Simple fluoride question

[Mongrel]

I can say that no science exists that proves the benefit of ingestion because the proponents of fluoridation do not source any. They are under fire everyday and if they had any science they would produce it.

So going to Google Scholar or Pubmed and searching for "benefits of fluoridation" was too hard?

Papers like "The Effectiveness of Community Water Fluoridation in the United States" or "Effectiveness of Water Fluoridation" or even "The US experience with fluoridation".

You either didn't look or searched with your eyes closed

 

[Thunder]

im gonna assume he didnt care to look. why read something that disagrees with what you already have decided is da truth?

 

[Without Rights]

if you swallow too much fluoride...it is bad for you.

but that also goes for water, garlic, mustard, peanut oil, cream cheese, and borscht.

tell us something we dont know....

whats the solution to this horrible dilemma? dont swallow too much fluoride. now you are safe.

..just out of curiosity, does this have anything to do with swallowing too much mouthwash due to the high alchohol content?

=)

Oh boy!

O.k., something you don't know...

Oh, water, garlic, mustard, peanut oil, cream cheese, and borscht are not toxic. They do not kill brain cells, they don't damage your thyroid and kidneys. They become toxic in large amounts for other reasons, not because they destroy cells. You don't have to mark them "toxic" on the container they are in. You don't have to have a hazmat endorsement on your license to transport those things.

Look at your mustard, does it say "WARNING: Keep out of reach of children under 6 years of age. If you accidentally swallow more than used for brushing, seek professional help or contact a poison control center immediately."

All you have to do is not swallow too much. Wrong. A study at Cornell U. shows fluoride accumulates in bones. It replaces hydroxyl ions and makes the bones and teeth harder but more brittle over time.

Furthermore, a study done at Aarhus University, Faculty of Health Sciences, Denmark, concludes;

"A significant increase in fluorosis prevalence has occurred over the last 20 years due to increased fluoride exposure of pre-school children."

and what was the level of exposure? "Fluoride concentrations of 1 ppm"

Nothing to do with swallowing to much mouthwash, unless it is ACT.

 

[Silly Green Monkey]

Actually, if you drink too much water, it does kill brain cells by bursting and crushing them. Bones and teeth have cellulose, which keeps them flexible. With age, cellulose production tapers off, so bones and teeth will become more brittle over time.

Google Colorado brown spot disease. Fluoride was only added to drinking water after it was observed to prevent cavity formation.

 

[Without Rights]

Actually, if you drink too much water, it does kill brain cells by bursting and crushing them. Bones and teeth have cellulose, which keeps them flexible. With age, cellulose production tapers off, so bones and teeth will become more brittle over time.

Google Colorado brown spot disease. Fluoride was only added to drinking water after it was observed to prevent cavity formation.

No water does not kill brain cells. Drinking too much water dilutes electrolytes to a point where they become dangerously low and is known as hyponatremia.
That is the only danger water poses, except fluoridated water that is. Unless there is some obstruction of the urethra and you can't urinate, but even then water doesn't crush brain cells.

Cellulose? Are we plants? I think you mean enamel.

 

[Without Rights]

So going to Google Scholar or Pubmed and searching for "benefits of fluoridation" was too hard?

Papers like "The Effectiveness of Community Water Fluoridation in the United States" or "Effectiveness of Water Fluoridation" or even "The US experience with fluoridation".

You either didn't look or searched with your eyes closed

Great, thanks for making me waste $30 on a skewed garbage observation. All three sound the same as the first, but there is no way I am spending $90. But the first is complete garbage. Why is there no correlation to unfluoridated countries. He shows a reduction in tooth decay since fluoridation began. Nice work. Too bad the same reduction took place in countries that don't fluoridate. (Neurath, 2005)


Another study bashes studies that show ingestion as beneficial.

"The most serious defect of the studies of possible beneficial effects of water fluoridation was the lack of appropriate design and analysis. Many studies did not present an analysis at all, while others did not attempt to control for potentially confounding factors. Age, sex, social class, ethnicity, country, tooth type (primary or permanent), mean daily regional temperature, use of fluoride, total fluoride consumption, method of measurement (clinical exam or radiographs, or both), and training of examiners are all possible confounding factors in the assessment of development of dental caries." Marian S McDonagh BMJ Medical Journal

For those scoring at home, BMJ is not Rense.com.

