Welcome to FinHeaven Fans Forums! We're glad to have you here. Please feel free to browse the forum. We'd like to invite you to join our community; doing so will enable you to view additional forums and post with our other members.



VIP Members don't see these ads. Join VIP Now
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 22

Thread: Is Flouride Harmful?

  1. -11
    TheWalrus's Avatar
    1/7/14

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Dec 2011
    Posts:
    9,560
    vCash:
    40505
    Thanks / No Thanks
    Quote Originally Posted by rob19 View Post
    I'd rather just not take my chances with something that some doctors say might have an aiding effect in degenerative brain damage; early onset of Alzheimer's, that sort of thing. I don't think that poison label on your toothpaste is there because of the peppermint.
    These being the operative phrases. I can find "some" doctors saying just about anything can be harmful to you. If you had this same standard about pot, for example, you wouldn't be able to smoke it, because some doctors think it causes cancer or lung trouble. I'm sure you've seen the literature and had a nice laugh about the fringe whackos who wrote it.



    Mild fluoriosis. That's all there really is on this. A hardly noticeable condition that only occurs in children and causes no real harm. The rest is just a series of scare warnings about the dangers of "excessive exposure", which is all fine and good but relevant to a system that's properly maintained how?

    We have differing opinions on the toothpaste & that's fine, but I think most people would prefer non-fluoridated water to water with fluoride in it.

    The burden of proof is on you with this one. This has been an accepted practice now for 70 years and after the initial tinfoil hat commie conspiracy phase, people were convinced that it helps prevent cavities, which wasn't so hard because everyone agrees that it does, and we've heard nary a peep ever since except from the conspiratorial underground.

    I mean, this notion that people don't want it really doesn't make any sense to me at all. Where's the mechanism keeping it around if the people don't want it? It only costs $1 per person per year, so I can't see much in the way of lobbyist influence. Where's the upside? For anyone? If anything dentists should be against it since it cuts into their business. But they supported it then and continue to now.

    I think the fluoridation of the water supply is the product of a nanny-state with good intentions that could possibly be doing more harm than good. Even most of your fluoride supporting dentists will suggest that fluoride is most effectively applied topically to the teeth & not ingested into the body. On the toothpaste label it says "If more than used for brushing is accidentally swallowed, get medical help or contact a Poison Control Center right away". So I don't think anyone should want that even in minute levels in a drinking supply if it even had the slightest possibility of having harming effects.
    Well, duh. Toothpaste contains between 1,000-1,500 ppm (parts per million) fluoride, whereas the EPA maximum for fluoride in drinking water is 4 ppm. The list of things safe at one dosage and unsafe at 250 times that dosage is pretty long, wouldn't you say?

    A personal note, so you know partly where I'm coming from with this: thanks to an adverse reaction my tooth enamel had with the cement they used on my braces, when they finally removed those braces it was discovered I had six severe cavities. About four years after these were drilled the fillings started loosening and it was discovered that decay had continued underneath the fillings which meant I needed them all redone, including two teeth so badly damaged they needed to be capped.

    That's 10 fillings and two capped teeth in all, a total cost in pain and money I can't quite begin to describe. Because of my particular circumstances fluoride couldn't save me, but there's a whole lot of people out there who have been saved that pain and cost and believe me it's worth it.
    Quote Quote  

  2. -12
    rob19's Avatar
    Soul Rebel

    Status:
    Online
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Mar 2006
    Posts:
    7,542
    vCash:
    9622
    Loc:
    Georgia
    Thanks / No Thanks
    1972 Dolphins Logo
    Despite dental pressure, 99% of western continental Europe has rejected, banned, or stopped fluoridation due to environmental, health, legal, or ethical concerns

    Only about 5% of the world population is fluoridated and more than 50% of these people live in North America. The Danish Minister of Environment recommended against fluoridation in 1977 because "no adequate studies had been carried out on its long-term effects on human organ systems other than teeth and because not enough studies had been done on the effects of fluoride discharges on freshwater ecosystems."

