Simple fluoride question

[Mr.D]

has anyone ever gotten flourosis from drinking normal amounts of typical tap water?

WR has posted some links to papers and articles that show rural China has fluorsis problems which are linked to areas with relatively high levels of naturally occurring fluoride.





ETA: Of course he's now come out against removing said fluoride (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=5246286#post5246286) from the water, so in WR's world, I guess said Chinese are SOL (as are the millions of Americans with comparable levels of fluoride - who curiously don't get fluorsis)

[Thunder]

WR has posted some links to papers and articles that show rural China has fluorsis problems which are linked to areas with relatively high levels of naturally occurring fluoride.

how about in the USA, Canada, Australia, Britain, or Western Europe?

anything? anything? nothing? Bueller?

[Ladewig]

The mechanism, fluoride reduces I.Q, alters the hypothalamus and causes ADD. By damaging brain function and reducing intelligence people are less likely to worry about things in the world that require thought.

Since you just asked about chemicals in general, many chemicals are made to pacify dissent in patients. Seraquill and Thorazine are commonly used.

Rep or Dem? Neither. It is lobbyist paid for by aluminum and phosphate corporations. Since fluoride is toxic it is expensive to dispose of. Now it is sold for profit instead of being an expense.


I never got an answer so I'll ask again.

Don't these chemical corporation conspirators fly on airplanes operated and maintained by the "brain-damaged" population? Don't they use elevators and bridges designed and maintained by these "brain-damaged" folks? Do they care so little for their own safety that they are willing to jeopardize their own lives as part of this scheme?

[Without Rights]

I didn't say anything about drinking it.

I thought that this was a thread about fluoridation of drinking water

[Without Rights]

Why not? Poison is poison is poison according to your argument, right?



I don't advocate removing fluoride from natural resources, I think even the thought is ludicrous. I don't advocate wiping arsenic off the planet either, but I don't want it added to my drinking water.

[Without Rights]

WR has posted some links to papers and articles that show rural China has fluorsis problems which are linked to areas with relatively high levels of naturally occurring fluoride.

Yeah, that was one of the studies. Mentioning that one doesn't negate all the others.





ETA: Of course he's now come out against removing said fluoride (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=5246286#post5246286) from the water, so in WR's world, I guess said Chinese are SOL (as are the millions of Americans with comparable levels of fluoride - who curiously don't get fluorsis)

Strange.

[Without Rights]

how about in the USA, Canada, Australia, Britain, or Western Europe?

Ok

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=second-thoughts-on-fluoride

[Without Rights]

I never got an answer so I'll ask again.

Don't these chemical corporation conspirators fly on airplanes operated and maintained by the "brain-damaged" population? Don't they use elevators and bridges designed and maintained by these "brain-damaged" folks? Do they care so little for their own safety that they are willing to jeopardize their own lives as part of this scheme?

It doesn't make you retarded, just dumber. Not so dumb you slober and can't function. Just so dumb that you can't read a scientific article about how drinking fluoride is bad without coming up with lame arguments that make you feel comfortable about poisoning yourself.

[Ladewig]

It doesn't make you retarded, just dumber. Not so dumb you slober and can't function. Just so dumb that you can't read a scientific article about how drinking fluoride is bad without coming up with lame arguments that make you feel comfortable about poisoning yourself.

So you are saying that it is possible to be brain-damaged to such an extent that you cannot react to a scientific article about how damaging fluoride is, but you can still perform complicated, intricate tasks necessary to fly a jumbo jet safely. Stuff and nonsense. Why are you buying this?


Oh, and thanks for the jab where you describe the people on this board as being brain damaged enough to come up with lame arguments. You're on your way to win this argument for sure.

[Without Rights]

So you are saying that it is possible to be brain-damaged to such an extent that you cannot react to a scientific article about how damaging fluoride is, but you can still perform complicated, intricate tasks necessary to fly a jumbo jet safely. Stuff and nonsense. Why are you buying this?

Oh, I meant brain damaged enough to not recognize a joke when you see one.


Oh, and thanks for the jab where you describe the people on this board as being brain damaged enough to come up with lame arguments. You're on your way to win this argument for sure.

Actually it was a jab at one guy.


I thought jokes might be better arguing tools since these have no effect.

International Association for Dental Research 83rd General Session and Exhibition. Toronto, Canada.
Poster 2205. July 4, 2008
[/URL]
Tang Q-Q, Du J, Ma H-H, Jiang S-J, Zhou X-J.
[URL="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18695947"] (http://www.fluoridealert.org/connett.limeback.pdf) Biol Trace Elem Res. 2008 Aug 10. 2008.

