Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

New study shows, Fluoride causes Brain Damage.

245

Comments

  • #32
    CiaranMT
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,093 ✭✭✭CiaranMT


    Daithi 1 wrote: »
    And the worlds fastest backpedling award goes to... :pac:

    You think that's backpedalling?

    Been able to come up with anything to address the points raised so far, by the way?
    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    Yeah, but to be fair that works both ways too. Some babies are born much smaller than the average. This boxer for example was only the size of a big rat when he was born.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Forbes_%28boxer%29

    My original point RE bodyweight was just to point out the glaring difference between rats and humans, which would have to be factored in when drawing any shaky conclusion and applying it to the human setting.

    Hence the repeated use of 'in general', 'estimate', etc.

    I'm sure there've been many rats bigger than newborn children!
    pacquiao wrote: »
    Something crucial people are forgetting.
    Fluoride concentrates in water when it is boiled. we all drink plenty of coffee or tea, etc.

    BB mentioned it previously.


  • #33
    CiaranMT
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,093 ✭✭✭CiaranMT


    RoboClam wrote: »
    Yeah that's why it's not a particularly good study which is not published in a particularly good paper (EDIT: I can't even access the homepage of the journal itself right now and also can't find any real info on it, not a good sign). They only did one experiment using microscopy which is slightly more subjective and less definitive then other tests which could look at RNA/protein level expression. Tests like this are usually used to bolster other results you get usually, not an entire paper.

    A dose dependent study would have been far more interesting (For example, some rats should have been administered 2ppm, while others were given 6, then some 10 etc). This would show the "cut off point", because all the study currently shows is that a lot of something can have detrimental effects, which is hardly surprising.

    Some good points raised.

    Always refreshing to have a scientific-minded input around here :)


  • #34
    RoboClam
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 582 ✭✭✭RoboClam


    CiaranMT wrote: »
    Some good points raised.

    Always refreshing to have a scientific-minded input around here :)

    I usually only respond to stuff like this, because It's not an ambiguous topic!


  • #35
    Peanut
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,462 ✭✭✭Peanut


    pacquiao wrote: »
    Something crucial people are forgetting.
    Fluoride concentrates in water when it is boiled. we all drink plenty of coffee or tea, etc.

    There's also a lot of fluoride in tea itself. According to this, average fluoride content of brewed black tea would be 1.45 ppm compared to an Irish tap water fluoridation level of .7 ppm.

    Still, you can't really draw conclusions from this as there are many hidden variables not addressed - form of fluoride present, human effects vs. animal tests, frequency of ingestion, other affecting factors from diet, individual constitution, susceptibilty etc..


  • #36
    ed2hands
    Closed Accounts Posts: 873 ✭✭✭ed2hands


    Flouride=Neurotoxin

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21255877


  • Advertisement
  • #37
    CiaranMT
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,093 ✭✭✭CiaranMT


    ^ Well known.

    It's the form of fluoride which is crucial.


  • #38
    hooradiation
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,922 ✭✭✭hooradiation


    ed2hands wrote: »
    Flouride=Neurotoxin

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21255877

    Here's something that claims to be the translated version of the full paper, take that with as much salt as you feel like.

    What's left out of the abstract is this bit.
    The objective of this review is to publicize information on the toxic potential of F and its effects on the nervous system, with special emphasis on populations exposed to the consumption of this mineral whose concentration is outside the official standard.
    (Emphasis mine)

    And also the full conclusion
    F is a chemical element found in high concentrations in the Earth's crust. In many of the countries where the main source of drinking water is of hydrothermal origin, the concentration of F surpasses the level allowed by the corresponding official standard. So far the reported work poses interesting disputes about the role that desempe˜na the F in health. However, there are data to prove that F has toxic effects on the central nervous system, which depends on the dose administered, the age and exposure at the same time. We recommend considering the geographical location of a given population and the quality of the water consumed to take preventive measures for use in localities where fluoride concentration is greater than 0.7 mg /l, avoiding the consumption of drinking water, fluoridated salt and the use of toothpastes and articles containing F.

