Iodine v. Flouride

[kmortis]

Recently, my St. Bernard was diagnosed with a malfunctioning thyroid gland. The vet prescribed some pills and told us to come back in six weeks for a follow-up blood test. Mama Mortis got a bit perturbed because the vet never mentioned iodine (shown to help regulate the thyroid in humans, I have no idea if it does the same in dogs, but I'd assume so).

My issue here isn't whether or not the DVM should or should not have mentioned it. Mama's comments got my mind a thinkin'. Most of us get our iodine via our salt. Almost all of use use iodized salt. So, why isn't there a hue and cry from the woo crowd over the addition of a known poison into our salt? There are plenty of people willing to make fools of themselves over the floride in the water, but no one ever complains about the iodine.

Or was there when it was first introduced?

Anyhoo, it was just a curious thought.

[Melendwyr]

Iodine is a necessary nutrient, in appropriate amounts. Aside from its supposed beneficial effects on developing teeth, I'm not aware of any positive biological role fluoride plays in our biology.

That's probably why.

[kmortis]

But that's appling too much logic, isn't it? And I think having a good set of teeth is important to good health, eh? Makes it easier to chew.

You could be right, tho.

[John Jackson]

Iodised salt created a big fuss in India: Iodised salt (http://www.skeptics.org.uk/article.php?dir=articles&article=an_indian_conspiracy_theory.php)

Not quite the same kind of conspiracy as the anti-fluoridation crowd, but this time the government bowed down to pressure at the expense of its people's health.

Iodine seems as legitimate (and completely pointless) a target as fluoride, aspartame, MSG, etc., so it's surprising that there isn't an anti-iodisation campaign going on.

Now that you've mentioned it though, there probably soon will be. :D

[kmortis]

Gee, Thanks John. Hold me responsible for starting a world wide panic.

[Starthinker]

Omigod! How do I get it out of my salt? If I wash it really good will that do? Or will it then have flouride in it? I'm so confused.

[kmortis]

Omigod! How do I get it out of my salt? If I wash it really good will that do? Or will it then have flouride in it? I'm so confused.

You can remove it by the proper application of pryamids, crystals, reiki and a rubber chicken. Here's how you do it:
1) Get the largest pyramid you can get.
2) Crush the crystals with the pyramid
CENSORED IN ACCORDANCE WITH US CODE 47 CFR PART 15 SUBPART J
138) Enjoy your newly di-iodined salt.

[Beth]

Iodine seems as legitimate (and completely pointless) a target as fluoride, aspartame, MSG, etc., so it's surprising that there isn't an anti-iodisation campaign going on.

Now that you've mentioned it though, there probably soon will be. :D

You can buy salt with or without iodine, according to your preference. No reason to protest it because you don't have to ingest it. Floridation is different in that in goes into the water supply and is basically unavoidable without going to a great deal of trouble and expense to filter it out.

[John Jackson]

Floridation is different in that in goes into the water supply and is basically unavoidable without going to a great deal of trouble and expense to filter it out.

Why would anyone want to?

These "anti" campaigns can't simply be due to a lack of choice. Look at the anti-aspartame crowd for example.

[kmortis]

You can buy salt with or without iodine, according to your preference. No reason to protest it because you don't have to ingest it. Floridation is different in that in goes into the water supply and is basically unavoidable without going to a great deal of trouble and expense to filter it out.

Ahh...but if you eat regularly at Fast Food resturants, they distribute the Evil Iodized version. Once again proving that they are a scourge on society.

Actually, in seriousness, what kind of salt does the food industry use in processing? Does my can of green beans contain iodine? This is a more serious question than it my first appear, some people have an allergy to iodine.

[glsunder]

I can get floride for my teeth from my toothpaste. Since there's no proof that it actually helps prevent cavities, I have no problem keeping it optional for people by not putting it in the drinking water. However, there is proof of the benifits of iodine.

[drkitten]

Since there's no proof that it actually helps prevent cavities, I have no problem keeping it optional for people by not putting it in the drinking water.

My understanding is that the statement above is, ahem, counterfactual.

From Quackwatch:

The Public Health Service then took over to determine precisely what amount of fluoride in the water would prevent decay without causing staining. Years of "shoeleather epidemiology" by Dr. H. Trendley Dean traced the dental status of 7,000 children who drank naturally fluoridated water in 21 cities in four states. In 1943, he reported that the ideal amount of fluoride was one part per million parts of water. This concentration was demonstrated to result in healthy, attractive teeth that had one-third as many cavities as might otherwise be expected -- and no staining.

The next step was to determine whether water engineering could copy nature's amazing dental health benefit. At several test sites, the fluoride concentration of the public water supply was adjusted to one part per million.

One such test was conducted in the neighboring cities of Newburgh and Kingston, New York. First, the children in both cities were examined by dentists and physicians; then fluoride was added to Newburgh's water supply. After ten years, the children of Newburgh had 58% fewer decayed teeth than those of nonfluoridated Kingston. The greatest benefits were obtained by children who had drunk the fluoridated water since birth. Other studies showed that teeth made stronger by fluoride during childhood would remain permanently resistant to decay. As the evidence supporting fluoridation accrued, thousands of communities acted to obtain its benefits.

Recent data have shown that fluoridation has been reducing the incidence of cavities 20% to 40% in children and 15% to 35% in adults. The reduction is less than it used to be, probably due to improved dental hygiene and widespread use of fluoride toothpaste. Currently, more than 140 million Americans live in fluoridated communities. But 80 million others receive public water supplies that are not fluoridated -- thanks largely to the efforts of poisonmongers.

[Melendwyr]

Why would anyone want to? Well, I can't help but wonder how much fluoride is absorbed into our skeletal structure. It may be useful in toothpastes, but it's not at all clear to me that full-body exposure is really necessary for stronger teeth, or that it doesn't have secondary health effects.

If I had a choice between fluoridated tap water and unfluoridated tap water, I'd probably choose unfluoridated.

[LTC8K6]

Except that fluoride is often in water anyway, it being a natural component of the Earth's crust.

[John Jackson]

Except that fluoride is often in water anyway, it being a natural component of the Earth's crust.
Exactly! That's it.

It's a lack of fluoride that causes problems with teeth. Fluoridating water ensures that everyone gets enough; especially children.

[Melendwyr]

Exactly! That's it.

It's a lack of fluoride that causes problems with teeth. Fluoridating water ensures that everyone gets enough; especially children. Which is more common: water with at least one part per million of dissolved fluoride, or water with less than that?

Why don't our bodies have the ability to collect and utilize fluoride? We do so with plenty of other compounds, including iodine.

I see no reason to conclude that drinking water with that level of fluoride in any way benefits any physiological processes of the human body. The anti-cavity effect is just an incidental benefit of drinking water with an unusually high concentration of a particular ion.

Not receiving such fluoride does not, in itself, cause problems with teeth.

[Rolfe]

If your dog is hypothyroid, the pills you've been given will have thyroxine in them, not iodine. Canine hypothyroidism is essentially an autoimmune condition, and has no relation to iodine status.

Interesting thread, but completely irrelevant to the dog issue.

Rolfe.

[drkitten]

I see no reason to conclude that drinking water with that level of fluoride in any way benefits any physiological processes of the human body. The anti-cavity effect is just an incidental benefit of drinking water with an unusually high concentration of a particular ion.


You don't see the anti-cavity effect as a benefit? You like getting cavities?

[John Jackson]

I see no reason to conclude that drinking water with that level of fluoride in any way benefits any physiological processes of the human body. The anti-cavity effect is just an incidental benefit of drinking water with an unusually high concentration of a particular ion.

Not receiving such fluoride does not, in itself, cause problems with teeth.
There's a good article here: Quackwatch (http://www.quackwatch.org/03HealthPromotion/fluoride.html)

[kmortis]

If your dog is hypothyroid, the pills you've been given will have thyroxine in them, not iodine. Canine hypothyroidism is essentially an autoimmune condition, and has no relation to iodine status.

Interesting thread, but completely irrelevant to the dog issue.

Rolfe.

Actually, the thread is what I intended. I had been musing over the contheories concerning Fl, and I didn't understand why iodine did receive the same treatment.

Although, I thank you for the vetrinary info. It asnwers my back question as to why the vet didn't mention iodine. I do believe that thyoxine is, in factm what i've been giving her all this time now.

[luchog]

Most of us get our iodine via our salt. Almost all of use use iodized salt.
I get most of mine from sushi and single-malt Scotch whisky.

[Melendwyr]

You don't see the anti-cavity effect as a benefit? You like getting cavities? Please read more carefully. The fluoride is not part of the human body's tooth-growing process. It is not a nutrient that leads to tooth decay when absent, and it is not sought out by the body in order to produce teeth.

Using sealants can reduce the incidence of tooth decay significantly, but the sealing is an artificial process not related in any way to normal tooth development.

If the vast majority of water supplies across the world had one part per million of fluoride dissolved in them, then its lack in some water could be considered unusual and abnormal. As it stands, there's nothing normal or natural about adding fluoride to water.

THAT DOES NOT MEAN IT'S NOT GOOD.

Stop looking for woos behind every post and read what's written.

[kmortis]

I get most of mine from sushi and single-malt Scotch whisky.

'cause to stomach the former, you MUST have the later....:P

[casebro]

Flouride is beneficial to about 10% of the population- growing children. Aspirin benefits about the same amount, should we put aspirin into the water supply? Same with ...protein? Statin drugs? alcohol?

Children can take flouride pills for a few years, just like I've been taking aspirin.


Funny how the cavity rate has dropped in areas without flouridation- all that advertising for Crest, perhaps?

And Iodine? Best source is ocean sea food. But I do wonder about the neccessity of adding it to salt, since all salt is oceanic, some has just been burried for a few million years. Didn't the oceans have iodine back then? Do the salt companies actually add the iodine, or just change the labels?

[Melendwyr]

Salt taken straight out of sea water contains sufficient iodine, but mined salt doesn't.

There have been several unfortunate cases of primitive societies who previously traded across long distance for salt being sold it directly by unscrupulous or ignorant people, and having goiters and mentally-retarded children as a result.

Some regions also have naturally low levels of iodine in the soil, for various reasons. If the people living there don't have access to seafood, they can suffer from iodine deficiency.

http://www.unicef.org/infobycountry/laopdr_22839.html

[gruk]

Why would anyone want to?

These "anti" campaigns can't simply be due to a lack of choice. Look at the anti-aspartame crowd for example.

Heh. The main reason, as far as I am concerned, to avoid aspartame-sweetened products is taht it doesn't taste very nice and it's beginning to be a hassle in the UK, finding products without it (it's even in crips).

[Mojo]

I get most of mine from sushi and single-malt Scotch whisky.I wondered why Laphroaig tasted like that.

[Mojo]

Salt taken straight out of sea water contains sufficient iodine, but mined salt doesn't. [/url]So all that "natural sea salt" that's sold in health food shops to the sort of people who complain about iodization, is actually iodized? I suppose if it's "natural" it doesn't count. :rolleyes:

I don't recall ever having noticed campaigners demanding that fluoride is removed from drinking water in those areas where it occurs naturally either. If fluoride added to water is dangerous, naturally occuring fluoride is just as dangerous.

[kmortis]

So all that "natural sea salt" that's sold in health food shops to the sort of people who complain about iodization, is actually iodized? I suppose if it's "natural" it doesn't count. :rolleyes:

I don't recall ever having noticed campaigners demanding that fluoride is removed from drinking water in those areas where it occurs naturally either. If fluoride added to water is dangerous, naturally occuring fluoride is just as dangerous.

Nononononono...BAD MOJO, bad Mojo. don't you know, anything natural is not only safe for human consumption (e.g. foxglove, belladonna, and blowfish) but is a superior product to anything that man can make. Therefore, areas that have naturally occuring flouride in their drinking water should never have their water treated to remove anything other than that nasty dihydrogen monoxide.:p

[Mojo]

I get exactly this from Mrs. Mojo (i.e. the "if it's natural it must be safe"). I haven't found any argument that'll dissuade her, either from the belladonna/botulism side or by arguing that if something allegedly has positive effects there has to be the possibility of negative effects as well. :rolleyes:

[Melendwyr]

There are places in the Ozarks of Missouri that have dangerously high levels of dissolved lead in the groundwater, due to the presence of so much lead ore. Water from wells isn't safe to drink unless it's been very carefully treated.

That's at least one example of nature causing progressive brain damage, dementia, and slow death. Does Mrs. Mojo need more?

[Nex]

Please read more carefully. The fluoride is not part of the human body's tooth-growing process. It is not a nutrient that leads to tooth decay when absent, and it is not sought out by the body in order to produce teeth. True, but you're either not fully informed or are deliberately leaving out pertinent information.

Fluorine [F], as a part of the compound fluoroapatite, replaces hydroxyapatite in teeth, strengthening the enamel and preventing dental caries.
To go a little more in-depth,

Fluoride ions replace hydroxide ions in calcium hydroxyapatite, Ca5[(PO4)3OH], in teeth, forming calcium fluoroapatite, Ca5[(PO4)3F], which is more chemically stable and dissolves at a pH of 4.5, compared to 5.5 pH for calcium hydroxyapatite. This is generally believed to lead to fewer cavities, since stronger acids are then needed to attack the tooth enamel.
(source (http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/encyclopedia/f/fl/fluoride.htm))

[Melendwyr]

Yes... so? I'm not arguing that fluoride forms some other compound when it binds to tooth enamel. Nor am I suggesting that, when it does so, the resulting compound isn't more resistant to acid erosion.

Unlike iron, iodine, calcium, or a host of other trace minerals, I know of no evidence that the body seeks out and concentrates fluoride ions. It doesn't incorporate them into tooth enamel, either - the change comes from either directly exposing formed teeth to concentrations of fluoride, or exposure of developing teeth to fluoride dissolved in the blood.

For self-labeled skeptics, quite a few of you people are awfully bad at critical thought.

[kmortis]

Yes... so? I'm not arguing that fluoride forms some other compound when it binds to tooth enamel. Nor am I suggesting that, when it does so, the resulting compound isn't more resistant to acid erosion.

Unlike iron, iodine, calcium, or a host of other trace minerals, I know of no evidence that the body seeks out and concentrates fluoride ions. It doesn't incorporate them into tooth enamel, either - the change comes from either directly exposing formed teeth to concentrations of fluoride, or exposure of developing teeth to fluoride dissolved in the blood.

For self-labeled skeptics, quite a few of you people are awfully bad at critical thought.

Mel (can I call you Mel?),
Now, now. We've already been over this. Anything natural must, by defintion be better than anything manmade. Therefore, the floride products cannot be be better than what our bodies produce without all this bothersome meddling by man.

Seriously, tho. I get yer point. The body doesn't REQUIRE flouride, but when it gets flouride, it puts it to good use. Like using coke (et al) to make iron into stronger, more flexable steel. We don't NEED steel, but if we can have it, all the better.

I will say that, since we DO know about flouride's effects, doesn't it make sense for us to make a conscious decision to seek it out? Even if it's not a neccessary element?

[John Jackson]

Unlike iron, iodine, calcium, or a host of other trace minerals, I know of no evidence that the body seeks out and concentrates fluoride ions.
How does the body “seek out” Iron or Calcium?

The body requires Iron, Calcium etc., but it doesn’t require fluoride. Perhaps that’s where you’re getting confused.

It doesn't incorporate them into tooth enamel, either - the change comes from either directly exposing formed teeth to concentrations of fluoride, or exposure of developing teeth to fluoride dissolved in the blood.
Wrong, the fluoride does end up in tooth enamel – that is the very reason that the enamel is more resistant to decay.

For self-labeled skeptics, quite a few of you people are awfully bad at critical thought.
Now where have we heard that jibe before? ;)

Tantrum time again now, I suppose. :rolleyes:

[Nex]

Yes... so? I'm not arguing that fluoride forms some other compound when it binds to tooth enamel. Nor am I suggesting that, when it does so, the resulting compound isn't more resistant to acid erosion. I know.

Unlike iron, iodine, calcium, or a host of other trace minerals, I know of no evidence that the body seeks out and concentrates fluoride ions. It's understood, at least by myself, that your argument against fluoride is supported by the fact that the human body does not need it to live. Fluoride is not an essential nutrient. You're right on that count, and I for one am not disagreeing with you.

It doesn't incorporate them into tooth enamel, either - the change comes from either directly exposing formed teeth to concentrations of fluoride, or exposure of developing teeth to fluoride dissolved in the blood. You are mistaken. Fluoride certainly does bond with tooth enamel, forming a harder, stronger, and more cavity-resistant substance than "natural" hydroxyapatite enamel. This is done by contact, as you have already pointed out (thus contradicting yourself), as well as dissolution from blood to the tooth, which is done by the body.

For self-labeled skeptics, quite a few of you people are awfully bad at critical thought. Pot and kettle.

[Melendwyr]

It's understood, at least by myself, that your argument against fluoride is supported by the fact that the human body does not need it to live. Fluoride is not an essential nutrient. You're right on that count, and I for one am not disagreeing with you. You ARE disagreeing with me: I'm not making an argument against fluoride.

You are mistaken. Fluoride certainly does bond with tooth enamel, forming a harder, stronger, and more cavity-resistant substance than "natural" hydroxyapatite enamel. YOU are mistaken. You also seem to be having a little problem with reading comprehension. At no point did I suggest that fluoride doesn't chemically react with tooth enamel. What I said was that the body does not incorporate fluoride into tooth enamel. Incorporation is an active process; fluoride is not actively used by the body at all.

Until you learn to recognize the difference between what people say and what you expect them to say, you will be unworthy of respect and attention. I see no reason to give you any more of my time.

[twip]

[Melendwyr]

Seriously, tho. I get yer point. The body doesn't REQUIRE flouride, but when it gets flouride, it puts it to good use. No, it doesn't. The body doesn't use fluoride at all. There are no active processes that absorb fluoride ions from the environment and direct them into tooth enamel. Fluoride ions react with the calcium compounds in teeth and bones simply because they're in solution.

That doesn't mean that saturating teeth with fluoride ions isn't good. It doesn't mean it isn't bad. It's stating a simple fact, without interpretation or speculation as to consequences.

I will say that, since we DO know about flouride's effects, doesn't it make sense for us to make a conscious decision to seek it out? Even if it's not a neccessary element? Do we, though? Were modern epidemiological studies on the total lifetime effects of higher fluoride concentrations done? How much fluoride does get taken up by the bones, and what effects does that have? If the fluoridation of water is only actually beneficial for people with developing teeth, is it harmless enough to justify exposing everyone to that specific treatment?

One of the differences between wooism and science is that woos aren't interested in critically examining their ideas, while scientists and critical thinkers are. If you really want to go about convincing anti-fluoridation believers that they're wrong, shouldn't you have answers to the questions I asked above? Why are so many of the people in this thread unwilling to answer the questions of the devil's advocate?

Is it possible that they don't actually have the answers themselves?

[Mojo]

There are places in the Ozarks of Missouri that have dangerously high levels of dissolved lead in the groundwater, due to the presence of so much lead ore. Water from wells isn't safe to drink unless it's been very carefully treated.

That's at least one example of nature causing progressive brain damage, dementia, and slow death. Does Mrs. Mojo need more?I'll give it a try next time the subject comes up, but I doubt it'll work. Lead has for a long time been recognised as a poison you see, and anyway, it isn't "herbal." :rolleyes:

[kmortis]

I'll give it a try next time the subject comes up, but I doubt it'll work. Lead has for a long time been recognised as a poison you see, and anyway, it isn't "herbal." :rolleyes:

It ISN'T??!!

Nex: You are mistaken. Fluoride certainly does bond with tooth enamel, forming a harder, stronger, and more cavity-resistant substance than "natural" hydroxyapatite enamel. This is done by contact, as you have already pointed out (thus contradicting yourself), as well as dissolution from blood to the tooth, which is done by the body.

Melendyr: No, it doesn't. The body doesn't use fluoride at all. There are no active processes that absorb fluoride ions from the environment and direct them into tooth enamel. Fluoride ions react with the calcium compounds in teeth and bones simply because they're in solution.

That doesn't mean that saturating teeth with fluoride ions isn't good. It doesn't mean it isn't bad. It's stating a simple fact, without interpretation or speculation as to consequences.

Melendyr,
It seems that we need to have a thumb wrestling match between you and Nex.
One of you says that the body does use flouride, and the other says it don't. I'm not a doctor of any sort, nor do I have the capability to do the kind of research necessary to resolve this conflict.
I'll admit that I'm partial to the "flouride is used by the body" crowd, as I once had a dentist prescribe a toothpaste with a higher percentage flouride than you can normally get to repair damage that I'd done to my teeth (Kids, don't chew tobacco...it can ruin your teeth. This PSA brought to you by, Me.).

Also, if flouride cannot be absorbed into the body, then how can it turn the teeth brown?

[Melendwyr]

I'll admit that I'm partial to the "flouride is used by the body" crowd, as I once had a dentist prescribe a toothpaste with a higher percentage flouride than you can normally get to repair damage that I'd done to my teeth (Kids, don't chew tobacco...it can ruin your teeth. This PSA brought to you by, Me.). That's not an example of the body using fluoride. When it bonds with tooth enamel, it tends to seal over small cracks and holes. Such toothpaste would also ensure that any worn areas on your teeth would have become completely covered by the fluoride compound, reducing the chance that they'd start eroding around the rest of the tooth.

Also, if flouride cannot be absorbed into the body, then how can it turn the teeth brown? It's not actively absorbed by the body. If you ingest it, it will be present in blood, and react with calcium throughout the body.

Lead and mercury aren't actively absorbed by the body either, yet they show up in all kinds of places once ingested.

[kmortis]

It's not actively absorbed by the body. If you ingest it, it will be present in blood, and react with calcium throughout the body.

Ok...what's the difference between active and passive absorption. To me, the admitted layman, the former makes it sound as if the body hunts down the wiley flouride ion, kills it, eats it's liver for its courage and runs away whooping a victory whoop.

The later sounds more like a drunken college guy trying to pick up wahtever chick he happens to be standing next to at the bar.

"Hey, Flora...can I buy ya" {hic}"a drink?"

