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.

124

Comments

  • Closed Accounts Posts: 873 ✭✭✭ed2hands


    King Mob wrote: »
    And you are still regurgitating this report even though you can't defend even the first two points I brought up against it.

    I.dismissed.the.points.as.unfounded.imo
    King Mob wrote: »
    And no, I see no point to produce a double blind review when I've already posted reviews of the literature which include such studies which you reject without reading.

    Oh.i.read.them.
    They.just.didnt.persuade.me.to.start.drinking.tap.water.in.Ireland.
    King Mob wrote: »
    And I'm especially not going to do it when you refuse to explain why you are adding such a qualifier.
    Explain why you are looking for a double blind study and why that would convince you, then maybe I'll bother to waste my time.

    Im.let.to.eliee.no.such.study.exists.
    Was.curious.if.that.is.true.


  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    For people who are certain fluoride is bad for you, the terms "flouride may cause" & "more research is warranted" appear alot in the NPWA report.

    Most physicians are totally unaware of fluoride’s toxic effects. ........ffs, something similar was said in the raw food cures all thread. How do they know this. So physicians are unaware but a few green party memebers with their latest trendy cause (aimed at the NPWA, not anyone here) know better.

    From the website its obvious they have decided on a stance regardless of the evidence and are just picking bits of scieintific literature to suit, ignoring anything that goes agaisnt their beliefs. If they don't like like the idea of chemicals added to water then fine, but don't pretend that toxicity is an issue when research to date says otherwise.

    What was the point of the "Death in the Air" article??

    At least the ADA website acknowledged there were conflicting views to the subject but on balance were sticking to their recommondation that flouridation is effective / safe

    At what ppm is flouride toxic and what the average ppm in water supplies? The larger this gap is the less of an issue it should be??


  • Posts: 0 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    ed2hands wrote: »
    I.dismissed.the.points.as.unfounded.imo
    But refused to explain how they were unfounded and simply ignored my points showing them to be the scaremongering, unscientific crap that it was.
    ed2hands wrote: »
    Oh.i.read.them.
    They.just.didnt.persuade.me.to.start.drinking.tap.water.in.Ireland.
    Why not?
    What specifically was so wrong with the papers that you are totally dismissing them?
    ed2hands wrote: »
    Im.let.to.eliee.no.such.study.exists.
    Was.curious.if.that.is.true.
    Well again, there is a few listed in the papers you claimed to read.

    But lets assume that there isn't actually any. What do you think makes them the only valid form of paper?
    What about the papers that use other methods such as long term statistical analysis? Do these not count or something?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 873 ✭✭✭ed2hands


    King Mob wrote: »
    But refused to explain how they were unfounded and simply ignored my points showing them to be the scaremongering, unscientific crap that it was.

    Again.I.didnt.ignore.them.
    I.explained.why.i.think.they.are.incorrect.interpretations.and.how.i.
    dont.see.all.this.scaremongering/dishonesty.that.you.apparently.can.

    How.is.that.ignoring?

    What.i.think.you.are.trying.to.say.is.that.i.dont.agree.with.those.points.

    Thats.correct.I.dont.

    I.think.your.points.are.extrapolated.points.
    Nothing.more.
    King Mob wrote: »
    Why not?
    What specifically was so wrong with the papers that you are totally dismissing them?

    Am.not.
    I.just.dont.take.them.as.top-class.studies.to.persuade.me.that.flourosis.and.other.risks.are.worth.it
    Far.from.it.
    Thanks.but.no.thanks.
    Is.that.so.hard.to.understand?
    Why.does.most.of.Europe.and.the.world.not.allow.flouridation?
    King Mob wrote: »
    Well again, there is a few listed in the papers you claimed to read.

    Really?
    Doule-blind?

    Your.annoying.tone.and.accusations.piss.me.off.at.this.stage.