    "In 1978, the West German Association of Gas & Water Experts rejected fluoridation for legal reasons and because 'the so-called optimal fluoride concentration of 1 mg per L is close to the dose at which long-term damage [to the human body] is to be expected.' "

    Quotes from: Hilleman B, "FLUORIDATION: Contention won't go away," Chemical and Engineering News, 1988 Aug, 66:31

    Country Fluoridation Status

    China- BANNED: "not allowed"
    Austria- REJECTED: "toxic fluorides" NOT added
    Belgium- REJECTED: encourages self-determination – those who want fluoride should get it themselves.
    Finland- STOPPED: "...do not favor or recommend fluoridation of drinking water. There are better ways of providing the fluoride our teeth need." A recent study found ..."no indication of an increasing trend of caries...."
    Germany- STOPPED: A recent study found no evidence of an increasing trend of caries
    Denmark- REJECTED: "...toxic fluorides have never been added to the public water supplies in Denmark."
    Norway- REJECTED: "...drinking water should not be fluoridated"
    Sweden - BANNED: "not allowed". No safety data available!
    The Netherlands- Inevitably, whenever there is a court decision against fluoridation, the dental lobby pushes to have the judgement overturned on a technicality or they try to get the laws changed to legalize it. Their tactics didn't work in the vast majority of Europe.
    Hungary- STOPPED: for technical reasons in the '60s. However, despite technological advances, Hungary remains unfluoridated.
    Japan REJECTED: "...may cause health problems...." The 0.8 -1.5 mg regulated level is for calcium-fluoride, not the hazardous waste by-product which is added with artificial fluoridation.

    http://www.fluoridation.com/c-country.htm

    I'm surprised you support fluoridation of the drinking supply. If someone on their own wants to use fluoride on their teeth that's well & good, but I don't think it's something you should be forcing on the population at large not completely knowing the compounding long term physical effects of.
    Quote Quote  

  3. -13
    TheWalrus's Avatar
    1/7/14

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Dec 2011
    Posts:
    9,560
    vCash:
    40505
    Thanks / No Thanks
    Marijuana laws just in the countries you listed:

    China: illegal
    Austria: illegal
    Belgium: illegal but tolerated
    Finland: extremely limited medical legality (only 12 people in the entire country authorized to use it)
    Germany: illegal
    Denmark: illegal
    Norway: illegal
    Sweden: illegal
    Netherlands: legal, obviously.
    Hungary: illegal. Punishment same as heroin
    Japan: illegal

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legalit...bis_by_country

    Countries using fluoridation or not isn't proof of anything. I'm surprised you would offer it as such.
    Quote Quote  

  4. -14
    NY8123's Avatar
    Sophisticated Redneck

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Jan 2008
    Posts:
    12,309
    vCash:
    10458
    Loc:
    out in the Ding Weeds
    Thanks / No Thanks
    Quote Originally Posted by rob19 View Post
    Knowing that it's been used in rat poison & insecticides doesn't really make me feel good about putting it in my mouth.

    Here's a good alternative fluoride-free toothpaste if anyone's interested
    Honestly Rob if you are on a city water supply you don't need fluoride tooth paste anyway since 99% of all city water is fluorinated anyway. If you live in the sticks (like me) and have well water, the benefits from fluoride still out way the risk.

    I'd worry more about the long term use of that cell phone stuck to your ear than fluorinated toothpaste.
    "I am free of all prejudice. I hate everyone equally" ~ W.C. Fields

    Quote Quote  

  5. -15
    rob19's Avatar
    Soul Rebel

    Status:
    Online
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Mar 2006
    Posts:
    7,542
    vCash:
    9622
    Loc:
    Georgia
    Thanks / No Thanks
    1972 Dolphins Logo
    Quote Originally Posted by TheWalrus View Post
    Countries using fluoridation or not isn't proof of anything. I'm surprised you would offer it as such.
    It is proof that most people don't want it in their drinking water. \/

    Quote Originally Posted by TheWalrus
    The burden of proof is on you with this one.


