Plant officials stop flouridating water... Get put on leave

reply to post by VeritasAequitas

By saying that fluoridation is responsible for 40% of the cases is technically saying that fluoridation is responsible for a 40% increase in fluorosis; because where did the other percentage of causes for fluorosis come from before they even fluoridated water?

How about naturally occurring fluoride in drinking water? Please provide a source showing a 40% increase in fluorosis due to fluoridation.

Why did you avoid this quote at the very beginning of the article? I am not arguing the effectiveness of fluoridation in regards to dental cavities; I am arguing about the correlation between fluoridation and the rise of fluorosis.

Then why did you highlight the section which claims the report shows no lasting benefit in reducing tooth decay?

reply to post by Phage

Or perhaps they have looked at both sides of the argument and come to their own conclusions as have I. Perhaps they have gone to the actual studies rather than listening to some erroneous interpretation of them

If what you said above is true, then you reveal your bias.

When you're not willing to admit to and deny results of studies showing fluoride acting as a neurotoxin, you show your own selective interpretation.

reply to post by Phage


Calcium is one of the antidotes to fluoride absorption. Calcium Fluoride is not readily absorbed.

reply to post by wujotvowujotvowujotvo

When you're not willing to admit to and deny results of studies showing fluoride acting as a neurotoxin, you show your own selective interpretation.

Which studies? The study you provided does not show fluoride acting as a neurotoxin. The author of the study says the results of the study could not demonstrate neurotoxicity.

Thus, conclusions concerning the neurotoxic potential of fluoride require further rat and human studies, both focused on the relationship of plasma fluoride levels with the brain, behavior, and skeletal growth.

www.fluoridealert.org...
If you have any further studies which demonstrate neurotoxicity I would be interested.

reply to post by Phage

How about naturally occurring fluoride in drinking water? Please provide a source showing a 40% increase in fluorosis due to fluoridation.

The Department of Health and Human Services and Environmental Protection Agency are proposing the change because of an increase in fluorosis -- a condition that causes spotting and streaking on children's teeth.

www.cnn.com...

While it doesn't say how much it was increased; it does admit that fluorosis rates have increased. I will present more articles later.

Then why did you highlight the section which claims the report shows no lasting benefit in reducing tooth decay?

Because I can; or I just like trolling you. I'll let you decide.

reply to post by rickymouse

Calcium is one of the antidotes to fluoride absorption. Calcium Fluoride is not readily absorbed.

I'm not sure what the use of calcium as a treatment for fluoride poisoning has to do with the differences between calcium fluoride and sodium fluoride.

Can you provide some information about the difference in "absorbtion" between calcium fluoride and sodium fluoride. It seems that fluorosis is a bigger problem in areas with high natural levels of fluoride than it is in artificially fluoridated areas.

reply to post by Phage


How about this one?

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

How could it be about the neurotoxicity of sodium fluoride; if it was never neurotoxic in the first place?

reply to post by VeritasAequitas

While it doesn't say how much it was increased; it does admit that fluorosis rates have increased.

Yes. As to be expected with the use of fluoride toothpaste and other supplements, along with fluoridation. More people are getting more fluoride. As a result there has been an increase in mild fluorosis in a certain age group.

www.cdc.gov...

reply to post by VeritasAequitas

That is the article I was talking about. It is about an experiment to examine potential neurotoxicity.

Thus, conclusions concerning the neurotoxic potential of fluoride require further rat and human studies, both focused on the relationship of plasma fluoride levels with the brain, behavior, and skeletal growth.

www.fluoridealert.org...

reply to post by Phage




So you stopped being ignorant and found the CDC release yourself.

Backtracking on the Dental Fluorosis claim?

The only thing I am sure of anymore when it comes to this topic is that the health of my flesh and my bones comes from within - the nutrition I am giving my body (which allowed it to develop in the first place). I am never going to improve the health or condition of my body by applying chemicals externally.

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by VeritasAequitas

 

That is the article I was talking about. It is about an experiment to examine potential neurotoxicity.

