Fluoride update re IQ

weisses

jh79 wrote: »

They don't state anything more than there is a correlation between the 2. The limited nature of the study, by there own admission, doesn't allow any more of an conclusion.

But you know well this is not the only study coming to the conclusion fluoride might have a negative impact on our health

You must admit it is worrying more and more proper research is leaning towards the notion that fluoride poses a health risk

jh79

weisses wrote: »

But you know well this is not the only study coming to the conclusion fluoride might have a negative impact on our health

You must admit it is worrying more and more proper research is leaning towards the notion that fluoride poses a health risk

Separate studies not related to each other. The individual merit of each remains low.

jh79

weisses wrote: »

But you know well this is not the only study coming to the conclusion fluoride might have a negative impact on our health

You must admit it is worrying more and more proper research is leaning towards the notion that fluoride poses a health risk

Like it or not there is a reason this research is published in a low impact journal , the method employed is too simple to draw any sort of conclusion.

If this data was significant why did they chose a journal that has a poor history of citation? Why did they aim so low?

weisses

jh79 wrote: »

Separate studies not related to each other. The individual merit of each remains low.

But all reaching the same conclusion ..... give it time

jh79

weisses wrote: »

But all reaching the same conclusion ..... give it time

We can only go on the research available to us.

jh79

jh79 wrote: »

Can i ask you a question regarding the common argument about uncontrolled dose?

Asked this earlier can we discuss this?

weisses

jh79 wrote: »

Asked this earlier can we discuss this?

Fire away

jh79

weisses wrote: »

Fire away

The whole idea that we receive an uncontrolled dose is a flawed idea.

Take tea ( be warned my figures come from Waugh ) for example.

At 4 cups water fluoridation is only 10% of the total , at 8 cups it becomes 5%. So the further you deviate from the average the less significant fluoridation becomes.

Can you explain why anti-fluoride side use this argument?

weisses

jh79 wrote: »

The whole idea that we receive an uncontrolled dose is a flawed idea.

Take tea ( be warned my figures come from Waugh ) for example.

At 4 cups water fluoridation is only 10% of the total , at 8 cups it becomes 5%. So the further you deviate from the average the less significant fluoridation becomes.

Can you explain why anti-fluoride side use this argument?

I don't know ... on the other thread I pointed out many factors regarding the uncontrolled dose ... reaching about 4 ppm per day if Im not mistaken

Strange is however that 1 ppm is considered to high and 0.7 ideal

So somehow they agreed the uncontrolled dose to be roughly 0.3 ppm ?

jh79

weisses wrote: »

I don't know ... on the other thread I pointed out many factors regarding the uncontrolled dose ... reaching about 4 ppm per day if Im not mistaken

Strange is however that 1 ppm is considered to high and 0.7 ideal

So somehow they agreed the uncontrolled dose to be roughly 0.3 ppm ?

Don't think you understand what the optimal dose refers to.

The optimal dose of 0.7ppm is for water fluoridation only not for total intake.

It just means that at this level there are no observed / proven adverse effects making the actual total intake irrelevant.

weisses

jh79 wrote: »

Don't think you understand what the optimal dose refers to.

The optimal dose of 0.7ppm is for water fluoridation only not for total intake.

It just means that at this level there are no observed / proven adverse effects making the actual total intake irrelevant.

But how do they determine the optimal dose when there is never a mention of the uncontrolled dose

So it is so irrelevant that all of a sudden the ideal dose is not 1.0 but 0.7 (US) ... That makes no sense

You already stated that they lowered it because of fluorosis

jh79

weisses wrote: »

But how do they determine the optimal dose when there is never a mention of the uncontrolled dose

So it is so irrelevant that all of a sudden the ideal dose is not 1.0 but 0.7 (US) ... That makes no sense

You already stated that they lowered it because of fluorosis

The actual figure for the uncontrolled dose is irrelevant as what we observe is due to all sources of fluoride .

The only proven adverse effect from all sources of fluoride when artificially fluoridated water is present at 1.0mg/l is mild fluorosis causing some cosmetic damage.

The theory is then that at 0.7mg/l the combined effect of both the controlled and uncontrolled sources would not be enough to cause fluorosis but still enough to reduce carriers.

weisses

jh79 wrote: »

The actual figure for the uncontrolled dose is irrelevant as what we observe is due to all sources of fluoride .

The only proven adverse effect from all sources of fluoride when artificially fluoridated water is present at 1.0mg/l is mild fluorosis causing some cosmetic damage.

The theory is then that at 0.7mg/l the combined effect of both the controlled and uncontrolled sources would not be enough to cause fluorosis but still enough to reduce carriers.