    --

    Wonder how much truth there is to some of this

    According to studies provided by the Fluoride Action Network (FAN), cancer, arthritis, thyroid dysfunction, and neurological disorders are related to fluoride intake. Brittle bones. Calcification of the pineal gland.

    Fluorides draw copper out of plumbing pipes, so our water contains copper. Boys and young men are at special risk of asthma and neurological dysfunction, leading to violent behavior, from excess copper absorption. The synergy of fluorides with other waste products in our water produces a most powerful toxin that increases risk of Alzheimer’s and and osteosarcoma (a type of cancer), again, especially in boys. Fluorides neutralize iodine, so that thyroid patients taking iodine medication suffer.

    Excessive fluoride causes fluorosis – white streaks on children’s teeth. So what is it doing to the rest of their bones? Children are most at risk from the toxic effects of fluoride, absorbing three times as much as adults do. Bottle-fed babies inevitably drink fluoride in their formula.

    This list of FAN’s excerpts from scientific literature argues that swallowing fluoride does little or nothing to stop formation of cavities. In other words, the correct way to use fluoride is by applying it directly to the teeth, as Prof. Zilberman suggests, in the dentist’s office. Not by making everyone swallow it.

    Again, from FAN: “Several studies indicate that dental decay is coming down just as fast, if not faster, in non-fluoridated industrialized countries as fluoridated ones (Diesendorf, 1986; Colquhoun, 1994; World Health Organization, Online).”
    http://www.greenprophet.com/2011/11/...know-about-it/

    Fluoride is added to 60 percent of US and 40 percent of Canadian tap water to reduce tooth decay. However, scientists say that actually swallowing this toxin offers virtually no dental advantage. According to recognized fluoride authority Hardy Limeback, DDS, head of Preventive Dentistry at the University of Toronto, fluOo ride's benefit derives from direct physical contact with a tooth's exterior.

    "You may as well swish with fluoridated tap water and spit it out. That's how it works," Limeback says.
    A dozen Nobel Prize-winning scientists have long warned of a link between fluoride and serious health problems. However, the late Dean Burk, PhD, former chief chemist at the National Cancer Institute, described fluoride's risk in the starkest terms. After cOo conducting the largest US fluoridation study in history, Burk concluded: "Fluoride causes more cancer, and causes it faster, than any other chemical." Fluoride is further linked to osteoporosis, hip frachlre, memory and neurological impairment and kidney disorders.

    Federal law forbids the EPA from taking a public position for or against fluoride, but the EPA employees union is not similarly restricted. "Our union-comprising several hundred toxicologists, other scientists and lawyers-maintains its solid opposition to fluoridation," says J. William Hirzy, the union's senior vice-president.
    http://www.nofluoride.com/BetterNutrition_article.cfm

    Here's a site where you can check to see if your water supply is fluoridated
    http://thyroid.about.com/library/art...ridefinder.htm

    I appreciate your guy's input, but the argument; "well of course it's poisonous, but it's only a little poison", doesn't really make me feel any better about it.

    Also for anyone that's interested, do some research about bottled water that has a fluoride content of less than 0.2 ppm (or mg/L).

    Not trying to sway anyone who doesn't want to be swayed, but at least some of you are aware there's a possibility that it could be harmful where maybe you weren't before. Personally, I'll err on the side of caution on this one. Microwaves only emit a very small amount of radiation (less than cellphones even), but I still don't press my nose to it while it's on.
    Quote Quote  

  6. -16
    TheWalrus's Avatar
    1/7/14

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Dec 2011
    Posts:
    9,560
    vCash:
    40505
    Thanks / No Thanks
    Quote Originally Posted by rob19 View Post
    It is proof that most people don't want it in their drinking water.
    No, not really. I doubt we can point to public opinion as the reason China doesn't fluoridate whereas India has so much industrial runoff they actually have to take fluoride out of the water. That right there is more than 37% of the world's population. In a lot of the poorer parts of the world it simply isn't a feasible solution from an infrastructure standpoint.