  • Posts: 0 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    ed2hands wrote: »
    Again.I.didnt.ignore.them.
    I.explained.why.i.think.they.are.incorrect.interpretations.and.how.i.
    dont.see.all.this.scaremongering/dishonesty.that.you.apparently.can.

    How.is.that.ignoring?.
    Because you didn't actually explain anything.
    You just declared them wrong or invalid and refused to address points I brought up.
    ed2hands wrote: »
    What.i.think.you.are.trying.to.say.is.that.i.dont.agree.with.those.points.

    Thats.correct.I.dont..

    I.think.your.points.are.extrapolated.points.
    Nothing.more..
    But they are not. One is pointing out how they are either making a strawman or putting in totally irrelevant points for no good reason.
    The other is pointing out that the are not telling the truth when they claim that one group of numbers are of an "unflouridated" population, when they are not.
    ed2hands wrote: »
    Am.not.
    I.just.dont.take.them.as.top-class.studies.to.persuade.me.that.flourosis.and.other.risks.are.worth.it
    Far.from.it.
    Thanks.but.no.thanks.
    Is.that.so.hard.to.understand?.
    And why do you not consider them "top class studies"?
    Can you explain what you mean by this term and point to some examples?
    Or perhaps explain what sort of study would convince you.
    ed2hands wrote: »
    Why.does.most.of.Europe.and.the.world.not.allow.flouridation?.
    See here's another example of dishonesty, either on your part or on the part of whoever made the point you are repeating.
    Most of Europe and the World haven't banned fluoridation.
    Most countries in Europe in fact fluoridate by other means.
    ed2hands wrote: »
    Really?
    Doule-blind?.
    Yes.
    You are yet again avoiding the question I asked.
    ed2hands wrote: »
    Your.annoying.tone.and.accusations.piss.me.off.at.this.stage.
    And hey I'm getting pissed off at you guys ignoring point you can't answer...


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,006 ✭✭✭Daithi 1


    No idea why you're putting "people" in quotes there and I never consider time spent reading, reasoning through and discussing topics to be wasted, with some notable exceptions, but the current approach of "FLOURIDE IS POISON" is flawed and built on shaky at best foundations.

    If you don't care for my suggestion for an alternative, possibly more effective approach, that's your prerogative. No skin off my nose either way.

    There is no question that Fluoride is a poison. I'm pretty sure everyone here would agree that Fluoride is very poisonous in high dosage.
    Most skeptics seem to be arguing the point that it's harmless in low dosage. And the current approach here was.."Fluoride causes brain damage."

    That said, having thought about your post later, I realised you had a valid point.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 873 ✭✭✭ed2hands


    King Mob wrote: »
    Because you didn't actually explain anything.
    You just declared them wrong or invalid and refused to address points I brought up.

    What.is.your.definition.of.addressing?
    Mine.in.this.case.was.declared.them.wrong.and.dismissed.them.
    I.explained.why.
    "Flouride.not.a.nutrient".
    Irrelevant/Strawman.in.a.report.to.house.of.commons?
    You.say.yes.
    Grand.
    Dont.agree.
    Addressed.

    "Graph.is.dishonest"
    Rinse.and.repeat.
    King Mob wrote: »
    The other is pointing out that the are not telling the truth when they claim that one group of numbers are of an "unflouridated" population, when they are not.

    Unflouridated.in.the.context.of.the.graph.clearly.
    means.unflouridated.through.water.supply.
    You.think.they.dishonestly.omitted.that.some.people.in.those.countries.
    choose.flouridated.salt.
    Again.i.dont.agree.that.that.is.dishonest.
    King Mob wrote: »
    And why do you not consider them "top class studies"?

    I.looked.through.them.
    Cant.see.where.double-blind.studies.are.
    All.a.bit.of.a.mish-mash.

    Example:

    For this present study, we analyzed the topical effectiveness of fluoride (self- and professionally applied and in drinking water) in preventing/reversing caries in all adults (aged 20+ yrs) and in older adults (aged 40+ yrs). Because several clinical trials on the effectiveness of fluoride were conducted in the 1950s and 1960s, we expanded our search to include articles published before 1980, the earliest year in the National Institutes of Health search for systematic reviews.