Committee on Fluoride in Drinking Water, National Research Council
http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=11571

"Common thyroid symptoms include (http://www.pr-inside.com/first-ever-government-review-of-fluoride-thyroid-r596428.htm#) fatigue, weight gain, constipation, fuzzy thinking, low (http://www.pr-inside.com/first-ever-government-review-of-fluoride-thyroid-r596428.htm#) blood pressure, fluid retention, depression, body pain, slow reflexes, and more. It's estimated that 59 million
Americans have thyroid conditions."

Xiang Q, Liang Y, Chen L, Wang C, Chen B, Chen X, Zhou M. (2003)
Effect of fluoride in drinking water on children's intelligence (http://www.fluorideresearch.org/362/files/FJ2003_v36_n2_p84-94.pdf).
Fluoride 36(2): 84-94. 2003.

[Without Rights]

I guess said Chinese are SOL (as are the millions of Americans with comparable levels of fluoride - who curiously don't get fluorsis)

So let me get this straight, you are arguing that fluoride does not cause dental fluorosis?

Oh and, prevalence of fluorosis in America has increased since fluoridation

Warren JJ, Levy SM. (2003). Current and future role of fluoride in nutrition. Dental Clinics of North America47: 225-43.

"There is compelling evidence that the prevalence of dental fluorosis has increased in the United States and Canada in recent years."

Marshall TA, et al. (2004). Associations between Intakes of Fluoride from Beverages during Infancy and Dental Fluorosis of Primary Teeth. Journal of the American College of Nutrition 23:108-16.

"The prevalence of fluorosis in permanent teeth in areas with fluoridated water has increased.. to as high as 70%"

[Resolver]

If the amount of fluoridation done is so insignificantly small in terms of negative effects on health, how is it still supposedly so effective against tooth decay in these miniscule amounts?

How are the claims that fluoridation can have negative affects on some aspects of health so much crazier than the claims that it has positive effects on teeth (in small dosages, before it brings on dental fluorosis)?

[Gord_in_Toronto]

And how is it that you can drown in water when everyone knows that you can drink a glass of water without drowning? And, if you don't drink any water at all, you die of thirst? :confused: and :boggled:

[Resolver]

If x amount of fluoride can have positive effect a, why is it impossible it has negative effect b?

We have to look at the evidence for a and b. Have the skeptics addressed the research finds for b that were posted, yet?

[Sledge]

If two co-codamol make my back feel better, how can a hundred kill me?

[Gord_in_Toronto]

If x amount of fluoride can have positive effect a, why is it impossible it has negative effect b?

We have to look at the evidence for a and b. Have the skeptics addressed the research finds for b that were posted, yet?

No. They all died of fluoride poisoning.

:jaw-dropp

[Resolver]

If two co-codamol make my back feel better, how can a hundred kill me?

LoL :)

No, but the point is that while 2 can make your back feel better, they might also have detrimental affects at that dosage.

Similarly, 1 ppm fluoride might still be good for your teeth, but might also have detrimental health effects.

There should be discussion of the actual research behind the claims for and against the supposed detrimental effects.

Those questioning fluoridation have put forth research supporting the claim of detrimental effects.

It seems up to the skeptics to now refute that scientific research or provide more convincing research finds against those effects.

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4304878&postcount=186

[JoeB]

Finally read through this beast of a zombied thread.

I know it's been a while, but did anyone else find it ironic that WR started his anti-fluoridation rants by poisoning the well (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4210589&postcount=17)?

[Resolver]

Finally read through this beast of a zombied thread.

I know it's been a while, but did anyone else find it ironic that WR started his anti-fluoridation rants by poisoning the well (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4210589&postcount=17)?

WR might be wrong about this pacifying theory. Maybe Hitler just wanted his Arians to have nice white teeth.

But how about the research of the detrimental effects of fluoride? Can someone address that directly?

Here are links to some of that research:

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4304878&postcount=186

[Sledge]

Ok, so the government of the United Kingdom is deliberately poisoning it's population to...

:confused:

... what's the point of this plot again? You seem to be suggesting that various world governments are spending money on something that they know is bad for people. Why are they doing this?

[Edx]

wow.....this thread is still here?

Im amazed I was the one that started it :D

[Edx]

Ok, so the government of the United Kingdom is deliberately poisoning it's population to...

:confused:

So the NHS have to spend more money duh!... wait...

[Resolver]

Ok, so the government of the United Kingdom is deliberately poisoning it's population to...

:confused:

... what's the point of this plot again? You seem to be suggesting that various world governments are spending money on something that they know is bad for people. Why are they doing this?

Who is? Me? No, I just want this negative research addressed:

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4304878&postcount=186

[Sledge]

So the NHS have to spend more money duh!... wait...
I think a lot of these medical-type conspiracy theories show a USan-centric attitude. In the States, the idea that "big pharma" is manipulating the government so they make more money does make sense (in a bat-squeak insane kinda way). It falls apart in countries like the UK, where it's in the government's best interest to keep healthcare costs as low as possible.
Who is? Me? No, I just want this negative research addressed:

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php...&postcount=186

Ok. It's cobblers. Glad I could help. :)

[Resolver]

I think a lot of these medical-type conspiracy theories show a USan-centric attitude. In the States, the idea that "big pharma" is manipulating the government so they make more money does make sense (in a bat-squeak insane kinda way). It falls apart in countries like the UK, where it's in the government's best interest to keep healthcare costs as low as possible.


Ok. It's cobblers. Glad I could help. :)

What is cobblers about this research, itself, in regards to negative health effects (not conspiracy)?

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4304878&postcount=186

What counter research do you find more convincing?

I just want to know if there is good evidence it is bad at 1-4 ppm, for now, aside from any CT explanation of why it is still in our water.

[Naddig74]

When I was born my mother worked at Bristol University and I was given fluoride supplements as part of a study.

It was a pretty shoddy study, since no-one from Bristle has ever looked me up and asked me any health/teeth related questions.

At the age of 35, I have yet to have an extraction or filling, but then my father didn't get a filling until he was in his thirties either.

I've always been medically well, barring extremely mild asthma. I have had a few problems with depression and anxiety, but that can be traced to unpleasant childhood experiences.

[Gord_in_Toronto]

Who is? Me? No, I just want this negative research addressed:

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4304878&postcount=186


The most recent study in the OP list is from 1994. The earliest from 1943.

The FDI World Dental Federation is a federation of approximately 200 national dental associations and specialist groups. The organisation's vision of "leading the world to optimal oral health" acknowledges that oral health is an integral part of general health and well-being.

They state, as a result of their Congress in 2008
Promoting Dental Health through Water Fluoridation (http://www.fdiworldental.org/sites/default/files/statements/English/Promoting-dental-health-through-water-fluoridation-2008.pdf) (2008)

Water fluoridation is the adjustment of the fluoride concentration in fluoride deficient water supplies to a level recommended for optimal oral health. More than 350 million people in over 30 countries receive the benefits of water fluoridation.
In recognition of the importance of promoting dental health through water fluoridation, the FDI World Dental Federation states that:
— Over sixty years of research and recent systematic reviews have shown that water fluoridation is an effective and efficient public health measure for the prevention of dental decay.
— Water fluoridation is particularly appropriate for populations demonstrating moderate to high risk of dental decay.
— At the fluoride concentrations recommended for the prevention of dental decay, human health is not adversely affected.
— In establishing the optimal level of fluoride to be used in water to prevent dental decay, public authorities should take into account the prevailing ambient air temperature, the availability of other sources of fluoride as well as dietary and cultural practices in the community.
— Water supplies to be fluoridated should be reliable and should be processed with the necessary facilities and expertise available to implement and monitor water fluoridation.
— Public health authorities should on the basis of scientific evidence monitor the effectiveness of water fluoridation, along with other methods of delivering fluoride for dental decay prevention.
— The public health benefits of water fluoridation far outweigh the possible occurrence of very mild enamel fluorosis/enamel opacities. The FDI recognises that prevention by using fluoride is the most realistic way of reducing the heavy burden of dental decay worldwide.

Bibliography
• McDonagh MS, Whiting PF, Wilson PM, Sutton AJ, Chestnutt I, Cooper J, Misso K, Bradley M, Treasure E, Kleijnen J. Systematic review of water fluoridation. BMJ. 2000;321:855-9.
• Truman BI, Gooch BF, Sulemana I, Gift HC, Horowitz AM, Evans CA, Griffin SO, Carande-Kulis VG. Reviews of evidence on interventions to prevent dental caries, oral and pharyngeal cancers, and sports-related craniofacial injuries. Am J Prev Med 2002;23 (1 Suppl):21-54I suggest you read the first paper referenced. It's available from the British Medical Journal. http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/321/7265/855

The Conclusions: The evidence of a beneficial reduction in caries should be considered together with the increased prevalence of dental fluorosis. There was no clear evidence of other potential adverse effects.
Dr McDonagh e-mail address is there too. You might consider (very carefully) if you would like to ask her any further questions.

:th:

[Resolver]

The most recent study in the OP list is from 1994. The earliest from 1943.

The FDI World Dental Federation is a federation of approximately 200 national dental associations and specialist groups. The organisation's vision of "leading the world to optimal oral health" acknowledges that oral health is an integral part of general health and well-being.

They state, as a result of their Congress in 2008
Promoting Dental Health through Water Fluoridation (http://www.fdiworldental.org/sites/default/files/statements/English/Promoting-dental-health-through-water-fluoridation-2008.pdf) (2008)

I suggest you read the first paper referenced. It's available from the British Medical Journal. http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/321/7265/855

The Dr McDonagh e-mail address is there too. You might consider (very carefully) if you would like to ask her any further questions.

:th:

I'm not sure how much the dates of those studies matter, but the counter evidence seems good. I'll check it out. Thanks!

[Gord_in_Toronto]

Awesome, thanks.

Just trying to put the E in JREFF. ;)

[Mr.D]

Conclusions: The evidence of a beneficial reduction in caries should be considered together with the increased prevalence of dental fluorosis. There was no clear evidence of other potential adverse effects.


Wait. You mean you have to do things like take them in context?

Next thing you're going to try to claim is that there's a difference between the rural Chinese population and the US general population that explains why fluorosis is more prevalent in one than the other.

Shill.

[Tomblvd]

I think a lot of these medical-type conspiracy theories show a USan-centric attitude. In the States, the idea that "big pharma" is manipulating the government so they make more money does make sense (in a bat-squeak insane kinda way). It falls apart in countries like the UK, where it's in the government's best interest to keep healthcare costs as low as possible.


Not to mention the many areas of the earth where ground water fluoride levels are well above the "optimal" dose.

Now why would mother earth poison us???:jaw-dropp

(I point that out on every fluoride thread I come across and I have yet to receive a cogent response)

[defaultdotxbe]

Not to mention the many areas of the earth where ground water fluoride levels are well above the "optimal" dose.

Now why would mother earth poison us???:jaw-dropp

(I point that out on every fluoride thread I come across and I have yet to receive a cogent response)
i was once told the fluoride in naturally fluoridated water is different from the kind used in artificially fluoridated water (and thus completely safe)

i asked for evidence of this difference and subsequent safety and of course was given none, however another poster later quote the first poster as the evidence i requested. i literally had no words and had to excuse myself from the forum. im sure they chalked it up as a win

[Mr.D]

Now why would mother earth poison us???:jaw-dropp

(I point that out on every fluoride thread I come across and I have yet to receive a cogent response)

Well, If Without Rights takes a break from misrepresenting Vitamin C studies over in the Science/Medicine forum maybe he'll come up with something.

(OTOH, IIRC he came out earlier in this thread not caring about naturally occurring "poison" so ...)

[Resolver]

The most recent study in the OP list is from 1994. The earliest from 1943.

The FDI World Dental Federation is a federation of approximately 200 national dental associations and specialist groups. The organisation's vision of "leading the world to optimal oral health" acknowledges that oral health is an integral part of general health and well-being.

They state, as a result of their Congress in 2008
Promoting Dental Health through Water Fluoridation (http://www.fdiworldental.org/sites/default/files/statements/English/Promoting-dental-health-through-water-fluoridation-2008.pdf) (2008)

I suggest you read the first paper referenced. It's available from the British Medical Journal. http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/321/7265/855

The Dr McDonagh e-mail address is there too. You might consider (very carefully) if you would like to ask her any further questions.

:th:

The British Fluoride Society study (from the FDI World Dental Federation overview link) "One in a million - the facts about water fluoridation" does show show that fluoridation helps in tooth decay, especially in lower income areas, but doesn't address negative effects, AFAIK.

The British Medical Journal study in the second link seems like a study of other studies.

"Design: Search of 25 electronic databases and world wide web. Relevant journals hand searched;"

Low quality studies:

"214 studies were included. The quality of studies was low to moderate. "

So this was not a direct study, as far as I can tell, but an analysis of a set of lower quality studies. It would be interesting to know which studies were chosen and the particular validity scores given for each study. I'm looking through that now. It should be here: http://www.york.ac.uk/inst/crd/fluores.htm

For example, it would be helpful to have the validity scores for these negative effects studies, in particular, along with counter studies:
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4304878&postcount=186

[Ryokan]

I see some people use the argument that not all countries add fluoride to the water, and if it is such a wise thing, why aren't they?

I'm from Norway, one country that does not add fluoride to the water. However, because of that, children have to eat fluoride pills. I remember taking one every night until I was around 12-13.

So don't believe we don't get any fluoride. Chances are, we get more!

[Resolver]

I see some people use the argument that not all countries add fluoride to the water, and if it is such a wise thing, why aren't they?

I'm from Norway, one country that does not add fluoride to the water. However, because of that, children have to eat fluoride pills. I remember taking one every night until I was around 12-13.

So don't believe we don't get any fluoride. Chances are, we get more!

So far, it seems to me that fluoridation can help prevent tooth decay.

But I'm only ~95% convinced it isn't also harmful. Would be nice to feel closer to 99.9%.

[Puppycow]

I can no longer sit back and allow Communist infiltration, Communist indoctrination, Communist subversion and the international Communist conspiracy to sap and impurify all of our precious bodily fluids. :)

[defaultdotxbe]

I see some people use the argument that not all countries add fluoride to the water, and if it is such a wise thing, why aren't they?