    Wonder how much truth there is to some of this

    http://www.greenprophet.com/2011/11/...know-about-it/
    You never know. I'm certainly not a dentist. But all I'm seeing there is a lot of insinuation and not very much in the way of peer reviewed science. Certainly any study by a group like the Fluoride Action Network has to be taken with a grain of salt, don't you think?

    Meanwhile...

    Fluoridation is considered beneficial by the overwhelming majority of health and scientific communities, including the American Dental Association, the American Medical Association, the World Health Organization, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Nearly 100 national and international organizations endorse community water fluoridation, and every U.S. Surgeon General since 1950 has endorsed fluoridation. After 60 years of research and experience, the vast weight of scientific evidence shows that fluoridation is safe and effective.

    Since its introduction in 1945, fluoridation has grown to protect more than 360 million people in approximately 60 countries worldwide. More than 10,000 communities and 145 million people in the United States drink fluoridated water every day.


    Fluoridation is a community health measure that protects all children and adults, regardless of income, education, or ethnicity—not just those with access to dental care. Research shows that each dollar spent on optimal water fluoridation returns $38 in dental care savings.
    http://www.oregondental.org/i4a/page...fm?pageid=3501

    In NSW, a major 2005 study that examined the dental records of nearly a quarter of a million schoolchildren aged 3–15 found that those living in areas with fluoridated water were significantly less likely to have decayed, missing or filled teeth than children living in areas without added fluoride in the drinking water.

    Another 2005 study of 973 Australian army recruits showed that those with no exposure to water fluoridation had 40% more filled, missing or decayed teeth than recruits who had grown up with fluoridation.
    In 2000, a group of 10 experts (commissioned by the UK National Health Service) conducted a systematic review of the entire body of scientific evidence on public water fluoridation available at the time. Though they found much of the research lacked rigour, they found the evidence strong enough to conclude that:


    • Fluoridation of drinking water really does reduce the prevalence of decayed teeth, increasing the percentage of children totally free from tooth decay by about 15%.
    • Fluoride in drinking water provides an additional benefit over and above that derived from fluoride in toothpaste and topical applications provided by dentists.


    Further investigation by the UK Department of Health confirmed these findings, examined additional research and highlighted the benefits of fluoridation for adults as well as children. This second report (published in 2002) found evidence that:


    • In general, more adults are keeping more of their own teeth into old age, and having less trouble with them, where there’s fluoride in the drinking water.
    • Fluoridation also confers additional benefits such as reductions in the number of people suffering from toothache or requiring general anaesthesia for dental treatment.
    http://www.choice.com.au/reviews-and-tests/food-and-health/general-health/safety/fluoride/page/the%20case%20for%20fluoridation.aspx

    Do you think that fluoridation actually does provide some health benefit? Or is it a minus all the way around, and perhaps only a minor one but maybe a big one?

    I appreciate your guy's input, but the argument; "well of course it's poisonous, but it's only a little poison", doesn't really make me feel any better about it.
    This is frankly a very silly argument. Name for me an essential vitamin or mineral that isn't poisonous at a high enough level, to say nothing of something like alcohol, which has health benefits if used correctly but is treated by the body as a poison at any level of ingestion.

    Not trying to sway anyone who doesn't want to be swayed, but at least some of you are aware there's a possibility that it could be harmful where maybe you weren't before. Personally, I'll err on the side of caution on this one. Microwaves only emit a very small amount of radiation (less than cellphones even), but I still don't press my nose to it while it's on.
    The thing is I think there's a perfectly reasonable argument to be made that the government shouldn't put things in drinking water -- even if it's beneficial to public health -- when there's for all intents and purposes no alternative but to use it. That's why in other countries they have or are currently experimenting with fluoridated salt, milk and sugar... and trying to make fluoridated toothpaste cheaper.

