Harvard Study Says Fluoridated Water is Causing Cognitive Disorders

I think Phage has made some great points. At the right dosage, fluoridation can be beneficial. But he also said it should be a community decision.

That's where I have issues with this topic. We should have the right to decide what chemicals we wish to put in to our bodies and the fluoridation issue seems to be controlled by city councils and state governments. When someone wishes to express their concern over fluoridation, the discussion goes directly to the advantage/disadvantage of it....not the right to control what goes in your body.

So I think the "pro-fluoridation" crowd could be more open to what the people in the community think.

reply to post by Phage


It's obviously less toxic but to say in any amount it isn't toxic is silly. Here I'll get it rolling with sourced evidence and a peer reviewed publication.

Cerklewski (1997) reviewed scientific literature addressing fluoride bioavailability. Although fluoride is not actively transported into animal cells, it is second only to iron in concentration in the human body, and thus should not be classified as a micro-trace element for humans.

Indeed, fluoride has been considered as meeting many of the criteria for a recommended daily allowance (RDA) substance. The total fluoride found in a typical adult human body is approximately 2.6 g, which puts it above the concentration range for micro-trace elements. Unlike a dietary non-essential trace element like lead, high fluoride intake does not result in accumulation in the soft tissues where its toxicity becomes manifest. Normal fluoride soft-tissue levels are in the micromolar range (1.0 m M = 19 parts per billion), whereas enzyme inhibition typically requires millimolar concentrations (1.0 mM = 19 parts per million). The combined effects of skeletal uptake and urinary excretion maintain a loose homeostatic balance of the ion in selected tissues, a behavior that would be expected of a nutritionally required ion rather than that of a toxic element such as lead. Although fluoride does not bioaccumulate in tissues other than those of bones and teeth, its internal concentration is only crudely regulated by the balance between intake and urinary excretion requiring a continual intake of the substance. However, in cases of high exposure levels or with renal deficiencies (Public Health Service, 1991) fluoride will increase in soft tissues somewhat in proportion to intake.

Effects on Enzymes

There are numerous reports of stimulatory or inhibitory effects on enzymes in soft tissues. These have doubtful physiological meaning in that the fluoride concentrations required for these effects are in the millimolar range when normal tissue levels are 1000 times lower. Such is the case of both the documented inhibition of cariogenic bacteria (cited in Cox et al., 1999) or the stimulation and other effects on G-binding protein (Murthy and Makhlouf, 1994; Codina and Birnbaumer, 1994; Rai et al., 1996). Enzymes are catalytic proteins that must maintain their tertiary shape (3D structure) to be effective; a broad variety of ions, elements, salts, and physicochemical parameters when present far in extreme of normal physiological conditions will affect enzymatic function. Thus, this in vitro inhibition, or stimulation, of enzymes or membrane function by 100 to 1000 times the fluoride concentrations seen in vivo can not be physiologically meaningful. In this context the mitogenic (growth-stimulating) effect of fluoride on osteoblasts (cells that grow bone) at higher than physiological concentrations has been taken as a potential for fluoride to treat osteoporosis, or may suggest its potential to promote bone cancer. Both interpretations are unwarranted extrapolations of the scientific results.



Fluoride and Osteoporosis

In clinical trials, high doses of sodium fluoride such as 75 mg/day produced bone that was less mechanically strong than regular bone, but a lower dose (25 mg/twice daily with a slow release of F) produced fewer new vertebrate fractures and higher bone mass with minimal effects (Cerklewski, 1997). Fluoride’s role in bone development is well documented (Cerklewski, 1997), and a report that a lifetime of fluoride exposure was associated with increased hip fractures has not been supported by others.

A toxic condition related to fluoride intake is termed "fluorosis." Three types of fluorosis are recognized in human beings: 1) acute poisoning, 2) crippling fluorosis, and 3) mottling of tooth enamel (Cerklewski, 1997). In acute poisoning, death is likely within 2 – 4 hours when an average adult consumes 5 g of sodium fluoride. Crippling fluorosis results from long-term exposure (10 – 20 years) to high concentrations (20 – 80 mg/day); in the United States, there have been only five reported cases of crippling skeletal fluorosis in over 35 years (Richmond, 1985; Public Health Service, 1991; National Academy Press, 1999 and papers cited therein; also on the Internet at www.nap.edu...), and acute poisoning by ingestion is likewise extremely rare. Numerous studies of patients who were accidentally or purposefully subjected to long-term dosing (10 years or more) at 30 to 60 mg fluoride/day with little or essentially no side effects (cited in Richmond, 1985). These doses are much higher than the proposed 0.8 mg/L for the water supply.

