as a public health measure to reduce tooth decay. Multiple epidemiological studies of developmental fluoride neurotoxicity were conducted in China because of the high fluoride concentrations that are substantially above 1 mg/L in well
water in many rural communities, although microbiologically safe water has been accessible to many rural households as a result of the recent 5-year plan (2001–2005) by the Chinese government. " Choi et al 2012

Daithi 1

Oh that's grand then, once it's only the Chinese. Nothing for me to be concerned about then. :rolleyes:

Daithi 1

Article in the Irish Times today..

Roisin Ingle
on . . . drinking water

We have a filter tap in our house. Every morning one of us fills a large jug with filtered tap water so our children won’t have to drink it from the regular tap. When we got our kitchen done we asked for the extra tap because we’d seen one on somebody else’s sink. In another house we spotted a glass splash-back and a clever shelf for storing tins, so we copied those ideas too. Yes I know. There’s a nice portmanteau for people like us: sheeple.

The silly thing is that the filtered water probably isn’t filtered much at all. You’re supposed to change the filter every six months. Oops. So our children, your children most likely, are drinking water straight from the tap. Sure where’s the harm in that?

Mind you when my health-guru brother comes to stay he won’t drink our tap water. He’s been lecturing us for years on the dangers of the “mass medication” through fluoride that began in the 1960s. After we had children he ramped it up a notch, so I promised I’d do some research. But then I blinked and suddenly the children were nearly four and full of fluoridated water just like their parents, and we all seemed to be fine.

I did make some inquiries. One day, at the dentist, I asked whether he thought fluoride in the water was okay, and he said it was more than okay, it was essential, because if it wasn’t for fluoridated water whole communities, especially in deprived areas, would have terrible teeth. So that was that, in my mind, until recently, when my sister, not someone given to conspiracy theories, emailed the family about some research completed by a Cork-based environmental scientist, Declan Waugh. He had just completed yet another self-funded review examining what he claims are the disastrous effects on public health of our fluoride policy, including increased risk of cardiovascular, endocrine, respiratory, muscular skeletal, immunological and neurological conditions.

At the same time on twitter I came across one of those citizen superheroes, people like Cystic Fibrosis campaigner Orla Tinsley, men and women with tenacity and energy and passion enough to wake up an entire country.

Aisling FitzGibbon is the Girl Against Fluoride, and after you spend a few minutes on her website you can’t help but have some questions. Why are we pretty much the only country in Europe that fluoridates the water system? Why, if fluoride is supposed to stop tooth decay, is the rest of mostly fluoride-free Europe not in the grips of a tooth-decay epidemic? How come Waugh’s research has persuaded communities in Canada and Australia to reject water fluoridation but has yet to make an impact on authorities here?

A student from Tralee, FitzGibbon came to the issue after struggling with depression. Anti-depressants didn’t help so she sought advice from a nutritionist, who told her that fluoride in the water may have been contributing to her condition. She splashed out on a fluoride removing reverse osmosis water filter, started on a daily programme of vitamins and minerals and says within seven months her symptoms had disappeared.

It’s great that it worked for her. Medical experts might have other views about fluoride-free water and depression.

She told me the fluoride comes from a biocidal product called hexafluorosilicic acid that we import from Spain and that the same chemical was banned for use as a biocide under an EU directive six years ago. She and Waugh insist the substance has never been tested for safety when it comes to human consumption.

When I asked the HSE they said the substance conforms to the European standard for chemicals used for the treatment of water intended for human consumption. When the Irish Expert Body on Fluorides and Health visited the plant in Spain where the substance is produced it was “satisfied that the production is in compliance with quality, environmental and safety systems”.

FitzGibbon isn’t satisfied and she is preparing a legal case against the State. People will argue that fluoridation is harmless and essential for dental health. They’ll say it’s just like adding vitamin D to milk or folic acid to cereals and that it still goes on in the US and Australia. Still, when it comes to educating ourselves, asking questions and making up our own minds on the fluoride issue, sure where’s the harm in that? You can read more on thegirlagainstfluoride.comand fluoridesandhealth.ie. There’s a nice portmanteau for people like us: sheeple. But not on this issue. Not any more.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/magazine/2013/0302/1224330617469.html

Ziphius

Daithi 1 wrote: »

Oh that's grand then, once it's only the Chinese. Nothing for me to be concerned about then. :rolleyes:

The passive aggressive insinuation of racism against me says a lot about you.

The Harvard study looked at fluoride levels far higher than those found in Irish drinking water.

Moreover there is criticism (published yesterday) of if the results are even valid in the first place.

http://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/2013/03/1206192/

Ziphius

Daithi 1 wrote: »

Article in the Irish Times today..

A step up from Hot Press, I guess.

Daithi 1

Ziphius wrote: »

The passive aggressive insinuation of racism against me says a lot about you.

The Harvard study looked at fluoride levels far higher than those found in Irish drinking water.

Moreover there is criticism (published yesterday) of if the results are even valid in the first place.

http://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/2013/03/1206192/

That was sarcasm, not passive aggression. You comment was racist in my book, it's fine with you that is just Chinese children who's brains are being affected by fluoride. That's not a problem for you, you stated so. It's only Chinese, not us, so it's fine yea ??

We can compare notes all day on this matter. Simple fact is no-one seems to have a clue what level is safe. We know it's a poison and it's very unsafe at certain levels and we know that we are just as healthy or healthier witout fluoridation.