Can you point me out to any research that investigated the uncontrolled dose?

Because lowering it with 0.3 ppm without that information is ridiculous and a cosmetic change only ...

jh79

weisses wrote: »

Can you point me out to any research that investigated the uncontrolled dose?

Because lowering it with 0.3 ppm without that information is ridiculous and a cosmetic change only ...

Your missing the point, all the observed effects of fluoridation are due to both the controlled and uncontrolled dose.

If you reduce the amount in water then the total will also reduce, it is up to the HSE to monitor the situation and see if this reduction is appropriate. If a pattern of carier increases is observed then they could possibly revert back to 1.0mg.

weisses

jh79 wrote: »

Your missing the point, all the observed effects of fluoridation are due to both the controlled and uncontrolled dose.

But what is the uncontrolled dose ?

Do you agree that it has to be higher then the 0.7 ppm that is in the water at present ?

jh79

weisses wrote: »

But what is the uncontrolled dose ?

Do you agree that it has to be higher then the 0.7 ppm that is in the water at present ?

It's uncontrolled so we don't know and yes I would expect it to be higher than 0.7ppm but why do you think this is significant?

The optimal dose for water fluoridation and the upper tolerable levels for total intake are not the same thing.

It just means at this concentration its influence on the total intake is sufficient to produce a positive effect with minimal adverse effects.

weisses

jh79 wrote: »

It's uncontrolled so we don't know and yes I would expect it to be higher than 0.7ppm but why do you think this is significant?

So no one knows the uncontrolled dose but for some reason lowering the ppm with 0.3 miraculously cures the fluorosis issue ??? That's odd and doesn't make any sense ...At least not to me

jh79

weisses wrote: »

So no one knows the uncontrolled dose but for some reason lowering the ppm with 0.3 miraculously cures the fluorosis issue ??? That's odd and doesn't make any sense ...At least not to me

What is the significance of the uncontrolled dose?

If I told you the average for the uncontrolled dose was for example 4mg what does that change?

Cianmcliam

weisses wrote: »

So no one knows the uncontrolled dose but for some reason lowering the ppm with 0.3 miraculously cures the fluorosis issue ??? That's odd and doesn't make any sense ...At least not to me

It's pretty straightforward.

The intake of fluoride via the water supply is pretty much limited by the amount population can actually drink everyday. You would have to drink massive amounts to make a large impact on your daily intake.

The other sources through tea drinking and fluoride toothpastes are more uncontrollable, you can't tell who is going to swallow toothpaste and drink buckets of tea every day.

Surveys of fluorosis among the population gives you a good picture of whether people are in general ingesting fluoride in quantities that can lead to mild fluorosis. You can't reduce the other sources directly but you can reduce the content of public water in order to keep prevalence of fluorosis stable or declining. If the rate of mild fluorosis goes up, reducing the content of fluoride in water is the only tool you have save for education programmes about swallowing toothpaste.

You pretty much know you can do this without effecting oral health since the prevalence of mild fluorosis indicates enough fluoride is being ingested from other sources.

weisses

jh79 wrote: »

What is the significance of the uncontrolled dose?

If I told you the average for the uncontrolled dose was for example 4mg what does that change?

What is the point to fluoridating if the Uncontrolled dose exceeds the optimal dose multiple times ?

And if they counted for uncontrolled dosage when determine the optimal dosage ..why is that not mentioned anywhere in the research ?

Cianmcliam

weisses wrote: »

What is the point to fluoridating if the Uncontrolled dose exceeds the optimal dose multiple times ?

Because the 'water fluoridation net' is designed to catch those who do not brush their teeth as often and who consume sugary foods, helping to prevent inevitable cavities, pain, impact on self esteem, loss of school/work time etc. while at the same time not contributing to problematic fluorosis among those who do take proper care of their teeth.

And if they counted for uncontrolled dosage when determine the optimal dosage ..why is that not mentioned anywhere in the research ?

Policy documents and reviews show that monitoring of fluorosis does play a part in deciding when water fluoridation levels should be increased or decreased. For example, this is a supplement from the Journal of Irish Dental Association, on Pg 12 it says: " The recent reduction of fluoride in the Irishwater supplies to 0.6-0.8ppm needs to be monitored in terms of its
impact on caries levels and fluorosis prevalence"
http://www.dentist.ie/_fileupload/JIDA/pdfs%20of%20Journal/2012/2012%20-%2058%20No_%203%20-%20June%20July%20-%20FlourideSupplement.pdf

weisses

Cianmcliam wrote: »

Because the 'water fluoridation net' is designed to catch those who do not brush their teeth as often and who consume sugary foods, helping to prevent inevitable cavities, pain, impact on self esteem, loss of school/work time etc. while at the same time not contributing to problematic fluorosis among those who do take proper care of their teeth.