    We searched three electronic databases to locate primary studies and systematic reviews relating to the topical effectiveness of fluoride (i.e., fluoridated water or fluoride-containing toothpaste, gel, varnish, or rinse) in preventing or arresting caries among adults:
    http://jdr.sagepub.com/content/86/5/410.full#abstract-1

    Same.with.this:
    And.it.only.referenced.fluorosis.etc.in.a.few.paragraphs.the.appendix.
    Hardly.an.unbiased.study.Seems.to.me.anyway.

    Appendix C: Potential Adverse Effects of Community
    Water Fluoridation—Summary of Findings from the
    National Health Service York Review
    The main conclusions of the systematic review of public
    water fluoridation conducted by the National Health
    Service Centre for Reviews and Dissemination, University of
    York, England (the NHS York review),1,2 are as follows:
    ● All but one of 88 included studies of dental fluorosis and
    enamel opacities not caused by fluoride were defined by
    the reviewers to be of low quality. The researchers used
    regression analysis of data from the 88 studies to predict a
    significant dose–response relationship between water fluoride
    level and the prevalence of dental fluorosis. The
    regression equation predicted that among people exposed
    to a water fluoride level of 1.0 ppm, the prevalence of
    dental fluorosis would be 48% (95% CI, 40% to 57%) for
    fluorosis of any level of severity and 12.5% (95% CI, 7.0%
    to 21.5%) for fluorosis of esthetic concern, respectively.
    (The level of severity of fluorosis includes a “questionable”
    classification in which a definite diagnosis of the mildest
    form of fluorosis is not warranted and a classification of
    “normal” is not justified.3 Fluorosis of aesthetic concern
    includes fluorosis that involves more than 25% of the tooth
    surface and corresponds to “mild” or worse in Dean’s
    Fluorosis Index.3)
    ● Overall, the findings of 29 studies of bone fracture effects
    showed small variations around the “no-effect” mark. A
    meta-regression of bone fracture studies also found no
    association with water fluoridation.
    ● Overall, 26 studies showed no clear association between
    water fluoridation and incidence or mortality of bone
    cancers, thyroid cancer, or all cancers.
    ● Overall, the 33 studies examining other possible negative
    effects provide insufficient evidence on any particular outcome
    to permit confident conclusions.
    http://thecommunityguide.org/oral/oral-ajpm-ev-rev.pdf
    King Mob wrote: »
    See here's another example of dishonesty, either on your part or on the part of whoever made the point you are repeating.
    Most of Europe and the World haven't banned fluoridation.
    Most countries in Europe in fact fluoridate by other means.

    My.mistake.
    I.meant.to.say:
    Most of Europe and the World have banned water.fluoridation.


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


    Daithi 1 wrote: »
    There is no question that Fluoride is a poison. I'm pretty sure everyone here would agree that Fluoride is very poisonous in high dosage.

    True, but to be fair you'd be hard pressed to find anything that isn't poisonous is high enough doses.
    Daithi 1 wrote: »
    Most skeptics seem to be arguing the point that it's harmless in low dosage. And the current approach here was.."Fluoride causes brain damage."

    The original study however has a few caveats, as pointed out, when scaled appropriately, the equivalent dosage for humans becomes 2,800ppm which again, is the same conclusion reached as every other paper linked in this thread - Fluoride is poisonous in high dosages.
    But that's not the same as saying artificially fluoridated drinking water can cause brain damage or even is bad for you.
    Daithi 1 wrote: »
    That said, having thought about your post later, I realised you had a valid point.

    Much obliged.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,112 ✭✭✭nomdeboardie


    CiaranMT wrote: »
    Something to note - these rats were given 20ppm of sodium fluoride. High levels of sodium fluoride for humans are 1-12ppm (in the intro).