    That's a potential persuasive argument. But this idea that it's actually dangerous is a fringe idea supported by a vocal but simply very small minority. All hat and no cattle, as they say. It takes more than that to change my opinion or behavior.
    Last edited by TheWalrus; 12-07-2012 at 02:40 AM.
    Quote Quote  

  7. -17
    rob19's Avatar
    Soul Rebel

    Status:
    Online
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Mar 2006
    Posts:
    7,542
    vCash:
    9622
    Loc:
    Georgia
    Thanks / No Thanks
    1972 Dolphins Logo
    Quote Originally Posted by TheWalrus
    No, not really. I doubt we can point to public opinion as the reason China doesn't fluoridate whereas India has so much industrial runoff they actually have to take fluoride out of the water. That right there is more than 37% of the world's population. In a lot of the poorer parts of the world it simply isn't a feasible solution from an infrastructure standpoint.
    Unless your polling China & India it’s unknowable. It does appear however that most all European countries are wary of it, & that fluoridation is very largely a North American phenomenon, as evidenced by only 5% of the world’s population exposure to fluoridated water, & 50% of that 5% being in North America. Whether their trepidation be for health concerns or other is another matter.

    Quote Originally Posted by TheWalrus
    Do you think that fluoridation actually does provide some health benefit? Or is it a minus all the way around, and perhaps only a minor one but maybe a big one?
    I believe it can help with tooth decay when applied topically to the teeth, but I do question it’s effectiveness in a drinking supply. Despite the studies you posted, I've also seen studies that say non-fluoridated communities have just as much/little tooth decay as fluoridated communities. There are too many factors that could be involved to simply say look at two communities in a vacuum & say; “well because these fluoridated communities we've looked at have less decay than these non-fluoridated communities we looked at, that conclusively proves fluoridation in a drinking supply substantially improves dental health”, without taking into consideration things like the economic status of certain communities versus others, location, environment, dental education, quality of water, culture, diet, etc.

    Quote Originally Posted by ElWalrus
    But all I'm seeing there is a lot of insinuation and not very much in the way of peer reviewed science.
    That’s all tooth related. I would be interested in seeing the peer-reviewed studies on the long-term effects on the other human organs, including the mind (how would you ethically test that?), as well as a few other things; “Danish Minister of Environment recommended against fluoridation in 1977 because "no adequate studies had been carried out on its long-term effects on human organ systems other than teeth and because not enough studies had been done on the effects of fluoride discharges on freshwater ecosystems." – If you’re going to do something like this, you have to be 10,000% sure that they’ll be no negative ramifications. You can’t beta-test something with the population’s water supply to try & save money by fighting cavities.

    Quote Originally Posted by TheWalrus
    This is frankly a very silly argument. Name for me an essential vitamin or mineral that isn't poisonous at a high enough level, to say nothing of something like alcohol, which has health benefits if used correctly but is treated by the body as a poison at any level of ingestion.
    It’s a bit different. Most minerals are only poisonous because they were being used in absurd quantities. Fluoride is only not poisonous if you take it in infinitesimal doses. There is no daily required intake dose for fluoride, as there is for salt or vitamin D.

    Quote Originally Posted by TheWalrus
    The thing is I think there's a perfectly reasonable argument to be made that the government shouldn't put things in drinking water -- even if it's beneficial to public health -- when there's for all intents and purposes no alternative but to use it. That's why in other countries they have or are currently experimenting with fluoridated salt, milk and sugar... and trying to make fluoridated toothpaste cheaper.