Thus, conclusions concerning the neurotoxic potential of fluoride require further rat and human studies, both focused on the relationship of plasma fluoride levels with the brain, behavior, and skeletal growth.

www.fluoridealert.org...

edit on 8/27/2012 by Phage because: (no reason given)

Oh great, let's poison more (living) creatures so that we can learn something that most of us are feeling intuitively already?

reply to post by Phage


You realize why it 'requires more study' right? It's the same problem as vaccines. They can't come out and openly admit that it is neuro-toxic so they beat around the bush. Regardless of this; just because they failed to definitively prove that it is neurotoxic is NOT the same as saying it isn't Neurotoxic..

reply to post by Phage


This isn't a 'study' so much as an article; but it was written by a legitimate doctor and not some 'quack'...

articles.mercola.com...

Or this from a .gov (I know how you love them) stating that there is substantial evidence for fluoride developmental neurotoxicity?

www.epa.gov...

Originally posted by wujotvowujotvowujotvo
reply to post by Phage

 

So you stopped being ignorant and found the CDC release yourself.

Backtracking on the Dental Fluorosis claim?

edit on 27-8-2012 by wujotvowujotvowujotvo because: (no reason given)

Actually, it seems that I'm one of the few people here who actually look for the original sources and read them.

Backtracking? Ok, if you like. In combination with increased used of fluoridated products and fluoridated water, fluorodosis rates have increased.

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by Iwinder

 

All I am trying to say is that this 1ppm is not universal yet this web site is.

1ppm is a typical "target" level for artificial fluoridation. Artificial fluoridation is not used in water supplies which have levels greater than that. Since this discussion is about artificial fluoridation that is why 1ppm is being used.

There are water supplies with much higher concentrations of fluoride. In the US the EPA has set a limit of 4.0ppm. In other parts of the world there are lower limits and in other parts of the world there is no regulation.

Well it cannot be a typical "target" level if it varies as much as your above post states,
I guess with free trade and globalization anyone could purchase and consume a product with very high levels of Fluoride and not even be aware because it is not listed in the ingredients as far as our label reading goes.


I appreciate your answer but I strongly disagree with you insinuating that 1ppm is an actual target level throughout the world, almost if not all canned goods are packed in water and what the water contains is not available to read or study.

Regards, iwinder

reply to post by lobotomizemecapin


WOW! i honestly hope this is not true...

What is there a secret law that deems it necessary or otherwise illegal to not regulate fluoride into the public's drinking water??

There is definitely something up with the fluoride stuff, and this just further proves what we are conspiring about.
Mike

reply to post by Phage


www.amazon.com...=cm_cr_pr_product_top

Reports over 100 cases of impairment of neuro-behavioral development..Don't give me any crap about an amazon book either; find yourself a free copy if you want to debunk it.

reply to post by VeritasAequitas

This isn't a 'study' so much as an article; but it was written by a legitimate doctor and not some 'quack'...

Most of the 30 studies linking fluoride to reduced IQ, impaired neurobehavioral development, and fetal brain damage have come from China where fluoride occurs at moderate to high levels in the drinking water in what is known as "endemic areas for fluorosis." While there have been shortcomings in the methodologies of some of these studies, they have been remarkably consistent in their findings. Children exposed to excessive fluoride have been consistently observed to suffer from some form of neurological impairment.

articles.mercola.com...
The "shortcomings" of those Chinese studies are not exactly minor and deal with high concentrations.

Or this from a .gov (I know how you love them) stating that there is substantial evidence for fluoride developmental neurotoxicity?

"Substantial" is defined as:

reports from more than one laboratory.

I would be interested to know more about the reports involved.

Interesting that things like chlordane, DDT, and formalehyde are listed as having "minimal evidence". I guess that means they're fine.

reply to post by Iwinder

I appreciate your answer but I strongly disagree with you insinuating that 1ppm is an actual target level throughout the world, almost if not all canned goods are packed in water and what the water contains is not available to read or study.

I did not mean to insinuate that 1ppm is a target for artificial fluoridation used throughout the world but if you can produce evidence that it is not I would appreciate it. You understand that the higher levels I referred to were for naturally occurring concentrations?