I'll be interested in reading commentary from readers of the journal regarding this article.
Do you prefer fluoride in your water?
- Thread starter naturalbornhawk
- Start date
Who exactly has said that? Anything is harmful depending upon concentration, for instance arsenic is essentially a micro-nutrient (has a role in the metabolism of the amino acid methionine and in gene silencing) in very small doses, but go higher and it will kill you. The same can be said about selenium, which is so important that evolution incorporated it into the rare amino acid selenocysteine—the crucial component of the antioxidizing selenoproteins that help to repair other proteins from oxidative damage. And now it's looking like even lead might play a very, very small, but important role in human biochemsitry.
A toxic brew we cannot live without. Micronutrients give insights into the interplay between geochemistry and evolutionary biology
I saw that, and yes, those same problems I had with the "con" studies are the very same problems with the "pro" studies.........if I was writing a paper I wouldn't use ANY of those 53 studies, unless those were the only ones there are..........and if that was the case I would find another topic to write about.
It's not unreasonable at all.........I'm always down for more studies, no matter the outcome, as long as the methodology is sound. If said methodology isn't sound then it's a waste of my time and more importantly a huge waste of money and said researchers time. Till that time, we can't go on the assumption that fluoride is extremely dangerous and it should be banned, because there isn't ANY solid evidence backing that up. That's not how science works. And right now, we've been studying fluoride for 50+ years, with 30,000+ studies, showing that the benefits FAR, FAR outweigh the negatives.......and until that time the study numbers even come close to flipping then I'm going to go with the assumption that when used correctly it's perfectly safe.
And it doesn't help your cause when during that 50+ years IQ numbers have done this:
Because, historically, you ignore them. Ergo, it's a waste of my time.
I'm sure Google can find you good links if you include various medical and dental societies as part of your search, and limit your scope to accepted, peer reviewed works.
Here's a start:
http://sites.nationalacademies.org/...de-has-not-been-shown-to-affect-childrens-IQ/
Not really. Drinking the flouride and topical applications serve two different functions. A good analogy is washing your hair and brushing your hair are both important to making your hair look good, but one does not replace the other.
Dude, there just isn't path to victory here for you.
I'm really not trying to win anything. I picture myself as more on the sideline playing devil's advocate in this case. If people choose to completely ignore the body of science (that I've admitted from the beginning has it's flaws) that indicates that there could be a problem, then more power to them. I'm just not really all that convinced that this is a settled matter and therefore will continue to error on the side of caution.
You still on the fluoride train Joe? Of course another publication comes out that says I was right, you were wrong.
"The study, published today in JAMA Pediatrics, was conducted by scientists from the
@NIH's National Toxicology Program.
The in-depth statistical meta-analysis is the largest and most rigorous ever conducted on fluoride, according to a commentary accompanying the study, and their findings highlight the need to “reassess systemic fluoride exposure, again.”"
Even if vaccines and fluoride ‘worked’ as advertised (HINT: they don’t) our resident Pharma cultists have made it clear they are more accepting of dealing with autoimmune disease and cancer than they are of brief childhood illnesses and cavities. 🙄
Freaking Bizarro World.
RFK cultists. Raw milk, lard, eating all beef diets, essential oils, anti-vax, anti 5g/wifi (lol seriously).... it's going to be a very interesting four years.
People apparently had everything figured out in the 1700s.
Well, how about topical application, for those who still really want to expose themselves and their kids to it? Seems pretty logical.
This argument makes absolutely no sense. It's called simply keeping the good and doing away with the bad.
Why do we have to trade infectious disease for chronic disease? Why do we have to trade healthy teeth for lower IQ? Only the stupid don't realize how to correct these problems where you can minimize the bad while keeping the good.
Before I reply, what argument are you referring to? Edit: nevermind, I believe I figured it out based on your post prior to this one. I'll reply after my couple of meetings.
Uh, do we have some science deniers here?
Most European countries do not add fluoride to their water supply because of a combination of factors including public opposition to "mass medication" through water, concerns about potential health risks, the belief that people already get enough fluoride from toothpaste and other sources, and logistical challenges with implementing widespread fluoridation, leading to a preference for alternative methods like fluoridated salt in some regions; therefore, most EU water is not fluoridated.