Policy documents and reviews show that monitoring of fluorosis does play a part in deciding when water fluoridation levels should be increased or decreased. For example, this is a supplement from the Journal of Irish Dental Association, on Pg 12 it says: " The recent reduction of fluoride in the Irishwater supplies to 0.6-0.8ppm needs to be monitored in terms of its
impact on caries levels and fluorosis prevalence"
http://www.dentist.ie/_fileupload/JIDA/pdfs%20of%20Journal/2012/2012%20-%2058%20No_%203%20-%20June%20July%20-%20FlourideSupplement.pdf

That still does not answer the question about how they calculate uncontrolled doses

Your other points are already discussed here many times

jh79

weisses wrote: »

What is the point to fluoridating if the Uncontrolled dose exceeds the optimal dose multiple times ?

And if they counted for uncontrolled dosage when determine the optimal dosage ..why is that not mentioned anywhere in the research ?

Again you seem to have the wrong end of the stick when it comes to what they mean by optimal dose.

The optimal does of 0.7 mg/l does not mean 2 liters of this per day giving a total of 1.4mg is ideal as a total intake.

It means that this 1.4 mg plus all other sources of fluoride has been observed to reduce cariers with minimal adverse effects.

jh79

weisses wrote: »

That still does not answer the question about how they calculate uncontrolled doses

Your other points are already discussed here many times

"monitoring of fluorosis does play a part in deciding when water fluoridation levels should be increased or decreased".

Any observed effect is due to the total intake ie both the controlled and uncontrolled. Based on the observed effect the optimal for the controlled is 0.7mg.

0.7mg / l + uncontrolled = observed effect eg %fluorosis / carier numbers

If your happy with the observed effect then 0.7mg is the optimal for the water fluoridation .

Lets say there is a cultural change from tea to coffee across a generation

0.7mg/L + reduced uncontrolled = drop in fluorosis or increase in carier incidences

0.7mg/l is no longer the optimal dose for artificial fluoridation so revising this figure upwards would be the obvious step.

The actual figure for the uncontrolled isn't needed.

weisses

jh79 wrote: »

"monitoring of fluorosis does play a part in deciding when water fluoridation levels should be increased or decreased".

Any observed effect is due to the total intake ie both the controlled and uncontrolled. Based on the observed effect the optimal for the controlled is 0.7mg.

0.7mg / l + uncontrolled = observed effect eg %fluorosis / carier numbers

If your happy with the observed effect then 0.7mg is the optimal for the water fluoridation .

Lets say there is a cultural change from tea to coffee across a generation

0.7mg/L + reduced uncontrolled = drop in fluorosis or increase in carier incidences

0.7mg/l is no longer the optimal dose for artificial fluoridation so revising this figure upwards would be the obvious step.

The actual figure for the uncontrolled isn't needed.

So you are saying that optimal dose of fluoride is more then 4 ppm ? ..roughly

weisses

jh79 wrote: »

Again you seem to have the wrong end of the stick when it comes to what they mean by optimal dose.

The optimal does of 0.7 mg/l does not mean 2 liters of this per day giving a total of 1.4mg is ideal as a total intake.

It means that this 1.4 mg plus all other sources of fluoride has been observed to reduce cariers with minimal adverse effects.

Just to correct you there. I'm not adding up per litre we talk about ppm ... Both controlled and uncontrolled combined

jh79

weisses wrote: »

So you are saying that optimal dose of fluoride is more then 4 ppm ? ..roughly

I've no idea and putting a number to this isn't important , why do you think this is important?

jh79

weisses wrote: »

Just to correct you there. I'm not adding up per litre we talk about ppm ... Both controlled and uncontrolled combined

Sorry i'm switching between units unintentionally

mg/L = ppm, 0.7ppm is the same as 0.7mg/L

NotCominBack

There could be some truth to this - I'm really smart and I never brush my teeth

jh79

weisses wrote: »

So you are saying that optimal dose of fluoride is more then 4 ppm ? ..roughly

According to the 2002 irish report the optimal dose for adults is 0.1mg per kg per day.

weisses

jh79 wrote: »

According to the 2002 irish report the optimal dose for adults is 0.1mg per kg per day.