    Rats, weigh about 500g, ± 150g or so (rough estimate).

    Humans weigh about 70kg, (very rough estimate).

    Should be considered when weighing up the dose administered to these rats.

    An equivalent dose for a human under these conditions would be about 2,800ppm (again a very rough estimate).

    High levels of sodium fluoride for humans are 1-12ppm (in the intro).

    All rough estimation I know, but just to put the rats' dose into perspective.

    Hang on, since ppm (parts per million) is a measure of the concentration of fluoride in the water, not the mass administered, and since the authors don't tell us how much water the poor animals took on board*, why are you scaling by bodyweight to make a human comparison? (The rats would take less water than humans, although maybe somewhat more or less in proportion to bodyweight than humans.)

    *The authors first say that water was provided freely (ad libitum), but then that "The control group was given ordinary tap water, while the fluoride group received 20ppm concentration of fluoride through gavage feeding". Why gavage - would the rats not drink enough fluoridated water? What volume was administered? So many questions.

    + I can't seem to find the journal or article or journal in PubMed. Not a good sign.


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


    King Mob wrote: »
    And I think it's unethical to misrepresent papers and use sensationalist language...
    But hey...
    Are you implying that I have? If so, please explain.
    King Mob wrote: »
    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...
    No. We would not. For the painfully obvious reason that none of the above are fed to newborn infants.

    Let me ask you a question: If you had brought a packet of peanuts onto a flight to snack on and before take-off the steward sinformed people that there was a child that was allergic to nuts on the flight - would you eat your peanuts anyway?

    And why/why not?


  • Advertisement
  • Site Banned Posts: 8,331 ✭✭✭Brown Bomber


    I.dismissed.the.points.as.unfounded.imo
    Ed.Just.So.You.Know.There.Is.An.Onscreen.Keyboard.In.Your.Accessories. ;)


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


    Hang on, since ppm (parts per million) is a measure of the concentration of fluoride in the water, not the mass administered, and since the authors don't tell us how much water the poor animals took on board*, why are you scaling by bodyweight to make a human comparison? (The rats would take less water than humans, although maybe somewhat more or less in proportion to bodyweight than humans.)

    *The authors first say that water was provided freely (ad libitum), but then that "The control group was given ordinary tap water, while the fluoride group received 20ppm concentration of fluoride through gavage feeding". Why gavage - would the rats not drink enough fluoridated water? What volume was administered? So many questions.

    + I can't seem to find the journal or article or journal in PubMed. Not a good sign.

    This along with a post by someone else highlights exactly why any conclusions drawn from the study can't really be extended to the human setting.


  • Posts: 0 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    ed2hands wrote: »
    What.is.your.definition.of.addressing?
    Mine.in.this.case.was.declared.them.wrong.and.dismissed.them.
    I.explained.why.
    "Flouride.not.a.nutrient".
    Irrelevant/Strawman.in.a.report.to.house.of.commons?
    You.say.yes.
    Grand.
    Dont.agree.
    Addressed.
    You failed to explain or address any of my points about this.
    You simply said that I was wrong without explanation and pretended that you had addressed it.
    Hence why you are using this silly tactic rather than addressing it.
    ed2hands wrote: »
    Unflouridated.in.the.context.of.the.graph.clearly.
    means.unflouridated.through.water.supply.
    You.think.they.dishonestly.omitted.that.some.people.in.those.countries.
    choose.flouridated.salt.
    Again.i.dont.agree.that.that.is.dishonest
    But they are using the graph to show that fluoridation has no effect.
    But both populations are getting fluoride, though from different sources.
    The report does not state how they adjusted the figures from other countries to exclude the people who do use fluoridated salt, or if they did at all.

    So they either left this out because they hadn't a clue what they were talking about or because they deliberately left it out.
    ed2hands wrote: »
    I.looked.through.them.
    Cant.see.where.double-blind.studies.are.
    All.a.bit.of.a.mish-mash.