I'm from Norway, one country that does not add fluoride to the water. However, because of that, children have to eat fluoride pills. I remember taking one every night until I was around 12-13.

So don't believe we don't get any fluoride. Chances are, we get more!
one argument that came up earlier in this thread was that fluoride in the water wouldnt work because it doesnt stay on the teeth only enough when you drink it, wonder how he would respond to tablets, lol

[Tomblvd]

Well, If Without Rights takes a break from misrepresenting Vitamin C studies over in the Science/Medicine forum maybe he'll come up with something.

(OTOH, IIRC he came out earlier in this thread not caring about naturally occurring "poison" so ...)

Been there, done that with him.

He, along with others, have tried to claim that fluoride ions from calcium fluoride (the most abundant natural fluoride compound) were somehow different from those from sodium fluoride (which is also naturally occurring, but they ignore that) or other compounds used to fluoridate water.

He was never clear how that happened....

[Tomblvd]

I see some people use the argument that not all countries add fluoride to the water, and if it is such a wise thing, why aren't they?

I'm from Norway, one country that does not add fluoride to the water. However, because of that, children have to eat fluoride pills. I remember taking one every night until I was around 12-13.

So don't believe we don't get any fluoride. Chances are, we get more!

Many European countries that anti-fluoride sites proclaim have "rejected fluoridation!!!11!" actually put it in salt, much like the US has iodized salt.

[Mr.D]

He, along with others, have tried to claim that fluoride ions from calcium fluoride (the most abundant natural fluoride compound) were somehow different from those from sodium fluoride (which is also naturally occurring, but they ignore that) or other compounds used to fluoridate water.

Wonder if he knows if the Vitamin C he's touting over in the Science thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=178614) is "naturally occuring" or laboratory made.

[Gord_in_Toronto]

<snip>

The British Medical Journal study in the second link seems like a study of other studies.

"Design: Search of 25 electronic databases and world wide web. Relevant journals hand searched;"

Low quality studies:

"214 studies were included. The quality of studies was low to moderate. "

So this was not a direct study, as far as I can tell, but an analysis of a set of lower quality studies. It would be interesting to know which studies were chosen and the particular validity scores given for each study. I'm looking through that now. It should be here: http://www.york.ac.uk/inst/crd/fluores.htm



I think you are misinterpreting the above statement of "Low quality studies". The studies selected were those which qualified for analysis according to the criteria of the report. None of the quality of the studies found were any better than "low to moderate". Such a study is called a Meta-analysis. It is a recognized approach in science.

For example, it would be helpful to have the validity scores for these negative effects studies, in particular, along with counter studies:
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4304878&postcount=186As I stated in my previous post, some of these date back to 1943. They may or may not be included in the meta-analysis. I have read the Executive Summary of the study, A Systematic Review of Public Water Fluoridation 2000, I find it convincing. Why don't you read the rest of the report and let us know what you think?

[Resolver]

I think you are misinterpreting the above statement of "Low quality studies". The studies selected were those which qualified for analysis according to the criteria of the report. None of the quality of the studies found were any better than "low to moderate". Such a study is called a Meta-analysis. It is a recognized approach in science.

As I stated in my previous post, some of these date back to 1943. They may or may not be included in the meta-analysis. I have read the Executive Summary of the study, A Systematic Review of Public Water Fluoridation 2000, I find it convincing. Why don't you read the rest of the report and let us know what you think?

Yes, that's what I understood about this meta-analysis study, as well.

I'll try to get around to reading it along with the negative studies. They are pretty long. I might at first just try to find reference, in the meta-analysis, to the more respected and later dated negative studies, and see what it says about those. Whoever else takes out some time to do that and otherwise help analyze these and other particular studies proving/disproving negative effects will be much appreciated.

[dudalb]

I can no longer sit back and allow Communist infiltration, Communist indoctrination, Communist subversion and the international Communist conspiracy to sap and impurify all of our precious bodily fluids. :)

Sorry, but you have been beaten to it badly. Early on in this thread we had the Jack D Ripper quotes and You Tube links.

[AaronMHatch]

Just finished reading this thread after two long sittings.

It seems that when you anti-fluoriders stay away from conspiracies and focus on the one crucial point, intelligent progress is made.

The most important point anti-fluoriders have is that ingesting the substance may impair our health.

I have not seen conclusive evidence for or against this claim. Once it has been concluded that large levels of fluoride have detrimental health effects, then we need to figure out at what levels they occur and in what compounds. Is it the fluoride ion that causes the health impairment? If so, does the type of compound really matter?

Conspiracy theories cannot stand without the science. If fluoride is not dangerous at the administered levels, then there is no case.

[Gord_in_Toronto]

Just finished reading this thread after two long sittings.