    Which makes this a tad more complex than Flouride=Neurotoxin.
    It would seem that the axiom of "the dose makes the poison" holds true.


  • #39
    Brown Bomber
    Site Banned Posts: 8,331 ✭✭✭Brown Bomber


    King Mob wrote: »
    So then if we go all the way to the very very end of the bell curve, we still find that the dose given to the rats is 20 times greater than the highest safe level that would possibly be given to a premature baby.
    (that's making the assumption that they would give tap water to a premature baby in the first place.)
    I just think if you run a cost-benefit analysis it doesn't make sense to add fluoride to the water.

    I think it's completely unethical to force medicate anyone. And for what? Avoiding dental cavities. Something that can be done through regular dental hygiene. Put the money spend on fluoride and fluoridation into educating kids on the importance of mouthwash, problem solved with no putting chemicals that cause brain damage in rats albeit it in a higher dose into the water supply.
    King Mob wrote: »
    But if we to use premature babies to determine what we cannot safely drink...
    And why shouldn't we? They are as much an equal member of society as you or me.

    It's ludicrous that they are being fed with water that could potentially harm their developing brains (amongst other things) so they won't get cavities when they don't even have any teeth.


  • #40
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    I just think if you run a cost-benefit analysis it doesn't make sense to add fluoride to the water.
    Great, do you have such an analysis?
    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    I think it's completely unethical to force medicate anyone.
    And I think it's unethical to misrepresent papers and use sensationalist language...
    But hey...
    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    And why shouldn't we? They are as much an equal member of society as you or me.

    It's ludicrous that they are being fed with water that could potentially harm their developing brains (amongst other things) so they won't get cavities when they don't even have any teeth.
    Because for one they require different stuff from us anyway.
    If we are to use super premature babies as a bench mark then we'd have to ban full fat milk, soft drinks, alcohol...

    But then there's the fact that this is based on the incorrect, unsupported premise that Fluoride is harmful in doses present in tap water.
    The study that was posted refers to doses given to rats that are far in excess (nearly 20 times greater) of any acceptable level in any drinking water (and this is before we scale the dose up for a the fact that even the most premature baby is larger than rats.)


  • #41
    Brown Bomber
    Site Banned Posts: 8,331 ✭✭✭Brown Bomber


    Can you honestly say beyond a shadow of a doubt that fluoride, present in the drinking water used to mix a premature baby's formula couldn't possibly damage their brain in some way? That there is zero risk?


  • Advertisement
  • #42
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    Can you honestly say beyond a shadow of a doubt that fluoride, present in the drinking water used to mix a premature baby's formula couldn't possibly damage their brain in some way? That there is zero risk?
    Now you're just being plain dishonest here.
    No, I can't say it beyond a shadow of a doubt.
    But there is no evidence to show that it is dangerous in any way for newborn babies and there's plenty to show that it isn't.

    So it's about as non-zero a risk as drinking any water.
    You can't say for certainty that tap water will always be safe and pure...

    So I asked if you had any cost/benefit studies about fluoridation and made points about how the study cannot be compared to effects on human drinking safe levels.
    Any comment on these points?


  • #43
    ed2hands
    Closed Accounts Posts: 873 ✭✭✭ed2hands


    Twenty-three human studies that report an association of lowered IQ with fluoride exposure:


    http://www.fluoridealert.org/caseagainstfluoride-appendices.html


  • #44
    hooradiation
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,922 ✭✭✭hooradiation


    ed2hands wrote: »
    Twenty-three human studies that report an association of lowered IQ with fluoride exposure:


    http://www.fluoridealert.org/caseagainstfluoride-appendices.html

    What level of fluoride exposure though?
    Lets see

    of the twenty three links there, I count twelve that use the phrase "high flouride" in the title, so we can guess right away, and two more with the phrase "Coal Burning-Related Fluoride Poisoning" in the title, making looking at those somewhat redundant, leaving nine to look at.