    That's a potential persuasive argument. But this idea that it's actually dangerous is a fringe idea supported by a vocal but simply very small minority. All hat and no cattle, as they say. It takes more than that to change my opinion or behavior.
    I have no interest in changing anyone’s behavior, I’m simply providing people with information they may have not have had before. Now, whether your concern be health related, environmentally related, or just that of taking the position of caution, I don’t know that we have enough information on all these things to definitively state that this is something we should be forcing on everyone. To be clear, I’m not asserting fluoride is unquestionably harmful (I have no motive to believe that it is; I've been using it since I've had teeth), I’m personally just going to err on the side of caution. I do believe there are ways you can take care of your teeth without necessarily drinking fluoride every day.
    Quote Quote  

  8. -18
    NY8123's Avatar
    Sophisticated Redneck

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Jan 2008
    Posts:
    12,309
    vCash:
    10458
    Loc:
    out in the Ding Weeds
    Thanks / No Thanks
    Well let me add a little first person observation to your argument here guys. I have been to Taiwan and other parts of Asia, been there in large chunks of time, month at a time or more. They do not use fluoride or fluorinated water, in fact their water is pretty ****y, I will not drink it but I do use it to brush with.

    Taiwanese are not known for their dental hygiene most are missing some teeth, by the time I return home from Taiwan, no matter what I bring with me or how much I brush my teeth are stained and yellowed to the point that my hygienist knows when I have been to Taiwan for extended periods without even asking me.

    Now I'm not saying it is only becasue of flouride but damn I'm glad for what we have here in the country, I like to chew my food and would rather not blend everything or gum it.
    Quote Quote  

  9. -19
    TheWalrus's Avatar
    1/7/14

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Dec 2011
    Posts:
    9,560
    vCash:
    40505
    Thanks / No Thanks
    Quote Originally Posted by rob19 View Post
    Unless your polling China & India it’s unknowable. It does appear however that most all European countries are wary of it, & that fluoridation is very largely a North American phenomenon, as evidenced by only 5% of the world’s population exposure to fluoridated water, & 50% of that 5% being in North America. Whether their trepidation be for health concerns or other is another matter.
    Considering that Germany and France (and others in Europe; I had a link with a list but lost it) fluoridate their salt (just as we idiodize salt in this country to help prevent goiters), I doubt it. Other countries fluoridate their milk or milk powder because water fluoridation isn't feasible. There are no laws in Europe banning community water fluoridation (or fluoridated toothpaste), which you would expect if it was considered a potentially dangerous toxin. The European Water Quality Directive from 1980 merely set a maximum safe standard.

    I believe it can help with tooth decay when applied topically to the teeth, but I do question it’s effectiveness in a drinking supply. Despite the studies you posted, I've also seen studies that say non-fluoridated communities have just as much/little tooth decay as fluoridated communities. There are too many factors that could be involved to simply say look at two communities in a vacuum & say; “well because these fluoridated communities we've looked at have less decay than these non-fluoridated communities we looked at, that conclusively proves fluoridation in a drinking supply substantially improves dental health”, without taking into consideration things like the economic status of certain communities versus others, location, environment, dental education, quality of water, culture, diet, etc.
    If someone has easy access to fluoridated toothpaste, fluoridated water might not be necessary. I agree with that. And I also agree studying the matter is difficult. However, it seems nearly every study says that it helps prevent tooth decay. Especially among the poor who don't have the same access to dental care probably not the same quality of toothpaste.

    That’s all tooth related. I would be interested in seeing the peer-reviewed studies on the long-term effects on the other human organs, including the mind (how would you ethically test that?), as well as a few other things; “Danish Minister of Environment recommended against fluoridation in 1977 because "no adequate studies had been carried out on its long-term effects on human organ systems other than teeth and because not enough studies had been done on the effects of fluoride discharges on freshwater ecosystems." – If you’re going to do something like this, you have to be 10,000% sure that they’ll be no negative ramifications. You can’t beta-test something with the population’s water supply to try & save money by fighting cavities.
    Such a study would be subject to the same problems you're referencing above, though, right? If large scale negative health consequences were resulting from fluoridation, after 60 years it seems logical to me it would have shown up by now. The benefits certainly were evident, and quickly. As far as freshwater ecosystems, fluoride is already present naturally in many freshwater sources, so why would that be hard to test?