Dental fluorosis is a non-life-threatening condition that occurs in children under 6 years of age who ingest 2 – 3 times the recommended amount. There is a relatively narrow margin of safety between optimal dose and doses that will produce dental fluorosis in children (Cerklewski, 1997). Enamel fluorosis is caused by excessive fluoridation only if the children are exposure during the preeruptive development of teeth (National Academy Press, 1999 and papers cited therein; also on the Internet at www.nap.edu...).

One argument for the fluoridation of community water supplies is that relative to the administration of fluoride supplements, it lessens the likelihood of dental fluorosis in children. Pendrys and coworkers (1996) found that children living in low-fluoride water areas that were given fluoride supplements or exposed to fluoridated toothpaste during ages 2 through 8 years had an increased risk in developing enamel fluorosis. Subsequently Ismail and Bandekar (1999) prepared a systematic review of the dental literature to investigate the positive and adverse effects of fluoride supplements in non-fluoridated communities. Of 24 studies, 10 were cross-sectional/case-control studies and four were follow up studies. The review confirmed that in non-fluoridated communities, those using fluoride supplements during the first 6 years of life had an increase in the risk of developing dental fluorosis.

Besides calcium, fluoride forms insoluble complexes with the dietary non-essential element aluminum. Thus, aluminum and calcium salts are effective in decreasing the absorption of fluoride and are used in emergency treatment of fluoride poisoning. One consequence of this interaction is that fluoro-aluminum complexes may increase the bioavailability of aluminum (see above, ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS). However, common antacids utilize aluminum carbonate without apparent ill effects.

Fluoride has been recognized by the National Academy of Science as a beneficial mineral element for humans based on its role in the mineralization of teeth (National Academy Press, 1999 and papers cited therein; also on the Internet at www.nap.edu...)

Varner et al. (1993) published a study of male rats treated with AlF3 — a complex of aluminum and fluoride — at 0.5, 5.0 and 50 ppm in their drinking water. They found significant effects in the lowest concentration rather than at the higher two concentrations. They subsequently refined the study (Varner et al. (1998) with equivalent levels of NaF to deliver the same F as in the AlF3 complex. In these experiments the AlF3-exposed rats showed higher mortality and brain tissue anomalies relative to the NaF or control group rats. To our knowledge, the work described in these papers has been cited almost exclusively on the anti-fluoridation websites, in the journal Fluoride, and in the publications of Varner and coauthors. Since other workers in the field have not responded by either citing or commenting on the work to either support or refute their findings, the work of Varner and colleagues lacks peer response from the scientific community. At present there is insufficient independent information to either confirm or deny these findings.

C. Uncertainty

Below are listed areas needing continued research to keep abreast of changing conditions and to clarify past findings:

Epidemiological monitoring should continue to keep up-to-date information on the relationships among fluoride exposures from all major sources and the prevalence of dental caries and enamel fluorosis at specific life stages.

Basic laboratory and epidemiological studies to further the understanding of effects of fluoride on biomechanical properties of bone and on calcification of soft tissues should be supported.

Clarification of the effects of metabolic and environmental variables on the absorption, retention, excretion and biological effects of fluoride should be further investigated; e.g., the interaction of fluoride with other elements and ions (Al, Mg, Ca) and how it affects their bioavailability needs further study.

Source

also would like to add aluminum hasn't been shown to be really healthy for us humans either...

reply to post by Phage


Notice how studies show it tends to build up in the body and also notice what areas of study they need more work in…

reply to post by Phage


I said:

After Fukushima they raised the acceptable level of radiation so it does not surprise me that they have been doing it with our food.

Then you said:

Who did? What acceptable level of radiation was raised?

It is kind of off topic since I initiated this thread drift I will humor you my friend.

Who?

The same people that said the air was safe to breathe at ground Zero on 911...the EPA:

Washington, DC — The White House has given final approval for dramatically raising permissible radioactive levels in drinking water and soil following “radiological incidents,” such as nuclear power-plant accidents and dirty bombs. The final version, slated for Federal Register publication as soon as today, is a win for the nuclear industry which seeks what its proponents call a “new normal” for radiation exposure among the U.S population, according Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER).

Issued by the Environmental Protection Agency, the radiation guides (called Protective Action Guides or PAGs) allow cleanup many times more lax than anything EPA has ever before accepted. These guides govern evacuations, shelter-in-place orders, food restrictions and other actions following a wide range of “radiological emergencies.” The Obama administration blocked a version of these PAGs from going into effect during its first days in office. The version given approval late last Friday is substantially similar to those proposed under Bush but duck some of the most controversial aspects:

(read more at the source

Now back to Sodium Fluoride please?

reply to post by Corruption Exposed


Well the EPA is sort of on topic since it is the EPA that legitimizes the fluoride in our water in the first place.