    So lets have a look at this one then
    RESEARCH ON THE EFFECTS OF FLUORIDE ON CHILD INTELLECTUAL DEVELOPMENT UNDER DIFFERENT ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS

    Which, if we look at it in more detail, is a bit more complex that is first presented
    firstly the conclusion
    When fluoride and iodine levels are outside of national standards for drinking water are present in the same area and ingested together, the harmful effects of fluoride are more pronounced, and the resulting damage compounded. However, the damage caused independently by either high
    or low iodine is greater than that caused by fluoride. (2) In both the control and endemic areas, environmental factors such as education and child-rearing showed a direct influence on intellectual development

    And how much outside the Chinese national standards were these areas?
    Well according to table 1 in that pdf.
    the high fluoride only group was 2.9 mg/l which is 190% above standard.
    the high fluoride/low iodine was 2.85mg/l which is 185% above standard.

    So, we're not talking about the dosages here in Ireland we're talking about exceptionally high dosages of fluoride in the drinking water.

    So, yes, high dosages of fluoride can be harmful, and especially in these provinces in china where the water is naturally high in fluoride, but I am stumped as to how this relates to the situation here with very low levels of fluoride artificially added to the water.


  • #45
    ed2hands
    Closed Accounts Posts: 873 ✭✭✭ed2hands


    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    It's ludicrous that they are being fed with water that could potentially harm their developing brains (amongst other things) so they won't get cavities when they don't even have any teeth.

    This.


  • #46
    ed2hands
    Closed Accounts Posts: 873 ✭✭✭ed2hands


    King Mob wrote: »
    But there is no evidence to show that it is dangerous in any way for newborn babies and there's plenty to show that it isn't.

    Indeed!

    Fluoridated water is no longer recommended for babies. In November of 2006, the American Dental Association (ADA) advised that parents should avoid giving babies fluoridated water (3). Other dental researchers have made similar recommendations over the past decade (4). Babies exposed to fluoride are at high risk of developing dental fluorosis - a permanent tooth defect caused by fluoride damaging the cells which form the teeth (5). Other tissues in the body may also be affected by early-life exposures to fluoride. According to a recent review published in the medical journal The Lancet, fluoride may damage the developing brain, causing learning deficits and other problems (6).
    http://www.fluoridealert.org/fluoride-facts.aspx
    King Mob wrote: »
    So it's about as non-zero a risk as drinking any water.

    Incorrect.


  • #47
    jargon buster
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 267 ✭✭jargon buster


    The fact that people spend their lives arguing on internet forums is prof positive that we all have or brains fried with either flouride or subliminal TV messages.
    Im off to eat a tube of toothpaste so I can bring my intelligence level down enough to get involved in the debate about flouride.


  • #48
    ed2hands
    Closed Accounts Posts: 873 ✭✭✭ed2hands


    jargon buster wrote: »
    The fact that people spend their lives arguing on internet forums is prof positive that we all have or brains fried with either flouride or subliminal TV messages.
    Im off to eat a tube of toothpaste so I can bring my intelligence level down enough to get involved in the debate about flouride.

    Idiotic.


  • #49
    jargon buster
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 267 ✭✭jargon buster


    Idiotic.

    Yup, that was my point.
    The people who missed it have maybe had too much flouride.


  • #50
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    ed2hands wrote: »
    Indeed!

    Fluoridated water is no longer recommended for babies. In November of 2006, the American Dental Association (ADA) advised that parents should avoid giving babies fluoridated water (3). Other dental researchers have made similar recommendations over the past decade (4). Babies exposed to fluoride are at high risk of developing dental fluorosis - a permanent tooth defect caused by fluoride damaging the cells which form the teeth (5). Other tissues in the body may also be affected by early-life exposures to fluoride. According to a recent review published in the medical journal The Lancet, fluoride may damage the developing brain, causing learning deficits and other problems (6).
    http://www.fluoridealert.org/fluoride-facts.aspx

    Incorrect.
    Actually if you read the link that is posted to back up that claim the ADA make a very different statement.
    They do not at any point say that drinking water alone causes fluorsis or that parents should ever give their babies fluoridated water.
    In fact it simply states that babies have a lower recommended daily allowance and that by using some products they could be going over that allowance.
    It in fact says:
    Essentially, the ADA supports the pediatricians’ recommendations on the benefits of breast feeding and notes that using ready-to-feed formula for bottle-fed babies will keep their fluoride intake under IOM limits. If using a product that needs to be reconstituted, parents and caregivers should consider using water that has no or low levels of fluoride.