    It’s a bit different. Most minerals are only poisonous because they were being used in absurd quantities. Fluoride is only not poisonous if you take it in infinitesimal doses. There is no daily required intake dose for fluoride, as there is for salt or vitamin D.
    How is that different? Any vitamin or mineral is poisonous at large doses, same as fluoride. There might not be a daily required intake dose of fluoride, okay, but there isn't one for alcohol, either. Yet you have no problem drinking that because you know how to use it responsibly.
    Quote Quote  

  10. -20
    rob19's Avatar
    Soul Rebel

    Status:
    Online
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Mar 2006
    Posts:
    7,542
    vCash:
    9622
    Loc:
    Georgia
    Thanks / No Thanks
    1972 Dolphins Logo
    Quote Originally Posted by TheWalrus View Post
    Such a study would be subject to the same problems you're referencing above, though, right? If large scale negative health consequences were resulting from fluoridation, after 60 years it seems logical to me it would have shown up by now. The benefits certainly were evident, and quickly.
    A recently published Harvard University meta-analysis funded by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) has concluded that children who live in areas with highly fluoridated water have "significantly lower" IQ scores than those who live in low fluoride areas.

    "A recent report from the U.S. National Research Council (NRC 2006)2 concluded that adverse effects of high fluoride concentrations in drinking water may be of concern and that additional research is warranted. Fluoride may cause neurotoxicity in laboratory animals, including effects on learning and memory…

    To summarize the available literature, we performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of published studies on increased fluoride exposure in drinking water and neurodevelopmental delays. We specifically targeted studies carried out in rural China that have not been widely disseminated, thus complementing the studies that have been included in previous reviews and risk assessment reports...

    Findings from our meta-analyses of 27 studies published over 22 years suggest an inverse association between high fluoride exposure and children's intelligence... The results suggest that fluoride may be a developmental neurotoxicant that affects brain development at exposures much below those that can cause toxicity in adults...

    Serum-fluoride concentrations associated with high intakes from drinking-water may exceed 1 mg/L, or 50 Smol/L, thus more than 1000-times the levels of some other neurotoxicants that cause neurodevelopmental damage. Supporting the plausibility of our findings, rats exposed to 1 ppm (50 Smol/L) of water-fluoride for one year showed morphological alterations in the brain and increased levels of aluminum in brain tissue compared with controls...

    In conclusion, our results support the possibility of adverse effects of fluoride exposures on children's neurodevelopment.

    http://articles.mercola.com/sites/ar...-children.aspx

    Quote Originally Posted by TheWalrus
    How is that different? Any vitamin or mineral is poisonous at large doses, same as fluoride. There might not be a daily required intake dose of fluoride, okay, but there isn't one for alcohol, either. Yet you have no problem drinking that because you know how to use it responsibly.
    It's different. Vitamin-D isn't inherently poisonous, Fluoride is. Saying that "anything can be poisonous at large enough quantities", isn't really a valid argument imo. You can inject yourself with a small enough dose of black-widow venom & it won't adversely affect you.
    Quote Quote  

Similar Threads

  1. Are Compact Fluorescent Lights Harmful?
    By rob19 in forum Science & Technology
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 12-05-2012, 12:49 PM
  2. Replies: 9
    Last Post: 07-15-2011, 08:12 PM
  3. Pft: Handling Of Culpepper Harmful To Fins?
    By AllianceCollect in forum Miami Dolphins Forum
    Replies: 70
    Last Post: 07-22-2007, 10:20 PM
  4. Replies: 29
    Last Post: 03-24-2007, 08:55 PM
  5. Sea Creature Toxin Kills Cancer Cells With No Harmful Side Effects
    By ckb2001 in forum Political | War Forum
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: 02-07-2007, 10:22 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •