Fluoride

[sails]

Interesting article:

Harvard Study Finds Fluoride Lowers IQ - Published in Federal Gov't Journal

An excerpt:

"The children in high fluoride areas had significantly lower IQ than those who lived in low fluoride areas," write Choi et al.

Further, the EPA says fluoride is a chemical "with substantial evidence of developmental neurotoxicity."

 

[DB008]

Fluoridation win turns nasty

A hard-fought win to introduce fluoride to a city's water turned nasty this week when an anti-fluoride protester accosted NSW's Chief Medical Officer and threatened to attack her with the poison gas used in Syria.

http://www.6minutes.com.au/news/latest-news/fluoridationwinturnsnasty

 

[DB008]

Fluoride-free drinking water in Calgary leads to rise in kids' tooth decay, study indicates​

Tooth decay in children in Calgary has worsened since the city stopped adding fluoride to drinking water in 2011, according to a new study.

The study, published Wednesday in the journal Community Dentistry and Oral Epidemiology, compared Grade 2 students in Calgary and Edmonton, which still adds fluoride to its drinking water.

Lindsay McLaren, the researcher with the University of Calgary's Cumming School of Medicine who led the study, told the Calgary Eyeopener's David Gray that there were more cavities in both Calgary and Edmonton over the period of the study, but "it got worse in Calgary, where fluoridation was stopped, than in Edmonton."

McLaren said the study is clear about the cause and effect at play.

"We designed the study so we could be as sure as possible that [the increased tooth decay] was due to [fluoride] cessation rather than due to other factors," she told the CBC.

"We systematically considered a number of other factors ... and in the end, everything pointed to fluoridation cessation being the most important factor."

http://www.cbc.ca/beta/news/canada/calgary/tooth-decay-calgary-fluoride-water-1.3450616​

 

[finnsk]

Have not read the hole thread so don't know if somebody else have put this up.

Just thought I would add this to the discussion
http://healthwyze.org/reports/69-the-dangers-of-tap-water
The American Dental Association, the F.D.A., and the U.S. Centers for Disease Control all maintain that mercury, a cumulative toxic heavy metal, is perfectly safe to be embedded into your living teeth. Not surprisingly, they all also support the fluoridation of public water reservoirs under the guise of improving dental health. The American public has been mass-poisoned with fluoride for more than half a century. Fluoridation has been justified by claims that it produces dental health benefits, even though there has never been evidence that ingestion of it is beneficial. Conversely, there is overwhelming evidence indicating that ingested fluoride is a bio-accumulative poison that attacks the human body systemically, including the teeth. These facts were known long before fluoride was added to tap water.

 

[orr]

Have not read the hole thread so don't know if somebody else have put this up.

Just thought I would add this to the discussion
http://healthwyze.org/reports/69-the-dangers-of-tap-water
The American Dental Association, the F.D.A., and the U.S. Centers for Disease Control all maintain that mercury, a cumulative toxic heavy metal, is perfectly safe to be embedded into your living teeth. Not surprisingly, they all also support the fluoridation of public water reservoirs under the guise of improving dental health. The American public has been mass-poisoned with fluoride for more than half a century. Fluoridation has been justified by claims that it produces dental health benefits, even though there has never been evidence that ingestion of it is beneficial. Conversely, there is overwhelming evidence indicating that ingested fluoride is a bio-accumulative poison that attacks the human body systemically, including the teeth. These facts were known long before fluoride was added to tap water.

Similar half baked conspiracy gibberish has been trotted out in the previous back pages. There seems to be never a complete lack of fools that subscribe to it.

 

[Smurf1976]

I won't claim to know much about fluoride but commonsense tells me that adding mercury to the body should be treated with extreme caution given the well established toxicity of that material.

 

[pixel]

I won't claim to know much about fluoride but commonsense tells me that adding mercury to the body should be treated with extreme caution given the well established toxicity of that material.

It is also a well-established fact that sugary drinks and lack of oral hygiene are the main causes for tooth decay. Which does not, however, lead to the logical solution of limiting advertising and supply of such harmful substances. Instead, the easy way out is chosen: Force-feed another toxin to every body, regardless whether or not they're addicted to the stuff that causes its victims to lose their teeth. And there is no shortage of well-meaning fools that clobber inconvenient alternative opinions, discredit them as half baked conspiracy gibberish and cite some "greater common good" - read: Unlimited profits for Big Business.
For decades, tobacco companies, asbestos suppliers, petrol refineries, pubs and bottle shops, ... got away with the same attitude: The greater the corporate profits, the greater the common good.

I won't hold my breath, but not all hope may be lost that one day, the "gullible health nuts" that oppose being poisoned by fluorides, plastics, and other "improvements", manage to reverse the trend. They can possibly learn from the "climate hysterics" that switch from dirty to renewable energy.

 

[orr]

I won't claim to know much about fluoride but commonsense tells me that adding mercury to the body should be treated with extreme caution given the well established toxicity of that material.

I'll go back and do the reading on this again if I have to, But at this point it is my understanding that there is no human biological benefit to even the lowest levels of mercury exposure or other heavy metals such as Lead or cadmium but considering that we've evolved over eons with these elements in the background a level of tolerance as a species would be a reasonable assumption.
As to fluoride, excess exposure(and what that is...is? do your own research) leads to at least a condition known as fluorosis. Point to me the occurrence of this in any population with a municipal fluoridated water supply. AT higher levels it becomes toxic, tell me something that at a high enough level that doesn't. As a trace element it is 'used'/ enables humans at least though a biologically evolved process to harden tooth enamel, it's done this for hundreds of thousands of years before the onslaught of capitalism or fizzy drinks. This was first observed and then understood through application of a thing call 'scientific method' which has developed prior to but has accelerated since the advent of the above mentioned on capitalist onslaught and will continue long past it or be subsumed with it .

My point is to conflate mercury(Hg) and fluoride is at once disingenuous and plays on the fears of the ill informed.

If there is a founded line of inquiry that does point to the human health cost of amalgam filings I seriously suggest your start the class action because there are some highly wealthy agencies to plunder. 'If'(big if) you can prove your case and probably a Nobel Prize and a place in history up there with Plank, Hoyle or Salk .

 

[Tisme]

I'll go back and do the reading on this again if I have to, But at this point it is my understanding that there is no human biological benefit to even the lowest levels of mercury exposure or other heavy metals such as Lead or cadmium but considering that we've evolved over eons with these elements in the background a level of tolerance as a species would be a reasonable assumption.
As to fluoride, excess exposure(and what that is...is? do your own research) leads to at least a condition known as fluorosis. Point to me the occurrence of this in any population with a municipal fluoridated water supply. AT higher levels it becomes toxic, tell me something that at a high enough level that doesn't. As a trace element it is 'used'/ enables humans at least though a biologically evolved process to harden tooth enamel, it's done this for hundreds of thousands of years before the onslaught of capitalism or fizzy drinks. This was first observed and then understood through application of a thing call 'scientific method' which has developed prior to but has accelerated since the advent of the above mentioned on capitalist onslaught and will continue long past it or be subsumed with it .

My point is to conflate mercury(Hg) and fluoride is at once disingenuous and plays on the fears of the ill informed.

If there is a founded line of inquiry that does point to the human health cost of amalgam filings I seriously suggest your start the class action because there are some highly wealthy agencies to plunder. 'If'(big if) you can prove your case and probably a Nobel Prize and a place in history up there with Plank, Hoyle or Salk .

I'm guessing an analogy of "if you drink too much water you'll drown" is a good way of saying "every thing in moderation".

I remember being seconded to the water board and was surprised at how little the container holding the flouride at the pumping station was. I satisfied myself on the spot that even if the lot was accidentally dumped into the supply it surely couldn't be deleterious to health.

 

[Smurf1976]

My point is to conflate mercury(Hg) and fluoride is at once disingenuous and plays on the fears of the ill informed.

Agreed and I'm not suggesting otherwise (it was another post which linked the two).

Mercury - known to be highly toxic and no known benefits at any level in the human body. Adding it to fill teeth thus seems at least somewhat suspect as to risks.

Fluoride - known to be highly toxic but at low concentrations has been shown to produce a benefit in humans (dental health). Adding it to water supplies is thus a case of addressing one issue with a known benefit versus uncertain risks which may be associated with it.

So I'm reasonably happy with fluoride in the water but none to keen on putting mercury into the body unless someone can prove that it poses no risk. Surely there's something else we can use for dental fillings?

 

[SirRumpole]

Agreed and I'm not suggesting otherwise (it was another post which linked the two).

Mercury - known to be highly toxic and no known benefits at any level in the human body. Adding it to fill teeth thus seems at least somewhat suspect as to risks.

Fluoride - known to be highly toxic but at low concentrations has been shown to produce a benefit in humans (dental health). Adding it to water supplies is thus a case of addressing one issue with a known benefit versus uncertain risks which may be associated with it.

So I'm reasonably happy with fluoride in the water but none to keen on putting mercury into the body unless someone can prove that it poses no risk. Surely there's something else we can use for dental fillings?

I'm prepared to keep an open mind on flouride but I doubt if there have been long term studies examining incidence of various diseases in flouridated vs non flouridated areas, so it doesn't seem a scientific application, someone just decided it was good for teeth so everyone gets it, making it impossible to say whether its a carcinogen or has other harmful effects.

 

[SmokeyGhost]

http://www.cochrane.org/search/site/fluoride?f[0]=bundle%3Areview

then, I am not qualified in the issue of meta-analysis, so I'll go with the known science.