RickyD
reply to post by Phage

 

Notice how studies show it tends to build up in the body and also notice what areas of study they need more work in…

Fluoride has been proven to be horrible for your health, as well as aluminum oxide. I haven't even been to a dentist that ever told me that regular fluoride ingestion was good for your teeth. In fact, all the dentists I've ever been to say, stay away from fluoride unless you need emergency treatments. There is fluoride mouthwash and fluoride toothpaste, notice how not all mouthwashes and toothpaste have fluoride in them? That's because you're NOT supposed to use it all the time, you're supposed to use it for special cases. And ALL toothpaste and mouthwash with fluoride in it, say right on the label... "DO NOT SWALLOW, IF SWALLOWED CALL POISON CONTROL."

These treatments are for people with cases of gum disease or advanced periodontitis. Ingesting fluoride does nothing for your teeth, and all fluoride treatments say *DO NOT SWALLOW* on them for a reason. So I ask, how does putting fluoride in your drinking water have anything to do with the health of your teeth?

The short answer is it doesn't. You're only ingesting poison at small levels... here is the thing about fluoride though, it doesn't decay or get processed by your body, it builds up. So after 10 years of drinking fluoridated water, you've ingested and are harboring much greater quantities of this poison.

Anybody who is pro-fluoride or believes the decision to fluoridate your water supply should be made by local municipalities are just ANTI-HEALTH.

Don't believe me, ask your dentist. "Should I swallow fluoride?" Every dentist worth it's salt will say "Absolutely not."

So why are we putting it in our drinking supply?

And the last thing, who was the first group of people to put fluoride in a water supply?

Nazi's. And they didn't drink it -- the people in the internment camps did. I'm sure they were just worried about those poor Jews that they were going to incinerate getting cavities.....

::rolls eyes::

I'm sure it had nothing to do with science proving that fluoride ingestion makes people complacent or anything....

Also, notice how Phage KNOWS he doesn't have fluoridated water, and doesn't drink it, but at the same time supports communities dumping it in their water supply.

Contradiction much? Why don't you go and fluoridate your own water if it's so good for you Phage? If the benefits outweigh the negatives, why aren't you drinking it?

Short answer, you know better, because you're employed by the government.

reply to post by Laykilla


I can comment on the Nazi aspect and you are correct. The Nazi's fluoridated the water in high concentrations. No where near the amount in public water supplies. But there is a lot more to that aspect than just to make the prisoners docile.

Also, can you provide a link that sodium fluoride is used in water supplies? From what I understand, hydrofluoricsilic acid is used. Not saying it's much better, though.

reply to post by sheepslayer247


You are correct and the link to the peer reviewed publication backs that up although you'll have to dig it out.

I had to sort through a ton of propaganda pieces using EPA data and supporting talking points or even just flat out saying its ok because the EPA says so. We all know what kinda monster the EPA is. Which is why I chose the article I did.

sheepslayer247
reply to post by Laykilla

 

I can comment on the Nazi aspect and you are correct. The Nazi's fluoridated the water in high concentrations. No where near the amount in public water supplies. But there is a lot more to that aspect than just to make the prisoners docile.

Also, can you provide a link that sodium fluoride is used in water supplies? From what I understand, hydrofluoricsilic acid is used. Not saying it's much better, though.

edit on 10-3-2014 by sheepslayer247 because: (no reason given)

A 1992 census found that, for U.S. public water supply systems reporting the type of compound used, 63% of the population received water fluoridated with fluorosilicic acid, 28% with sodium fluorosilicate, and 9% with sodium fluoride.

Water Fluoridation

I also never specified what kind of fluoride was added to water, but none of them are any good for you.

And ingesting ANY of them have nothing to do with the health of your teeth. Last time I checked when I drank water, I didn't swish it around in my mouth, I poured it in my mouth, past my front teeth, and into my throat. So I reiterate again, how could this logically protect your teeth? The only teeth it even really comes into contact with is your rear teeth, and it only comes into contact with them for fractions of a second at any given time. Not enough time to have any sort of chemical reaction with the enamel of your teeth, so how is it "strengthening" them?

The short answer is, it's not.

reply to post by sheepslayer247

Last year Portland, Oregon became one of the largest cities to reject fluoridation and it was a decision of the citizens.
Of course, it does go the other way too.

