Simple fluoride question

[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 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^WP. 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://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4304878&postcount=186

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?

 

[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^WP. 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.

 

[AaronMic22]

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?

 

[AaronMic22]

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]

But it's so much FUN!

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".

 

[AaronMic22]

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.

 

[AaronMic22]

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://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/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:

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:

(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://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/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