[Melendwyr]

Ok...what's the difference between active and passive absorption. To me, the admitted layman, the former makes it sound as if the body hunts down the wiley flouride ion, kills it, eats it's liver for its courage and runs away whooping a victory whoop.Iodine is actively absorbed. Ingesting even tiny amounts results in the iodine being captured and concentrated in the thyroid, where it's essential for making various hormones. This is why radioactive fallout can be so dangerous (an unstable isotope of iodine is one of the components of fallout, and the concentration in the thyroid means that organ experiences much higher doses of radiation than the rest of the body) and why taking iodine pills helps prevent radiation poisoning (if the body has more than enough iodine, it stops bringing the stuff to the thyroid, so trace amounts of the isotope are ignored).

The body doesn't seek out fluoride. Fluoride is not part of the process of developing teeth at all. If sufficient amounts of the ion are ingested, dissolved fluoride will chemically enter the developing teeth, one of the effects of which is an increased resistance to acid.

Whether there are other effects, and whether those effects are harmful, is something that I'm not completely sure of. It seems no one else in this thread actually knows, either, or we wouldn't have all of this intentional misreading and smoke-blowing.

[Nex]

Melandwyr, your aggressive attitude is really uncalled for. Misunderstandings occur, and there's no need for you to blame them on everyone else -- it takes two to create a misunderstanding. Your implication that it is intentional is simply rude.

I would guess then, since you've rephrased, we should define what you mean by "the body seeking out" a nutrient.

As you've stated, iodine is stored in the thyroid. Vitamin C is not stored anywhere, but yet we need that in order to live.

Also, what do you mean by "actively absorbed"? Do you mean active cellular transport?

(if the body has more than enough iodine, it stops bringing the stuff to the thyroid, so trace amounts of the isotope are ignored)
Excess iodine is still transported to the thyroid. Iodine toxicity is called thyrotoxicosis, and in the USA there is an upper intake level (UL) set for iodine (1100 mcg).
(source: Foundations and Clinical Applications of Nutrition, 3rd Edition, page 228)

[Melendwyr]

Misunderstandings occur, and there's no need for you to blame them on everyone else -- it takes two to create a misunderstanding. No, it just takes one stupid person. We've met that requirement several times over in this thread.

[Nex]

Be careful Melandwyr -- you may get swept away by the river of tears your comment has caused. :rolleyes:

[Ririon]

Be careful Melandwyr -- you may get swept away by the river of tears your comment has caused. :rolleyes:

Careful with the crying part. The body doesn't actively absorb water, you know...

[John Jackson]

No, it just takes one stupid person. We've met that requirement several times over in this thread.
Yes, it does get rather annoying when you get an egotistical fool who's clearly wrong but doesn't have the humilty to acknowledge the fact.

You can always tell when these condescending know-alls are losing the argument, as the pattern is always the same. They get angry, and they start insulting people.

Now who has displayed those characteristics in this thread (and this (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=46232)) I wonder? ;)

Once you see a comment like, "For self-labeled skeptics, quite a few of you people are awfully bad at critical thought." it's a telltale sign that an egoist has realised that they are wrong.

Now I believe the actual topic of this thread was: why doesn't Iodine get targeted the way fluoride does by the anti brigade. Let's see if we can get back on topic.

[Melendwyr]

We haven't left the topic.

Iodine is a nutrient whose dearth directly results in dramatic health problems for people of all ages and mental retardation in developing fetuses. Fluoride is not a nutrient and isn't necessary for healthy teeth, and is only beneficial in water for children whose adult teeth are still developing.

Given those facts, it's easy to see why there are more people convinced that water fluoridation is harmful than salt iodination.

(By your "reasoning", John Jackson, Randi demonstrates that he knows his opponents are correct every time he insults them. There's another reason Randi gets angry. Can you guess what it is?)

[kmortis]

We haven't left the topic.

Iodine is a nutrient whose dearth directly results in dramatic health problems for people of all ages and mental retardation in developing fetuses. Fluoride is not a nutrient and isn't necessary for healthy teeth, and is only beneficial in water for children whose adult teeth are still developing.

Given those facts, it's easy to see why there are more people convinced that water fluoridation is harmful than salt iodination.

(By your "reasoning", John Jackson, Randi demonstrates that he knows his opponents are correct every time he insults them. There's another reason Randi gets angry. Can you guess what it is?)

Except:
1) I was well into my 20's when I got that high-F toothpaste. Not exactly a "devloping child whose adult teeth are still devloping", eh?
2) Most of us have already agreed that F is not necessary, but definatly aids in the building and rebuilding of teeth. Iodine is necessary for good health; but in large amounts will have the opposite effect.