    Example:
    Again, answer my questions and I'll bother wasting my time to find you a study you won't read.
    ed2hands wrote: »
    My.mistake.
    I.meant.to.say:
    Most of Europe and the World have banned water.fluoridation.
    And this isn't actually true either...
    AFAIR only one or two have actually banned it, the rest don't do it because they use other methods.


  • Posts: 0 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Are you implying that I have? If so, please explain.
    No I am implying that the authors of the propaganda you're reposting have.
    No. We would not. For the painfully obvious reason that none of the above are fed to newborn infants.
    Great so you understand that using an infant as a benchmark of that we consider dangerous is silly, bordering on dishonest.

    The fact remains that the study posted concerns levels of fluoride far far in excess of what's encounter in safe drinking water.
    Hell the "control" tap water was probably higher in fluoride than our tap water.
    Let me ask you a question: If you had brought a packet of peanuts onto a flight to snack on and before take-off the steward sinformed people that there was a child that was allergic to nuts on the flight - would you eat your peanuts anyway?

    And why/why not?
    No, because allergic reactions are a very real danger that we know actually happen.
    You guys have yet to show that fluoride is dangerous in normal levels present in drinking water.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,112 ✭✭✭nomdeboardie


    CiaranMT wrote: »
    This along with a post by someone else highlights exactly why any conclusions drawn from the study can't really be extended to the human setting.
    Sorry, I shouldn't have tacked the last bit on there in case it suggested I thought you approved of the paper. My main point was that I didn't understand your argument that the dose given to the rats was orders of magnitude too high to have relevance to the human situation, as I don't think we know the dose.


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


    Sorry, I shouldn't have tacked the last bit on there in case it suggested I thought you approved of the paper. My main point was that I didn't understand your argument that the dose given to the rats was orders of magnitude too high to have relevance to the human situation, as I don't think we know the dose.

    Crossed wires :P


  • Posts: 0 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    ed2hands wrote: »

    Fox News and the Daily Mail.....

    And you were arguing that you weren't using dishonest, sensationalist sources...?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 873 ✭✭✭ed2hands


    King Mob wrote: »
    You failed to explain or address any of my points about this.
    You simply said that I was wrong without explanation and pretended that you had addressed it.
    Hence why you are using this silly tactic rather than addressing it.

    confused.gifhttp://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=75867902&postcount=83

    fluor·i·da·tion (floobreve.gifrlprime.gifibreve.gif-damacr.gifprime.gifshschwa.gifn, flôrlprime.gif-, flomacr.gifrlprime.gif-)n. The addition of a fluorine compound to a drinking water supply for the purpose of reducing tooth decay.
    http://www.thefreedictionary.com/fluoridation


    King Mob wrote: »
    They do not mention at all the other countries use other methods to supply fluoride.

    What?
    All.three.of.them?

    No.salt:
    Denmark,Netherlands,Sweden,Italy,belguim.Finland,Iceland,Norway.
    Salt:
    Germany,France,Switerland.
    Source:
    http://www.fluoridealert.org/health/teeth/caries/who-dmft.aspx
    King Mob wrote: »
    And this isn't actually true either...
    AFAIR only one or two have actually banned it, the rest don't do it because they use other methods.

    Hmm.
    King Mob wrote: »
    Fox News and the Daily Mail.....

    And you were arguing that you weren't using dishonest, sensationalist sources...?

    I.wasnt.

    Latest.post:
    Daily.Fail=factual.report.

    Fox.report=Shedding.some.light.on.fluorisis.after.these.gems.of.yours:

    Fluorosis is not a dangerous condition, it's purely cosmetic. At it's very worst, it makes your teeth brown.

    Fluorosis makes your teeth a little brown and rough, but leaves you and them otherwise healthy.