In 2012 the voters of Philomath, Oregon overrode a City Council decision to end fluoridation.
The people of Scappoose, Oregon voted to continue flouridation last year
The people of Athol, Massachuetts voted to continue fluouridation last year.
The people of Terrytown, Nebraska voted to fluoridate last year.


Communities do seem to be deciding. Hopefully the trend to put the decision in the hands of voters will continue.

reply to post by Corruption Exposed

The same people that said the air was safe to breathe at ground Zero on 911...the EPA:

Yes. It is off topic. Please, though can you show me what radiation standards the EPA raised after the Fukushima disaster? I can't find anything about drinking water standards being changed. I can't find anything about any regulations being changed. I can't find anything about the Whitehouse approving any such thing. Except for blogs that don't actually provide any information about it.

The updated manual is avaiable for review and comment. The President has "approved" nothing. The PAGS are guidlines for use in situations when cleanup operations are carried out by authorites other than Superfund programs or other state or federal authorities. As guidelines, the PAGs do not "permit" anything. The updated PAGs do not "raise" any allowable levels.
www.epa.gov...

reply to post by Phage


Thanks for the info. I know there have been some communities with a strong enough voice to make that change, but I have seen how it was approached in my area and others.....and it did not go well.

I'm trying to read up on the actual study, but I can't seem to find the entire text without having to pay for it. Do you have a link to the entire Harvard study?

Phage
reply to post by sheepslayer247

 

Last year Portland, Oregon became one of the largest cities to reject fluoridation and it was a decision of the citizens.
Of course, it does go the other way too.

In 2012 the voters of Philomath, Oregon overrode a City Council decision to end fluoridation.
The people of Scappoose, Oregon voted to continue flouridation last year
The people of Athol, Massachuetts voted to continue fluouridation last year.
The people of Terrytown, Nebraska voted to fluoridate last year.


Communities do seem to be deciding. Hopefully the trend to put the decision in the hands of voters will continue.

So, you're of the opinion that if science knows there is no benefits to adding poison to fluids you ingest, that you believe it should still be up to the people to vote for it based on propaganda bombs?

No, it should be outlawed out right -- and these people should be reeducated with facts instead of fiction, and if they want to still use fluoride, they can use it properly in the form of toothpastes and mouthwash, and NOT swallow it.

reply to post by Phage


With the amount of propaganda thats pro fluoride being fed to already dumbed down populations makes getting anywhere on the issue locally damn near impossible. Also most localities councils are usually pro fluoride no matter what the people want as it was in Portland...as you pointed out...the people fought long and hard for that win. Why there and not many other places I can't say but I can say none of them had an easy time getting there.

reply to post by Laykilla

Sorry way off topic but I couldn't resist. MODS please delete

reply to post by Laykilla

I also never specified what kind of fluoride was added to water

It was only a request for some info. I'm not putting words in your mouth.

Phage
reply to post by Corruption Exposed

 

The same people that said the air was safe to breathe at ground Zero on 911...the EPA:

Yes. It is off topic. Please, though can you show me what radiation standards the EPA raised after the Fukushima disaster? I can't find anything about drinking water standards being changed. I can't find anything about any regulations being changed.

edit on 3/10/2014 by Phage because: (no reason given)

The legal limit for exposure to radiation in the "radiation standards" was raised numerous times post Fukashima. Even in the US.

Obama Approves Raising Permissible Levels of Nuclear Radiation in Drinking Water.

Took me less than one second to find a link, and there are hundreds upon hundreds of them. It was also ALL OVER MSM television networks like Fox/NBC/CBS/CNN at the time.

Or maybe Forbes does it for you?
FORBES: EPA Draft Stirs Fears of Radically Relaxed Radiation Guidelines

That draft was approved by Obama. Again, it was all over the news when it happened.

sheepslayer247
reply to post by Laykilla

 

I also never specified what kind of fluoride was added to water

It was only a request for some info. I'm not putting words in your mouth.

Oh, I didn't mean to imply that you were, I was just clarifying it for other readers who might have skimmed through the thread.

reply to post by Laykilla


There is a big difference between the amount of Fluoride in toothpaste and what is put in water.

Most fluoride amounts in toothpaste is calculated by percentages. In water it is calculated by the part per million (PPM), i believe. There is a huge difference in quantity.

reply to post by sheepslayer247

As I said, the source article for the sensationalistic article in the OP is not a study at all. I linked it in this post:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

As far as the fluoride metastudy which is referenced in that source article, I linked it here:
www.abovetopsecret.com...