It seems that when you anti-fluoriders stay away from conspiracies and focus on the one crucial point, intelligent progress is made.

The most important point anti-fluoriders have is that ingesting the substance may impair our health.

I have not seen conclusive evidence for or against this claim. Once it has been concluded that large levels of fluoride have detrimental health effects, then we need to figure out at what levels they occur and in what compounds. Is it the fluoride ion that causes the health impairment? If so, does the type of compound really matter?

Conspiracy theories cannot stand without the science. If fluoride is not dangerous at the administered levels, then there is no case.

The meta-analysis at http://www.york.ac.uk/inst/crd/fluores.htm investigated the "harm" caused by fluoridation. As I noted in a previous post, I have only read the Executive Summary and I find the conclusions there satisfactory. If you want to read the entire study, why not so so?

Or wait for Resolver to report back to us? ;)

[AaronMHatch]

The meta-analysis at http://www.york.ac.uk/inst/crd/fluores.htm investigated the "harm" caused by fluoridation. As I noted in a previous post, I have only read the Executive Summary and I find the conclusions there satisfactory. If you want to read the entire study, why not so so?

Or wait for Resolver to report back to us? ;)

I read the Executive Summary, as well, when you first posted it. Outside of dental fluorosis, which is more of a cosmetic issue than a health hazard, and a poor correlation with bone cancer, there is very little information regarding health risks with fluoride levels in water. The section discussing other negative effects says this:

"Interpreting the results of studies of other possible negative effects is very difficult because of the small numbers of studies that met inclusion criteria on each specific outcome, and poor study quality."

Basically, this meta analysis looked at poorly administered studies. I could read through the articles for any valuable information in the introductions, however.

[sackett]

I can no longer sit back and allow Communist infiltration, Communist indoctrination, Communist subversion and the international Communist conspiracy to sap and impurify all of our precious bodily fluids. :)

They're even putting it in ice cream. Kids' ice cream, Mandrake.

[Gord_in_Toronto]

I read the Executive Summary, as well, when you first posted it. Outside of dental fluorosis, which is more of a cosmetic issue than a health hazard, and a poor correlation with bone cancer, there is very little information regarding health risks with fluoride levels in water. The section discussing other negative effects says this:

"Interpreting the results of studies of other possible negative effects is very difficult because of the small numbers of studies that met inclusion criteria on each specific outcome, and poor study quality."

Basically, this meta analysis looked at poorly administered studies. I could read through the articles for any valuable information in the introductions, however.

You seem to be misinterpreting the input to the meta-analysis. It did not deliberately select "poorly administered studies"; all studies were selected (according to the criteria in the report) -- there were no good ones.

Based on the studies that were available there is no "proof" that fluoridation causes severe problems. I am prepared to accept this based on the source of the analysis and my reading of the Summary. If you have problems with this, then you should read the entire study, evaluate the studies used in the meta-analysis and see if there are any studies that are missed or misrepresented that do show such "proof".

[AaronMHatch]

You seem to be misinterpreting the input to the meta-analysis. It did not deliberately select "poorly administered studies"; all studies were selected (according to the criteria in the report) -- there were no good ones.
".

You misinterpreted my statement. I simply said that the meta-analysis looked at poorly designed studies. I'm aware that there may not be any well designed studies available for review.

My point still stands, however. Studies with higher integrity need to be administered to decide whether fluoride causes harm to cognition, among other disease.

And while we wait for said studies, fluoride continues to pass through our water. I don't believe it makes us docile and obedient, but solid research into the effects of consuming the type fluoride put in municipal water is warranted.

[AaronMHatch]

My dental hygienist said that there isn't enough fluoride in the water to have much of a benefit. There's also not enough to hurt us. She wondered why municipalities pay for it.

[Gord_in_Toronto]

My dental hygienist said that there isn't enough fluoride in the water to have much of a benefit. There's also not enough to hurt us. She wondered why municipalities pay for it.

I suppose her position is better than "the fluoride rat poison the NWO puts in our water is turning all our babies brains to mush" but it is just as uninformed.

[Edx]

Quick question that was probably answered in this thread but a search turned up nothing.

A CT copy and pasted this claim from a anti-fluoride website:

"1) The currently accepted estimate for the minimum lethal dose of fluoride is 5 mg/kg (i.e. 5 milligrams of fluoride for each kilogram of bodyweight). This dose is referred to in the medical literature as the "Probably Toxic Dose" or "PTD." It is sufficient to produce severe poisoning, including death, in some individuals."

http://www.fluoridealert.org/health/accidents/lethal.html

My responce was that this says 5-10g, but what about the dose in water? Quite a lot less.