  • Posts: 0 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    ed2hands wrote: »
    confused.gifhttp://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=75867902&postcount=83

    fluor·i·da·tion (floobreve.gifrlprime.gifibreve.gif-damacr.gifprime.gifshschwa.gifn, flôrlprime.gif-, flomacr.gifrlprime.gif-)n. The addition of a fluorine compound to a drinking water supply for the purpose of reducing tooth decay.
    http://www.thefreedictionary.com/fluoridation
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_fluoridation#Alternatives
    The effectiveness of salt fluoridation...
    Milk fluoridation is practiced...
    For example, milk-powder fluoridation is used...
    fluo·ri·dat·edfluo·ri·dat·ing
    Definition of FLUORIDATE
    transitive verb
    : to add a fluoride to (as drinking water) to reduce tooth decay
    ed2hands wrote: »
    What?
    All.three.of.them?

    No.salt:
    Denmark,Netherlands,Sweden,Italy,belguim.Finland,Iceland,Norway.
    Salt:
    Germany,France,Switerland.
    Source:
    http://www.fluoridealert.org/health/teeth/caries/who-dmft.aspx
    And in many of them fluoridated salt, milk or other products are available.
    So if these propagandists know that there are other methods for fluoridation, why did they list them as unfluoridated?
    ed2hands wrote: »
    Hmm.
    A thoughtful and detailed reply as always...
    ed2hands wrote: »
    I.wasnt.

    Latest.post:
    Daily.Fail=factual.report.

    Fox.report=Shedding.some.light.on.fluorisis.after.these.gems.of.yours:

    Fluorosis is not a dangerous condition, it's purely cosmetic. At it's very worst, it makes your teeth brown.

    Fluorosis makes your teeth a little brown and rough, but leaves you and them otherwise healthy.
    Ah so you'll swallow what you're told by the media when it's convenient.
    And yes, that's what fluorosis does. What do you think it does?
    And is that the worst fluoride can do? Cause it's a far cry from what the OP claimed.


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


    King Mob wrote: »
    And in many of them fluoridated salt, milk or other products are available.
    So if these propagandists know that there are other methods for fluoridation, why did they list them as unfluoridated?

    Details.please.co.i.dont.take.facts.from.certain.randomers.on.the.internet..

    King Mob wrote: »
    A thoughtful and detailed reply as always...
    :)Ta!

    King Mob wrote: »
    Ah so you'll swallow what you're told by the media when it's convenient.
    And yes, that's what fluorosis does. What do you think it does?

    Same.as.you.
    Turns.your.teeth.to.****.
    http://spotsonmyteeth.com/
    Doesnt.seem.to.other.you.apparently.
    King Mob wrote: »
    And is that the worst fluoride can do?

    Thats.what.id.like.to.know.
    So.does.this.man.
    http://www.fluoridealert.org/Alert/Ireland/Thousands-of-suspected-fluorosis-cases-reported.aspx
    Glad.someone.is.interested.

    Anyway.
    Toodloo.


  • Posts: 0 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    ed2hands wrote: »
    Details.please.co.i.dont.take.facts.from.certain.randomers.on.the.internet..
    Well lol, yes you apparently do.
    But I'm not interested in digging up more stuff for you to promptly ignore.
    You are simply trying to avoid my point as usual.

    You already agree (as do the propagandists you keep taking facts from) that France, Germany and Switzerland all fluoridate their salt. Yet they are all listed as unfluoridated in the dishonest graph.
    ed2hands wrote: »
    Same.as.you.
    Turns.your.teeth.to.****.
    http://spotsonmyteeth.com/
    Doesnt.seem.to.other.you.apparently.
    Not particularly as even teeth with fluorosis are generally less likely to have cavities and extractions.
    And again, this is a very very far cry from the claims of the OP.
    ed2hands wrote: »
    Thats.what.id.like.to.know.
    So.does.this.man.
    http://www.fluoridealert.org/Alert/Ireland/Thousands-of-suspected-fluorosis-cases-reported.aspx
    Glad.someone.is.interested.