[Melendwyr]

Except:
1) I was well into my 20's when I got that high-F toothpaste. Not exactly a "devloping child whose adult teeth are still devloping", eh? That's a surface-applied treatment, kmortis. There's really no way for fluoride to act as a nutrient in that situation.

2) Most of us have already agreed that F is not necessary, but definatly aids in the building and rebuilding of teeth. Sorry, but I have to disagree with this. Teeth are built just fine without any amount of fluoride. Sufficient water fluoridation to cause a change in tooth development changes the way teeth develop. Similarly, topical fluoride may cause cracks and holes to be filled in with the new compound, but that's not how the body would attempt to repair teeth (it really can't).

Fluoride doesn't make it easier for the body to build teeth the way it normally would - it changes teeth to something different. That does not, in itself, make the change bad. But it's not at all like vaccination, which causes the immune system to generate the same protective antibodies that it would to an actual infection.

[kmortis]

Sorry, but I have to disagree with this. Teeth are built just fine without any amount of fluoride.

Ok, I think this is a point that everyone has stated.

Sufficient water fluoridation to cause a change in tooth development changes the way teeth develop. Similarly, topical fluoride may cause cracks and holes to be filled in with the new compound, but that's not how the body would attempt to repair teeth (it really can't).

This seems to be where some of the debate occurs. I'm not qualified to discuss it. Maybe one of our resident MDs or DDSs can address it.

Fluoride doesn't make it easier for the body to build teeth the way it normally would - it changes teeth to something different.

I HAVE MUTANT TEETH????:eye-poppi

That does not, in itself, make the change bad. But it's not at all like vaccination, which causes the immune system to generate the same protective antibodies that it would to an actual infection.

:relieved:
I don't remember anyone equating flouride usage (or non-usage, if you'd like) to the immune system. I've equated it to steel v. iron usage.

[LTC8K6]

But seawater has even higher average levels of fluoride.....

Fluoride is naturally in just about everything we eat.

[Melendwyr]

I HAVE MUTANT TEETH????:eye-poppi Not in any literal sense.

I don't remember anyone equating flouride usage (or non-usage, if you'd like) to the immune system. I've equated it to steel v. iron usage. I don't tthink you understood what I said, kmortis.

[kmortis]

Not in any literal sense.

Oh, I dunno, you've never seen my teeth. :D

I don't tthink you understood what I said, kmortis.

Fluoride doesn't make it easier for the body to build teeth the way it normally would - it changes teeth to something different. That does not, in itself, make the change bad. But it's not at all like vaccination, which causes the immune system to generate the same protective antibodies that it would to an actual infection.

In this passage, you equated flouridation with vaccination. Granted, you did it in a negative way.

What I am curious about is, what is it that the teeth are changed into? I assume that you mean that the enamel is altered in some way?

[Melendwyr]

In this passage, you equated flouridation with vaccination. Only in the sense that they're both interventions. Otherwise, they're almost completely different.

Vaccination induces an immune response. There's nothing unnatural (perhaps you feel 'nonnatural' is a more neutral term) about immune responses or the immune system learning to recognize and attack things it's been previously exposed to.

Fluoridation, in contrast, does not assist or complement normal tooth development in any way.

What I am curious about is, what is it that the teeth are changed into? I assume that you mean that the enamel is altered in some way? I don't remember the name of the compound that results when fluoride ions bond to the calcium compounds in enamel. I do recall that it's significantly more resistant to acid dissolution, as well as being slightly softer.

[kmortis]

Only in the sense that they're both interventions. Otherwise, they're almost completely different.

Vaccination induces an immune response. There's nothing unnatural (perhaps you feel 'nonnatural' is a more neutral term) about immune responses or the immune system learning to recognize and attack things it's been previously exposed to.

Fluoridation, in contrast, does not assist or complement normal tooth development in any way.

I don't remember the name of the compound that results when fluoride ions bond to the calcium compounds in enamel. I do recall that it's significantly more resistant to acid dissolution, as well as being slightly softer.

Ok

[EatatJoes]

I was speaking with a woman at work today that actively seeks out non-fluoride toothpaste. She didn't state why exactly she is (I didn't ask), but I began to wonder if one should actively avoid fluoride in general. Let's assume that Fl is not necessary or even helpful in preventing tooth decay. Should one spend the energy trying to avoid it considering all the places you find it? Assuming quote is true.

But seawater has even higher average levels of fluoride.....

Fluoride is naturally in just about everything we eat.

Has "regular" consumption of Fl (assuming that you use fluoride toothpaste and you live a community where it is added to the water) been linked to any negative heath effects? Is is worth the time to avoid it?