Makes this more interesting again

Wiki

Fluoride's suppressive effect on the thyroid is more severe when iodine is deficient, and fluoride is associated with lower levels of iodine.[clarification needed][28] Thyroid effects in humans were associated with fluoride levels 0.05–0.13 mg/kg/day when iodine intake was adequate and 0.01–0.03 mg/kg/day when iodine intake was inadequate.[20]:263 Its mechanisms and effects on the endocrine system remain unclear.[20]:266

And

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19054310

jh79

So roughly 3.5 to 7 mg (70kg) has an unknown effect ?? So it might not even be an issue.

Average tea intake contributes 5mg and average water 1.4mg a day.

Obvious solution reduce tea intake or promote the use of iodized salt like they do with fluoridated salt in Europe.

How does removing water fluoridation solve iodine deficiency?

weisses

jh79 wrote: »

How does removing water fluoridation solve iodine deficiency?

fluorine, being a halogen (chemically related to iodine), but very much more active, displaces iodine. So that the uptake of iodine is compromised by the ejection, as it were, of the iodine by fluorine

Dr Barry Durrant


Do you agree with the findings that states

firmly recommending an "optimal" fluoride intake is problematic.

jh79

weisses wrote: »

Dr Barry Durrant


Do you agree with the findings that states

Both iodine and fluoride are unavoidable in our diets based on simple maths iodized salt is the obvious solution.

if you reduce fluoride intake your dental health will suffer but if you increase iodine intake you retain the benefits of fluoride while addressing the iodine deficiency too.

You still haven't grasped the concept that the figure for total intake is not important. The research shows that whatever our intake is it is the optimal because only beneficial effects are seen.

weisses

jh79 wrote: »

Both iodine and fluoride are unavoidable in our diets based on simple maths iodized salt is the obvious solution.

We could stop adding it to the water ... that is avoidable

jh79 wrote: »

if you reduce fluoride intake your dental health will suffer but if you increase iodine intake you retain the benefits of fluoride while addressing the iodine deficiency too.

Wrong ... regular topical appliance is sufficient valid research clearly demonstrates

jh79 wrote: »

You still haven't grasped the concept that the figure for total intake is not important. The research shows that whatever our intake is it is the optimal because only beneficial effects are seen.

Then why is the US lowering their previous "optimal" intake figures ?

jh79

weisses wrote: »

We could stop adding it to the water ... that is avoidable



Wrong ... regular topical appliance is sufficient valid research clearly demonstrates



Then why is the US lowering their previous "optimal" intake figures ?

It is already present in water eg Northern Ireland has no artificial fluoridation yet still has 0.3mg /L, tea and food.

We covered the difference between effectiveness and necessity previously.

Water fluoridation is effective our dental hygiene practices as a society determine whether it is necessary.

The US is reducing levels for the same reason we did which we've already covered.

You still haven't explained the significance of putting a figure on the optimal dose? Is there a point to all this, mild fluorosis is hardly a concern.?

weisses

jh79 wrote: »

It is already present in water eg Northern Ireland has no artificial fluoridation yet still has 0.3mg /L, tea and food.

We covered the difference between effectiveness and necessity previously.

Water fluoridation is effective our dental hygiene practices as a society determine whether it is necessary.

The US is reducing levels for the same reason we did which we've already covered.

You still haven't explained the significance of putting a figure on the optimal dose? Is there a point to all this, mild fluorosis is hardly a concern.?

I posted 2 links regarding valid new research that dealt with the link between fluoride and ADHD and thyroid issues

Nothing has been posted that refute that research ... The rest is just going around in circles again

jh79

weisses wrote: »

I posted 2 links regarding valid new research that dealt with the link between fluoride and ADHD and thyroid issues

Nothing has been posted that refute that research ... The rest is just going around in circles again

The ADHD is just a simple comparison of two sets of possibly unrelated pieces of census data and thyroid stuff doesn't mention anything about adverse effects

jh79

weisses wrote: »

http://www.webmd.com/women/news/20150225/fluoride-in-drinking-water-tied-to-higher-rates-of-underactive-thyroid

this ?

weisses wrote: »

I posted 2 links regarding valid new research that dealt with the link between fluoride and ADHD and thyroid issues

Nothing has been posted that refute that research ... The rest is just going around in circles again

Your own link refutes the thyroid study.

"British study found an association, but couldn't prove cause-and-effect"

"Public health policy is built on a strong base of scientific evidence, not a single study,"

"A far more rigorous systematic evaluation of human studies conducted by the Scientific Committee on Health and Environmental Risks at the request of the European Commission does not suggest a potential thyroid effect at realistic exposures to fluoride," he said. "Additionally, the 2006 Report by the U.S. National Research Council found no adverse effects on the thyroid even at levels more than four times greater than that used in fluoridation."

weisses

jh79 wrote: »

Your own link refutes the thyroid study.