    Furthermore the site you're copy pasting from says that:
    Fluorsis a permanent tooth defect caused by fluoride damaging the cells which form the teeth.
    Which sounds very scary indeed. But isn't an accurate description of the condition.

    However dental fluorsis is not the same as brain damage, as you guys have been claiming.
    Also that quote you posted is yet again another example of misrepresentation.
    Chasing up the paper given in the references:
    http://www.env-health.org/IMG/pdf/06tl9094page.pdf
    We find it has this to say about fluoride:
    Fluoride can cause neurotoxicity in laboratory animals,89 but is not shown in the panel as a substance proven to be neurotoxic in man. It exists in drinking water as a natural contaminant, but the concentration is dependent on local geological circumstances.
    It then lists the results of other studies but says:
    The reports did not thoroughly consider possible confounders, but do suggest that further in-depth studies be undertaken.

    So why if you are genuinely so opposed to fluoridation, do you have to resort to using misrepresentations and scare tactics?


  • #51
    ed2hands
    Closed Accounts Posts: 873 ✭✭✭ed2hands


    King Mob wrote: »
    Actually if you read the link that is posted to back up that claim the ADA make a very different statement.

    A very different statement?
    confused.gif

    ADA:
    "Fluoridated water is no longer recommended for babies.
    http://www.fluoridealert.org/fluoride-facts.aspx"

    King MobQuote:
    "It in fact says:
    Essentially, the ADA supports the pediatricians’ recommendations on the benefits of breast feeding and notes that using ready-to-feed formula for bottle-fed babies will keep their fluoride intake under IOM limits. If using a product that needs to be reconstituted, parents and caregivers should consider using water that has no or low levels of fluoride."

    King Mob wrote: »
    However dental fluorsis is not the same as brain damage, as you guys have been claiming.

    Where?
    King Mob wrote: »
    So why if you are genuinely so opposed to fluoridation, do you have to resort to using misrepresentations and scare tactics?

    Misrepresentations?
    Scare tactics?
    Where?
    King Mob wrote: »
    But there is no evidence to show that it is dangerous in any way for newborn babies and there's plenty to show that it isn't.

    Wrong.

    I think it's unethical to misrepresent and use sensationalist language.
    Now you're just being plain dishonest here.


  • Advertisement
  • #52
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    ed2hands wrote: »
    A very different statement?
    confused.gif

    ADA:
    "Fluoridated water is no longer recommended for babies.
    http://www.fluoridealert.org/fluoride-facts.aspx"

    King MobQuote:
    "It in fact says:
    Essentially, the ADA supports the pediatricians’ recommendations on the benefits of breast feeding and notes that using ready-to-feed formula for bottle-fed babies will keep their fluoride intake under IOM limits. If using a product that needs to be reconstituted, parents and caregivers should consider using water that has no or low levels of fluoride."
    And those two things are entirely different.

    It nowhere in the linked page says anything about no longer recommending fluoridating water.
    It says that parents should consider reducing the babies fluoride intake if their diet is already high in fluoride (ie. primarily formula feed rather than breast fed) and only if they are concerned about fluorosis.
    ed2hands wrote: »
    Where?
    You're kidding right?
    ed2hands wrote: »
    Misrepresentations?
    Scare tactics?
    Where?
    Well just look at the passage you posted.
    It misrepresents what the ADA says and what the paper it cites says.
    It also uses scary sounding terms to describe what dental fluorosis is.
    ed2hands wrote: »
    Wrong.

    I think it's unethical to misrepresent and use sensationalist language.
    Now you're just being plain dishonest here.
    And I stand by what I say.
    Fluorosis is not a dangerous condition, it's purely cosmetic. At it's very worst, it makes your teeth brown.

    Pretending otherwise is actually dishonest. And equating it to brain damage is plain silly.