    Anyway.
    Toodloo.
    No, that guy is fairly convinced that they are after his precious bodily fluids.
    Seems you are as well. I seriously doubt there is any evidence or reasoning that would convince you away from the conspiracy theory.


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


    Hello. :)

    It’s a drink of water, plus a little hydrofluorosilicic acid: a chemical so corrosive and toxic, it carries a warning label. Since 2002, the city has been injecting it into the water supply, in an effort to stem tooth decay.

    “The one, clear, proven way of keeping people’s teeth healthier, reducing decay is community water fluoridation,” said Dr. Maria Lopez-Howell, a San Antonio dentist and spokeswoman for the American Dental Association.

    The American Dental Association says studies dating back to the 1940’s show a correlation between high concentrations of fluoride and a lack of cavities.

    “We know that it continues to work, with anywhere from a 20 to 40 percent reduction in tooth decay,” added Lopez-Howell.

    The ADA’s stance on fluoridated water hasn’t changed. But what has changed in the last 9 years is the growth of research which says ingesting fluoride may be harming, rather than helping.

    "It accumulates in your bones and other places as well,” said Dr. Griffin Cole, an Austin dentist and opponent of fluoridated water.

    Cole won’t use fluoride in his dental office.

    "No fluoride. I don't have any fluoridated toothpaste in the office. I don't do any fluoride treatments, never have. I don't recommend it. I openly tell my patients that,” said Cole.

    Cole says despite the lack of fluoride, there’s been no increase in cavities in his patients.

    "Drinking water with fluoride in it does not have any benefit to the teeth, whatsoever,” he said.

    And San Antonio’s Metro-Health department studies appear to back that up.

    After 9 years and $3 million of adding fluoride, research shows tooth decay hasn’t dropped among the poorest of Bexar County’s children. It has only increased—up 13% in 2010, the latest date that data was available.

    One out of two children in the Head Start program who were checked for cavities had some decay last year.

    Also on the increase is fluorosis—or staining of the teeth. Drink a lot of fluoridated water, and you run the risk of these permanent splotches.

    In fact, fluorosis is up 41 percent across the nation.

    It’s so prevalent, the Centers for Disease Control warns parents NOT to mix baby formula with fluoridated water—a warning that is at-odds with the ADA.

    “Our diet is such that we need everything we can do to prevent tooth decay. The bad news is that you may have some white spots on your teeth. The good news is that you won’t have any cavities,” said Dr. Lopez-Howell.

    But recent studies from the CDC report there’s no clear evidence that adding fluoride to water does anything. And even one of the ADA’s own researchers has concluded that fluoride--at best—works when it is applied topically to teeth.

    In 2006, the National Academy of Science reported that even at low levels, ingesting fluoride increases bone fractures and contributes to diabetes, brittle bones and thyroid dysfunction.

    Dr. Laura Pressley says she learned that the hard way.

    "About ten years ago I was diagnosed with hyperthyroidism,” said Pressley.

    With the diagnosis, she began taking a regimen of drugs to control it.

    Thyroid disease isn’t something that runs in her family, so Pressley investigated.

    "I do have fluorosis in my teeth, and the white discoloration and I knew I grew up with fluoride in my tap water as a child,” she said.

    As a chemist, Pressley says her research pointed to fluoride. So, she took it out. All of it--through water filters and a change in diet.

    And she says when fluoride disappeared, so did her symptoms.

    "I was on migraine medication, I was on allergy medication, and I was on thyroid medication. I take no medications at all. And that is shocking, because I was on so much three years ago,” said Pressley.

    This compound that the city is adding is many more times toxic than lead. It’s nearly as toxic as arsenic,” said a fluoride opponent, who signed up to speak at a City of Austin committee hearing.

    The city is considering a warning label on its water bill, so that residents know the hazards associated with fluoride consumption.

    It’s a first step, they say, in joining the 250 communities that have stopped fluoridation completely. It is estimated that more than 60% of the nation's water supply is now fluoridated.