[kmortis]

I was speaking with a woman at work today that actively seeks out non-fluoride toothpaste. She didn't state why exactly she is (I didn't ask), but I began to wonder if one should actively avoid fluoride in general. Let's assume that Fl is not necessary or even helpful in preventing tooth decay. Should one spend the energy trying to avoid it considering all the places you find it? Assuming quote is true.



Has "regular" consumption of Fl (assuming that you use fluoride toothpaste and you live a community where it is added to the water) been linked to any negative heath effects? Is is worth the time to avoid it?
I think, and I'm sure I'll be corrected vociferously if I'm wrong, that the short of it is that while F isn't NECESSARY, it isn't harmful, and can be a help in the doses normally found.

Anyone know the LD50 of F?

[PatKelley]

I think, and I'm sure I'll be corrected vociferously if I'm wrong, that the short of it is that while F isn't NECESSARY, it isn't harmful, and can be a help in the doses normally found.

Anyone know the LD50 of F?
Depends on its form. Hydrofluoric acid has a rather low LD50, and is cited on occasion to bolster the argument that fluoride is dangerous. Humans have died from 1.5 g orally.

However, fluoride salts don't appear to have an LD50... there is a listing that at constant exposure at 30 times the water fluoridation levels (30ppm vs 1ppm) causes skeletal fluoridosis which can cause joint pain and essentially spine immotility.

Fluoride occurs naturally in many groundwaters, specifically those that have alkaline soil such as limes and carbonates. If it was simply an ion concentration, then folks in northwest Texas should have a much lower rate of cavities than anyone else- they have the limiest water around; comes out of the fountains opaque white. But it turns out the correlation is fluoride salts.

The happenstance of increased resistance to cavities is enough to warrant fluoride addition to water supplies. While it is seen as 'forced medication' to some, it really comes down to civic responsibility. Same arguments could be made for public schooling and truancy laws. But both are effective; there is not doubt about that. Neither is detrimental; this has also been shown in an epidemiological study done between two Canadian towns, one of which had fluoridation for twenty-five years, the other of which did not. Same lattitude, same region, same population size. There was no significant difference. There was a small difference in male osteoporosis, but again; not significant: within the realm of chance occurance rather than representing a trend.

That was it. One slight difference over twenty-five years.

[Soapy Sam]

The only true mystery about fluoride, is why nobody can spell it.

Altogether- F-L-U-O-R-I-D-E!

There. That wasn't so hard.

[Almo]

"What I said was that the body does not incorporate fluoride into tooth enamel. Incorporation is an active process; fluoride is not actively used by the body at all."

You seem to be attributing "motive" to what is just a chemical process. There's no real difference between the reaction that puts Iron into hemoglobin than the reaction that puts flouride into tooth enamel.

[Euromutt]

I'm surprised nobody's mentioned No-Rad "anti-radiation" pills (http://fitnessfirstusa.com/details.asp?item=8438) yet.

[NeilC]

"You seem to be attributing "motive" to what is just a chemical process. There's no real difference between the reaction that puts Iron into hemoglobin than the reaction that puts flouride into tooth enamel."

There is in that haemoglobin has evolved with iron in it in order specifically to bond with oxygen. It has a purpose and is required for normal bodily function.

Fluroide on the other hand is not required. Fluoride may happen to get into tooth enamel but the tooth enamel is not evolved in order for that to happen. As far as we know anyway. The fluoride ion just happens to replace other ions which are less resistant to decay. It is a straightforward chemical reaction similar to the one that causes those nutters who take coloidal silver to turn black.

So there is a difference.

A silly parallel - take sun-cream SPF chemicals. We could put that in the water of sunny countries so people would absorb it on their skins when in the shower and get less skin cancer. They would benefit and their skin would absorb it. It wouldn't however make it a nutrient. It wouldn't put it in the same bracket as Iron.

Fluoridation is therefore not a nutrient supplement, it is a pharmacological intervention. We are all being dosed up. Personally I don't have a problem with it but I can see why other people do, especially when you consider how difficult it is to be sure that these things are harmless, and how often governments are proven to be wrong about such things years later.

[Melendwyr]

You seem to be attributing "motive" to what is just a chemical process. There's no real difference between the reaction that puts Iron into hemoglobin than the reaction that puts flouride into tooth enamel. Biological processes can be thought of as having motive. The body actively works to synthesize hemoglobin. It does not actively encourage the deposition of fluoride in bones and teeth.

Tanning and the bleaching of hair are both results of sun exposure. Can you truly not distinguish the difference between the two?