But you would like to continue with mass medication of fluoride until it is proven unsafe or safe at a very low level. A level of which it will still accumulate in our bones and teeth and casify our pinel glands.

Fair play. :rolleyes:

books4sale

I don't understand the fluoridation of water.

What's just as bad is why anyone would feel the need to argue for it continuing to put it in our water. It's a non argument.

Whatever the effects, why would we take the chance. Just take it out, it's not natural and not neccessary. This is the 21st Century not the 1940's, we have modern dental care in Ireland now.

Daithi 1

I think some people are worried if they don't get their meds anymore their teeth are going to fall apart...

Ziphius

Daithi 1 wrote: »

That was sarcasm, not passive aggression. You comment was racist in my book, it's fine with you that is just Chinese children who's brains are being affected by fluoride. That's not a problem for you, you stated so. It's only Chinese, not us, so it's fine yea ??

We can compare notes all day on this matter. Simple fact is no-one seems to have a clue what level is safe. We know it's a poison and it's very unsafe at certain levels and we know that we are just as healthy or healthier witout fluoridation.

But you would like to continue with mass medication of fluoride until it is proven unsafe or safe at a very low level. A level of which it will still accumulate in our bones and teeth and casify our pinel glands.

Fair play. :rolleyes:

That's not what I said. You should read other peoples comments instead of just soap boxing.

Daithi 1

What then ? Leave it in until we do some tests to prove that hexafluorosilicic acid is safe human consumption ? That is what you are advocating isn't it ?

JJayoo

The main question I have is why are we the only country in Europe to add Fluoride to all our drinking water?

The apparent answer to this question has been repeated numerous times on this thread, but I for one have a hard time understanding the logic behind it.

The answer to my question seems to be : Governments in other European countries stopped adding Fluoride to water because people in these countries simply don't drink tap water. Instead the Fluoride is added to Milk and Salt.

Now I have some issues with this answer. This is not a case of "I'm right and you're wrong", I just have a problem believing this for the reasons I will outline.

Czech Republic stopped adding Fluoride in 1988, the Netherlands 1973, Sweden 1971, West Germany 1971 and East Germany stopped after German reunification in 1990. What possible alternatives to tap water did these people have? I doubt the Swedish government stopped adding Fluoride to tap water in 1971 because their citizens were only drinking bottled water. So to say that the governments in Europe stopped adding Fluoride because [/B]Europeans Don't drink tap water[/B] sounds a bit unbelievable.

The second Issue I have with this answer is that the addition of Fluoride to salt and milk is not implemented by the governments in these countries. Instead it it up to the individual companies. This gives the citizens of these countries a choice to ingest Fluoride or not. if the governments of these European countries were confident in the health benefits of Fluoride then surely it's addition would be mandatory in salt/milk. It must also be noted that Fluoridated milk/salt account for a small % of the milk/salt market. I think Switzerland may be the exception to this.

Lets take Germany for example. No fluoride in their water and their citizens have the choice between purchasing milk/salt with or without Fluoride. So it can be assumed that a large portion of their 82 million population choose not to ingest Fluoride. Surely without the precious Fluoride these people will have serious dental issues, but as far as I am aware there is no epidemic within Germany.

This is just my reasoning.

ManMade

JJayoo wrote: »

The main question I have is why are we the only country in Europe to add Fluoride to all our drinking water?

The apparent answer to this question has been repeated numerous times on this thread, but I for one have a hard time understanding the logic behind it.

The answer to my question seems to be : Governments in other European countries stopped adding Fluoride to water because people in these countries simply don't drink tap water. Instead the Fluoride is added to Milk and Salt.

Now I have some issues with this answer. This is not a case of "I'm right and you're wrong", I just have a problem believing this for the reasons I will outline.

Czech Republic stopped adding Fluoride in 1988, the Netherlands 1973, Sweden 1971, West Germany 1971 and East Germany stopped after German reunification in 1990. What possible alternatives to tap water did these people have? I doubt the Swedish government stopped adding Fluoride to tap water in 1971 because their citizens were only drinking bottled water. So to say that the governments in Europe stopped adding Fluoride because [/B]Europeans Don't drink tap water[/B] sounds a bit unbelievable.

The second Issue I have with this answer is that the addition of Fluoride to salt and milk is not implemented by the governments in these countries. Instead it it up to the individual companies. This gives the citizens of these countries a choice to ingest Fluoride or not. if the governments of these European countries were confident in the health benefits of Fluoride then surely it's addition would be mandatory in salt/milk. It must also be noted that Fluoridated milk/salt account for a small % of the milk/salt market. I think Switzerland may be the exception to this.

Lets take Germany for example. No fluoride in their water and their citizens have the choice between purchasing milk/salt with or without Fluoride. So it can be assumed that a large portion of their 82 million population choose not to ingest Fluoride. Surely without the precious Fluoride these people will have serious dental issues, but as far as I am aware there is no epidemic within Germany.

This is just my reasoning.

I suppose people would ask "Why not add it?"

JJayoo

ManMade wrote: »

I suppose people would ask "Why not add it?"

I'm not sure what you mean.

CaSCaDe711

Sick is right.

Seamus: "Boss, I can't make it in today, am sick, really sick."

Boss: "Sick? It's Monday, we're always very busy on a Monday Seamus, we really need you today. How sick are ya?"

Seamus: "

I'm in bed with me sister

"