"British study found an association, but couldn't prove cause-and-effect"

"Public health policy is built on a strong base of scientific evidence, not a single study,"

"A far more rigorous systematic evaluation of human studies conducted by the Scientific Committee on Health and Environmental Risks at the request of the European Commission does not suggest a potential thyroid effect at realistic exposures to fluoride," he said. "Additionally, the 2006 Report by the U.S. National Research Council found no adverse effects on the thyroid even at levels more than four times greater than that used in fluoridation."

Nope its one source disagreeing with it referring to study done 9 years earlier

jh79

weisses wrote: »

Nope its one source disagreeing with it referring to study done 9 years earlier

Having read neither how do you know which one is best?

weisses

jh79 wrote: »

Having read neither how do you know which one is best?

I dont ... and that is not the point either

The concern of people with knowledge on the subject is enough for me ... and should be for anyone

jh79

weisses wrote: »

I dont ... and that is not the point either

The concern of people with knowledge on the subject is enough for me ... and should be for anyone

But your looking for policy change based on a single piece of research.

From what I've read there was a 0.5% difference and links to iodine deficiency complicates things. Counter iodine deficiency and there might be no difference.

Major sources of iodine include dairy and meat and organic milk has 40% less iodine. Modern diet fads could be a problem here.

weisses

jh79 wrote: »

But your looking for policy change based on a single piece of research.

From what I've read there was a 0.5% difference and links to iodine deficiency complicates things. Counter iodine deficiency and there might be no difference.

Major sources of iodine include dairy and meat and organic milk has 40% less iodine. Modern diet fads could be a problem here.

I posted 2 pieces of research

If professionals are saying fluoride could be an issue I will take their word over your description above

jh79

weisses wrote: »

I posted 2 pieces of research

If professionals are saying fluoride could be an issue I will take their word over your description above

But your not saying it could be a problem you are saying it is a problem.

The majority professionals say it isn't , why are you discounting their opinions?

weisses

jh79 wrote: »

But your not saying it could be a problem you are saying it is a problem.

The majority professionals say it isn't , why are you discounting their opinions?

I just say could because if I say that it is an issue you would probably reply back that its a possible issue (like you did earlier)

Where are the Majority of professionals debunking/disproving what was said in the 2 links I posted ?

A link to it would suffice (just make sure its a response to the latest findings and not something they stated years ago

jh79

weisses wrote: »

I just say could because if I say that it is an issue you would probably reply back that its a possible issue (like you did earlier)

Where are the Majority of professionals debunking/disproving what was said in the 2 links I posted ?

A link to it would suffice (just make sure its a response to the latest findings and not something they stated years ago

Check your link for the thyroid paper. I think some guy from the American Dental Association said it wasn't enough as a single piece of research to change policy and previous more rigorous studies could find no link. Newer doesn't mean better. So the majority of studies on fluoride and thyroid disorders do not show any link.

As for the ADHD, it is a simple correlation in a low impact journal , it will go completely unnoticed unless they follow it up with something more substantial.

weisses

jh79 wrote: »

Check your link for the thyroid paper. I think some guy from the American Dental Association said it wasn't enough as a single piece of research to change policy and previous more rigorous studies could find no link. Newer doesn't mean better. So the majority of studies on fluoride and thyroid disorders do not show any link.

As for the ADHD, it is a simple correlation in a low impact journal , it will go completely unnoticed unless they follow it up with something more substantial.

That's a no so on providing anything substantial information countering the claims made in the research I posted

jh79

weisses wrote: »

That's a no so on providing anything substantial information countering the claims made in the research I posted

When were they published ? Last few weeks, how long before you will except that these papers aren't going to change anything? How long did it take you to realize that the Grandgjean papers weren't a turning point?

Don't know if you are a football fan but you remind me of a Liverpool fan, "our year"!

The thyroid paper is in the minority in that it shows an association where all other papers have not but it still doesn't show causation.

It is an anomaly until another study shows similar and even then someone would need to show that it wasn't just a case of iodine deficiency.

The anti-fluoride side like to bring up the precautionary principle, obviously that ship has sailed but at the moment there is more risk with ending fluoridation than continuing with it.

The ADHD paper is such early days there really isn't much that can be said.

jh79

weisses wrote: »

That's a no so on providing anything substantial information countering the claims made in the research I posted

Neither of use have read any of these ADHD papers so what do we know.

But the American Dental Association say this new research is less rigorous than the previous research .

So from the info you posted it seems the consensus, given we are dealing with an association versus a few individuals, is that there is no link between the two.