But I was just wondering if this was true at all. the source cited is:

"The PTD, 5.0 mg F/kg, is defined as the dose of ingested fluoride that should trigger immediate therapeutic intervention and hospitalization because of the likelihood of serious toxic consequences.”
SOURCE: Whitford GM. (1987). Fluoride in dental products: safety considerations. Journal of Dental Research 66: 1056-60.

That website makes a bunch of other claims from the same source such as:

"it may be concluded that if a child ingests a fluoride dose in excess of 15 mg F/kg, then death is likely to occur. A dose as low as 5 mg F/kg may be fatal for some children. Therefore, the probably toxic dose (PTD), defined as the threshold dose that could cause serious or life-threatening systemic signs and symptoms and that should trigger immediate emergency treatment and hospitalization, is 5 mg F/kg."

"This does not mean that doses lower than 5.0 mg F/kg should be regarded as innocuous." (italics in original)


But I can find no information about this source including on this forum.

[Resolver]

"In 2006, a 12-person committee of the US National Research Council (NRC) reviewed the health risks associated with fluoride consumption[12] and unanimously concluded that the maximum contaminant level of 4 mg/L should be lowered. The EPA has yet to act on the NRC's recommendation.[13][14] The limit was previously 1.4 – 2.4 mg/L, but it was raised to 4 mg/L in 1985.[15]"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fluoride_poisoning#Chronic_toxicity

Update: I have not yet read the whole previously mentioned meta-analysis. I might take the time now to look it over.

[Resolver]

Ok, so I did some quick searches of the full text of this meta-analysis study which concludes mostly against evidence of fluoridation health risks.

http://www.york.ac.uk/inst/crd/fluores.htm

The meta-analysis seems to have not covered many of the hazards papers that have been put forth in the link below. For example, I found no mention of the word "immune", at all.

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4304878&postcount=186

I looked up many of the other terms, paper names, and authors of the fluoridation hazards studies and nothing came up. The only thing that did come up was mention of 2 studies on Thyroid Cancer (not other issues with Thyroid) and the Lian/Zhang/Wu study of the effect on children's intelligence.

I stopped looking about 2/3 down the list of hazard research papers, concluding, thus far, that these papers were either not evaluated, or otherwise not mentioned specifically in the meta-analysis linked above.

I also checked Appendix A, B, and the 12 parts of Appendix C of the meta-analysis.

Not a single mention of the word "immune", which was in the title of at least one extant fluoride hazards study.

Please check my work on this if you have the time.

So, this meta-analysis is lacking in terms of refuting the specific fluoridation hazards studies mentioned, some of which come from mainstream and/or respected groups such as the American Medical Association.

If the best refutation of these hazard studies is a meta-analysis that does not even cover the studies, then, this, together with the unanimous 12-vote from the US National Research Council (NRC) in 2006 to lower the current 4mg / liter fluoridation limit for health risks, makes me lean towards the conclusion that the safety of current limits is not demonstrated with sufficient confidence. It seems there is now a burden of proof to refute the hazard claims.

[double_o]

Resolver-
The York study isn't a study intended to refute anti-fluoridation claims, but is a meta analysis of the available scientific data. If it doesn't include studies about certain supposed health hazard it's because they didn't find any.
I looked for the study "Immune Status of Children in Chemically Contaminated Environments" at pubmed and didn't find it.

If the best refutation of these hazard studies is a meta-analysis that does not even cover the studies, then, this, together with the unanimous 12-vote from the US National Research Council (NRC) in 2006 to lower the current 4mg / liter fluoridation limit for health risks, makes me lean towards the conclusion that the safety of current limits is not demonstrated with sufficient confidence. It seems there is now a burden of proof to refute the hazard claims.

You are wrong about the NRC and fluoridation. You see anti-fluoridationists will try to make you think that fluoride in the water means fluoridation, it doesn't. Fluoride is naturally occuring element in drinking water, almost all drinking water contains some amount of fluoride. It was the comparison between areas with high concentration of fluoride with areas with low concentrations that to the understanding that fluoride helps prevent tooth decay. Fluoridation is the adjustment of fluoride in water to the optimal level to prevent tooth decay. The concnertarion of fluoride to which water are fluoridated to is lower than fluoride limit in drinking water.
This from the NRC report (http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=11571&page=R1):
Fluoride is one of the drinking-water contaminants regulated by EPA. In 1986, EPA established an MCLG and MCL for fluoride at a concentration of 4 milligrams per liter (mg/L) and an SMCL of 2 mg/L. These guidelines are restrictions on the total amount of fluoride allowed in drinking water. Because fluoride is well known for its use in the prevention of dental caries, it is important to make the distinction here that EPA’s drinking-water guidelines are not recommendations about adding fluoride to drinking water to protect the public from dental caries. Guidelines for that purpose (0.7 to 1.2 mg/L) were established by the U.S. Public Health Service more than 40 years ago. Instead, EPA’s guidelines are maximum allowable concentrations in drinking water intended to prevent toxic or other adverse effects that could result from exposure to fluoride.
(page 1)

and
The committee’s conclusions regarding the potential for adverse effects from fluoride at 2 to 4 mg/L in drinking water do not address the lower exposures commonly experienced by most U.S. citizens. Fluoridation is widely practiced in the United States to protect against the development of dental caries; fluoride is added to public water supplies at 0.7 to 1.2 mg/L.
(page 11)

So the NRC said nothing about fluoridation, yet you'll often find anti fluoridation sites mention the NRC study as if it supports them although in clearly doesn't. In fact the NRC didn't recommended to change the SMCL of 2 mg/L meaning that they find it safe to drink.