Only calcium fluoride occurs naturally in water; however, that type of fluoride has never been used for fluoridation. Instead what is used over 90 percent of the time are silicofluorides, which are 85 times more toxic than calcium fluoride.
They are non-biodegradable, hazardous waste products that come straight from the pollution scrubbers of big industries. If not dumped in the public water supplies, these silicofluorides would have to be neutralized at the highest rated hazardous waste facility at a cost of $1.40 per gallon (or more depending on how much cadmium, lead, uranium and arsenic are also present). Cities buy these unrefined pollutants and dump them–lead, arsenic and all–into our water systems. Silicofluorides are almost as toxic as arsenic, and more toxic than lead.1, 2
The EPA has recently said it is vitally important that we lower the level of both lead and arsenic in our water supplies, and their official goal is zero parts per million. This being the case, why would anyone recommend adding silicofluorides, which contain both of these heavy metals?3
On July 2, 1997, EPA scientist, J. William Hirzy, PhD, stated, “Our members’ review of the body of evidence over the last eleven years, including animal and human epidemiology studies, indicate a causal link between fluoride/fluoridation and cancer, genetic damage, neurological impairment and bone pathology. Of particular concern are recent epidemiology studies linking fluoride exposure to lowered IQ in children.”4
The largest study of tooth decay in America (by the National Institute of Dental Research in 1987) proved that there was no significant difference in the decay rates of 39,000 fluoridated, partially fluoridated and non-fluoridated children, ages 5 to 17, surveyed in 84 cities. The media has never disclosed these facts. The study cost us, the taxpayers, $3,670,000. Surely, we are entitled to hear the results.5
Newburgh and Kingston, both in the state of New York, were two of the original fluoridation test cities. A recent study by the New York State Department of Health showed that after 50 years of fluoridation, Newburgh’s children have a slightly higher number of cavities than never-fluoridated Kingston.5
The recent California fluoridation study, sponsored by the Dental Health Foundation, showed that California has only about one quarter as much water fluoridation as the nation as a whole, yet 15-year-old California children have less tooth decay than the national average.6
References
They are non-biodegradable, hazardous waste products that come straight from the pollution scrubbers of big industries. If not dumped in the public water supplies, these silicofluorides would have to be neutralized at the highest rated hazardous waste facility at a cost of $1.40 per gallon (or more depending on how much cadmium, lead, uranium and arsenic are also present). Cities buy these unrefined pollutants and dump them–lead, arsenic and all–into our water systems. Silicofluorides are almost as toxic as arsenic, and more toxic than lead.1, 2
The EPA has recently said it is vitally important that we lower the level of both lead and arsenic in our water supplies, and their official goal is zero parts per million. This being the case, why would anyone recommend adding silicofluorides, which contain both of these heavy metals?3
On July 2, 1997, EPA scientist, J. William Hirzy, PhD, stated, “Our members’ review of the body of evidence over the last eleven years, including animal and human epidemiology studies, indicate a causal link between fluoride/fluoridation and cancer, genetic damage, neurological impairment and bone pathology. Of particular concern are recent epidemiology studies linking fluoride exposure to lowered IQ in children.”4
The largest study of tooth decay in America (by the National Institute of Dental Research in 1987) proved that there was no significant difference in the decay rates of 39,000 fluoridated, partially fluoridated and non-fluoridated children, ages 5 to 17, surveyed in 84 cities. The media has never disclosed these facts. The study cost us, the taxpayers, $3,670,000. Surely, we are entitled to hear the results.5
Newburgh and Kingston, both in the state of New York, were two of the original fluoridation test cities. A recent study by the New York State Department of Health showed that after 50 years of fluoridation, Newburgh’s children have a slightly higher number of cavities than never-fluoridated Kingston.5
The recent California fluoridation study, sponsored by the Dental Health Foundation, showed that California has only about one quarter as much water fluoridation as the nation as a whole, yet 15-year-old California children have less tooth decay than the national average.6
References
- George Glasser, Journalist, St. Petersburg, FL, “Fluoridation: A Mandate to Dump Toxic Waste in the Name of Public Health,” July 22, 1991.
- R.E. Gosselin et al, Clinical Toxicology of commercial Products, 5th ed., 1984. U.S. EPA Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCL) EPA/NSF Standard 60.
- San Diego Union Tribune, May 25, 2000, “EPA proposes stricter rules for arsenic levels in water supplies,” and Associated Press, Jan. 17, 2001, “EPA Orders Sharp Reduction in Arsenic Levels in Drinking Water,” by H. Josef Hebert.
- Letter of July 2, 1997, from J. William Hirzy, Ph.D. to Jeff Green. The union (now NTEU, Chapter 280) consists of and represents all of the toxicologists, chemists, biologists and other professionals at EPA headquarters, Washington, D.C.
- “New studies cast doubt on fluoridation benefits,” by Bette Hileman, Chemical & Engineering News,Vol. 67, No. 19, May 8, 1989. “Recommendations for Fluoride Use in Children,” Jayanth V. Kumar, D.D.S., M.P.H.; Elmer L. Green, D.D.S., M.P.H., Pediatric Dentistry, Feb. 1998.
- San Diego Union Tribune, Sept. 1, 1999.
How are "the good" and "the bad" identified?
Who is saying we need to trade infectious disease for chronic disease? I find it amusing that they think they've identified beyond all doubt what causes chronic diseases. Really?
The issue I see is that the RFK line of beliefs is built on rather shaky foundations. There's a significant amount of pseudoscience, opinions and conjecture combined with confirmation bias involved in how RFK and his followers arrive at their beliefs.
You act like it's been proven that fluoride in water lowers IQ.
RFK thinks WIFI causes chronic disease. Radio waves.
I included references for the science-denying morons among us.
And of course you ignored them.
In extremely high cases of it, yes. We’ve always known too much fluoride is a bad thing which is why we control how much is in the water.
This study is 5 years old. Have there been follow ups or additional clarity since then?
Well science changes and usually once a study has been completed with something important like that others try to replicate it to see if it’s actually a thing.
I’m very skeptical here but o could be wrong. I’m guessing there are many studies around this and I’m guessing they don’t all show the same thing.
Well let me give this a shot. Less cavities=good, lower IQ=bad, more infectious disease=bad (though some would argue that's good), more chronic illness=bad.
There is zero doubt that vaccines can cause chronic illness, it says it right on the package inserts. The question is, how much? Let's use 54% (that # is getting old, could be higher as it's been increasing) of all children in the US have a chronic illness, and go from there.
For example, looking at one vaccine and one ingredient, looking at hundreds of thousands of children on those two variables alone, and making all clinical trials ultra short-term, low powered, and design with no inert placebo, and then claiming the entire product line is safe? Could that be considered pseudoscience?
It's pretty obvious children consuming fluoride will lower their IQ. If you want to deny it then go ahead.
There's a sizeable body of science that says that RF can cause chronic disease.
This study? This is the most recent study I posted that brought this old thread back to life.
There were limited data and uncertainty in the dose-response association between fluoride exposure and children’s IQ when fluoride exposure was estimated by drinking water alone at concentrations less than 1.5 mg/L. These findings may inform future comprehensive public health risk-benefit assessments of fluoride exposures.
Again, I don’t know anybody claiming Flouride in high doses isn’t a problem.
The U.S. Public Health Service recommends an optimal fluoridation level of 0.7 mg/L, so I’m sure they are aware of this.
Again, I don’t know anybody claiming Flouride in high doses isn’t a problem.
The U.S. Public Health Service recommends an optimal fluoridation level of 0.7 mg/L, so I’m sure they are aware of this.
Love this. It's off-putting to those who are on the fence. Keep going with it.
Do you suppose the negative effects just turn on @ 1.49 mg/L? Or, somewhere in between 1.5 and 0.7?
At 1.5 that study found no effect unless I’m reading that wrong.
So I think additional studies would be required to determine if there is any effect at even lower doses.
We also add iodine in very low doses to salt to get rid of people’s goiters which I think is an overall good.
Too much aspirin is bad. The right amount can have benefits. That’s what I believe is happening here and I haven’t seen anything to change my mind.
There is also a correlation between healthy dental hygiene and academic success. I’m pro-fluoride