    “Let’s get the warning on our label on our city bill, and let’s just get it out of the water. It’s time,” added Cole.
    http://www.kens5.com/news/More-toxic-than-lead--134366538.html

    It's grand tho..


  • Posts: 0 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Daithi 1 wrote: »
    Hello. :)


    It's grand tho..
    “This compound that the city is adding is many more times toxic than lead. It’s nearly as toxic as arsenic,” said a fluoride opponent, who signed up to speak at a City of Austin committee hearing.
    Another great example of the level of scaremongering and dishonesty from another anti-science movement.


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


    King Mob wrote: »
    Another great example of the level of scaremongering and dishonesty from another anti-science movement.

    Yeah, lets focus on that sentence. :D


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


    Daithi 1 wrote: »
    Hello. :)


    It's grand tho..

    So.. it's one anecdotal tale, some unverified, cherry picked statistics and a single dentist?

    I was expecting more than that, to be honest.


  • Posts: 0 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Daithi 1 wrote: »
    Yeah, lets focus on that sentence. :D
    So do you agree that it's not an accurate or fair description of what fluoridation is?

    Cause if you can't see that, there's little point trying to explain why the rest is crap.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 6,408 ✭✭✭studiorat


    Ok so the rats are given chronic dosages of fluoride, 20ppm and the control group are given tap water.

    The group on the chronic dose suffered brain damage, the group on tap water are grand.

    Ergo tap water is fine, panic over folks...


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,828 ✭✭✭Reamer Fanny


    Daithi 1 wrote: »
    In rats.
    Fluoride is known to cross the blood-brain barrier and alter the structure
    and function of neural tissue. There are few authoritative reports on
    neurodegenerative changes in hippocampus, neocortex, cerebellum,
    spinal cord and sciatic nerve in fluoride intoxication. We report the alterations
    in the structure of neuronal tissue after chronic administration of
    sodium fluoride (for 60days) to rats. Twelve male Wistar rats were divided
    equally into two groups: one group received 20 ppm of sodium
    fluoride (NaF) and the other group (which served as a control) received
    tap water for 60days.
    The body weights and organic somatic index of brain in the sodium fluoride
    treated animals were significantly reduced, relative to the control
    group. Tissue fluoride levels of hippocampus, neocortex, cerebellum,
    spinal cord and sciatic nerve, all increased significantly in fluoride
    treated rats. Electron microscopy of the hippocampus, neocortex, cerebellum,
    spinal cord and sciatic nerve showed neurodegenerative
    changes in the NaF treated group compared to controls. Axon deterioration,
    myelin sheath degeneration and dark cells with scanty cytoplasm
    were observed in spinal cord and sciatic nerve in the treated
    group. Other distinctive morphological alterations observed were: vacuolated
    swollen mitochondria in neocortex, hippocampus and cerebellum;
    myelinated fibers with breaks in continuity (axon partly preserved
    and partly vacuolated) in hippocampus; myelin splitting and vacuolated
    schwann cell within the cerebellum and sciatic nerve respectively.
    Thus, neurodegeneration was clearly evident in the hippocampus,
    neocortex, cerebellum, spinal cord and sciatic nerve on fluoride exposure.

    http://static.infowars.com/2011/12/i/general/2011_study-neurodegenerative_changes_from_fluoride_of_brain_spinal_cord_and_sciatic_nerve.pdf

    So is this in par with the level of damaged brain cells due to excessive alcohol consumption?


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,006 ✭✭✭Daithi 1


    So.. it's one anecdotal tale, some unverified, cherry picked statistics and a single dentist?

    I was expecting more than that, to be honest.

    Not quite. I've been reading up on, well, one of the sources mentioned in the article...

    topnav_naidlogo.png

    http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=11571&page=317

    Seems they reckon that Humans may be more sensitive to genotoxicity than rodents, amongst other reckonses. It's an interesting read actually.

    I'll be back with a few quotes soon. :p


Advertisement