[Resolver]

Resolver-
The York study isn't a study intended to refute anti-fluoridation claims, but is a meta analysis of the available scientific data. If it doesn't include studies about certain supposed health hazard it's because they didn't find any.
I looked for the study "Immune Status of Children in Chemically Contaminated Environments" at pubmed and didn't find it.



You are wrong about the NRC and fluoridation. You see anti-fluoridationists will try to make you think that fluoride in the water means fluoridation, it doesn't. Fluoride is naturally occuring element in drinking water, almost all drinking water contains some amount of fluoride. It was the comparison between areas with high concentration of fluoride with areas with low concentrations that to the understanding that fluoride helps prevent tooth decay. Fluoridation is the adjustment of fluoride in water to the optimal level to prevent tooth decay. The concnertarion of fluoride to which water are fluoridated to is lower than fluoride limit in drinking water.
This from the NRC report (http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=11571&page=R1):

(page 1)

and

(page 11)

So the NRC said nothing about fluoridation, yet you'll often find anti fluoridation sites mention the NRC study as if it supports them although in clearly doesn't. In fact the NRC didn't recommended to change the SMCL of 2 mg/L meaning that they find it safe to drink.

OIC. Thanks for clearing that up.

A couple questions:

1) So not 1 immune studies don't show up in PubMed? How about those AMA studies, and the rest of hazards studies in the link?

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4304878&postcount=186

2) If they don't show up in PubMed, does that mean they are worthless? If not, then shouldn't they be countered for people to disbelieve their hazard claims?

3) About concentration levels: what if I drink 2 times as much water? Will 2 times as much fluoride be excreted due to the 2 times water? I suppose that the natural occurrence of water suggests this, but do we really know that people that drink well-water or other highly fluoridated water don't have any issues. I know the burden of proof is to show they have issues, but maybe it hasn't been investigated much either way, so maybe its reasonable to keep this a bit open.

4) So there is no good evidence of fluoride build-up in the body?

Thanks!

[Resolver]

Here's some debunking:

I couldn't verify the most damning of some of the big name other quotes.

-Journal of the American Dental Association, Editorial, October 1, 1944.
http://jada.ada.org/search.dtl
Too old for online search.

-"Increased Incidence of Melanotic Tumours Following Treatment with Sodium Fluoride", Genetics Vol 48, pp 307-310 (1963)
http://www.genetics.org/
Didn't find any article with that title there. Correct journal?

So, the list might only be partially true, with the real quotes being the little known names, and the unverifiable quotes being from the big names.

However, the US National Research Center report (2006) advising lowering from 4mg / liter limit (which only 200,000 people see exceded), explains that the amount of water drunk matters:

http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=11571&page=3

Furthermore, the NRC says that 4mg / liters already causes severe enamel problems. Higher than 4mg/L would be worse, but slightly lower would probably still be bad. And "Estimates from 1992 indicate that approximately 1.4 million people in the United States had drinking water with natural fluoride concentrations of 2.0-3.9 mg/L"

It seems hardly crazy, then, to worry about this, especially if you drink as much tap, especially if you have the same linked health problems.

[Impartial Observer]

Late to the game and I didn't want to scour through 14 pages of replies.

I like my fluoride; in my water and in my teethpaste.

Y'see, in the old west, settlers found that their children had much healthier teeth than they did or even their older children who may have been born prior to their settlement. Turns out, there was a river or a stream nearby with fluoride in the water. The kids who consumed the water had much healthier teeth than did their parents or older siblings.

Now, I'm unsure whether or not fluoride was discovered at that point or sometime earlier in history but they isolated it and began putting it in oral hygiene products.

When you drink water, it comes in contact with your teeth and at the levels in your tap water is at homeopathic levels - very tiny amounts, not nearly enough to get you sick. If you were to swallow your teethpaste or mouthwash, then yeah, you might get sick.

I say teethpaste because the plural for tooth is teeth.

[Mongrel]

When you drink water, it comes in contact with your teeth and at the levels in your tap water is at homeopathic levels

Just a nitpick, there's still detectable fluoride in the water therefore it's way above homeopathic levels ;)