  • #53
    RoboClam
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 582 ✭✭✭RoboClam


    What I'm talking about here is related to the original paper posted.

    It's been said already in this thread but I feel it's worth repeating, is that rats and humans have different metabolisms. It seems that this is unimportant to Daithi, but if you look at this review for example, it lists certain foods poisonous to dogs and cats, but not humans.
    common food items that should not be fed (intentionally or unintentionally) to dogs, i.e. chocolate, caffeine, and other methylxanthines, grapes, raisins, onion, garlic, avocado, alcohol, nuts, xylitol contained in chewing gum and candies, etc. Onion and avocado are toxic for cats, too

    So you can't directly suggest that humans will respond the same way as rats. Animal models are very useful tools, primarily for initial testing.


  • #54
    davoxx
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,539 ✭✭✭davoxx


    surely the answer is to only drink evian ...
    i don't even use tap water to wash my car as it damages the paint ...
    tap water is only good for the toilet ... biggrin.gif


  • #55
    CiaranMT
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,093 ✭✭✭CiaranMT


    davoxx wrote: »
    surely the answer is to only drink evian ...
    i don't even use tap water to wash my car as it damages the paint ...
    tap water is only good for the toilet ... biggrin.gif

    Does it flush down 4 ply paper too? :P


  • #56
    robtri
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,473 ✭✭✭robtri


    just to add to the debate.... why get hung up on the fluoride part...

    water on its own can kill, water intoxication...
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_intoxication

    we should ban water, in the wrong doses it is lethal.....


  • #57
    Daithi 1
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,006 ✭✭✭Daithi 1


    Start your own poxy thread then, in the appropriate forum.


  • #58
    robtri
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,473 ✭✭✭robtri


    Daithi 1 wrote: »
    Start your own poxy thread then, in the appropriate forum.

    so you are saying this is a poxy thread???? interesting.....

    you want to ban fluoride cause it is damaging to humans??

    all i am raising is that everything in the wrong dose is dangerous..
    paracetamol in the right dose can cure a headache, water is the right dose sustain life, in the wrong dose they are both lethal.....

    why is flouride any different???


  • #59
    ed2hands
    Closed Accounts Posts: 873 ✭✭✭ed2hands


    What.was.that.posters.name.that.was.the.ig.cheese.on.this?

    jma
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/member.php?u=339841


  • #60
    CiaranMT
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,093 ✭✭✭CiaranMT


    Daithi 1 wrote: »
    Start your own poxy thread then, in the appropriate forum.

    Throwing the toys out of the pram?

    Care to engage in the debate at all?

    Starting with the issues I raised a while back.


  • Advertisement
  • #61
    ed2hands
    Closed Accounts Posts: 873 ✭✭✭ed2hands


    King Mob wrote: »
    And those two things are entirely different.

    Incorrect:
    King Mob wrote: »
    It nowhere in the linked page says anything about no longer recommending fluoridating water.

    "If using a product that needs to be reconstituted, parents and caregivers should consider using water that has no or low levels of fluoride."

    Multiple.choice.time..
    1)Recommends
    2)Does.not.recommend

    Which.do.you.see.as.the.correct.answer?
    King Mob wrote: »
    You're kidding right?

    No.
    Again.where?
    King Mob wrote: »
    It misrepresents what the ADA says and what the paper it cites says.

    Where?
    King Mob wrote: »
    It also uses scary sounding terms to describe what dental fluorosis is.

    Examples.Lets.hae.a.look.then.

    King Mob wrote: »
    Fluorosis is not a dangerous condition, it's purely cosmetic. At it's very worst, it makes your teeth brown.
    "And I stand by what I say."

    No.You.said:

    "But there is no evidence to show that it is dangerous in any way for newborn babies and there's plenty to show that it isn't."

    So.why.do.ADA.recommend.flouride-free.water?
    Just.for.the.fun.of.it?
    King Mob wrote: »
    Pretending otherwise is actually dishonest. And equating it to brain damage is plain silly.

    Where.is.flourosis.equated.to.brain.damage??


Advertisement