 

[Without Rights]

Only places that state what you did and tie it to the concentrations of that in drinking water are the ones you deny reading. So, no thank you. I stay away from Rense.com, so as to preserve my precious bodily fluids.

I never mentioned rense.com only legitimate scientific journals. There is a good ad hom, say I got my info from wacks instead of confronting the studies. You can't combat the studies so you try and associate me with a website.

Under fire from who? You?

Yeah, it's just me.

Ahem. Ad hominem is : you are wrong because you are ugly. Not ad hominem: You are wrong and you are ugly. If you're going to use terms, please make at least an attempt to understand what they mean. Otherwise you look foolish and stupid. You don't want to do that, do you?
Simply because you don't like what I said doesn't make it ad hom. Especially when I'm correct.

You are wrong and you are ugly is ad hominem if you don't explain why I am wrong. You are attacking me and misstating where I located studies in an effort to negate the studies, purely ad hominem. What are you correct about? You didn't even say anything. You offer nothing at all to a constructive argument.

How very typical. You don't know anything about me other than the fact I've shown you to be another Internet Wanna-Be Expert (ad hom), and you want to cause me harm. Such a nice boy! If you can't argue your points without resorting to childish tantrums, maybe you should find somewhere else to post your nonsense. You don't want to look immature on top of looking foolish, do you?

Yeah, no ad hominem in there at all. How did you show me blah blah blah? You have said nothing.

 

[Praktik]

Stalin murdered 20 million people. I don't think they had to say he fluoridated the water to try and demonize him.

?? I was merely pointing out that in an atmosphere of antagonism in the early days of the Cold War, that any interepretation attributing extra evil in the ways of Stalin would be more likely to be the one adopted by Americans at the time.

Also that testimony alone from a Major General is not proof of a link between fluoride and suggestibility. He just said it was used for that purpose - but based on what? We're not told. We're just told that it is so.

I remain highly skeptical about this claim. I cannot connect lower IQ by a few points to being more likely to follow a guard's orders in prison. In my mind the monopoly of force and the regimented structure of the lives of prisoners is the driving force behind docility.

Then why argue for fluoridation. It's toxic, it has never been proven beneficial. That should be enough.

Right. But many people believe it HAS proven beneficial. Thats why cities all over America adopted it: in the belief that doing so was providing a health benefit.

That may be true - or not. But that was the primary motive, coinciding with a profit incentive for the manufacturers.

 

[JimBenArm]

I never mentioned rense.com only legitimate scientific journals. There is a good ad hom, say I got my info from wacks instead of confronting the studies. You can't combat the studies so you try and associate me with a website.




Yeah, it's just me.




You are wrong and you are ugly is ad hominem if you don't explain why I am wrong. You are attacking me and misstating where I located studies in an effort to negate the studies, purely ad hominem. What are you correct about? You didn't even say anything. You offer nothing at all to a constructive argument.



Yeah, no ad hominem in there at all. How did you show me blah blah blah? You have said nothing.

Amazing! Maybe you should actually try reading what I posted, maybe this time comprehending it?
What I posted about ad hom stands. Insult is not ad hom. Learn the difference. I can't cure your ignorance without some effort on your part.

So, Mr. Paranoid Person, let's try another tack, shall we? Since the last one was totally ignored.

Again, using your own words about what should have happened to everyone if all this evil stuff about fluoride is true, our IQ's would have dropped, we'd all have ADD and we couldn't think straight. Now, again, since wide-scale fluoridation didn't start until after WWII, one would think that our technical progress would pretty much have halted at that level, since we all would be too stupid and unable to focus on doing stuff.

However, the exact opposite has occurred. Since WWII, we have gone from few black & white TVs to HDTV in color. Polio was rampant, as were other diseases, which now are preventable by vaccines. (You're not also an anti-vax moron, too, are you?) There had been no satellites launched, now every Joe Schmoe has GPS. No one had even been in space, now we've landed on the moon and have a permanent space station (I'm sure you're not a "no moon landing" idiot as well, right?). The computers that existed then filled a large room, took massive amounts of power to run. Today, you can carry around one in a small briefcase. Oh, and you can get in touch with everyone on WiFi and e-mail. And there's this little thing called the internet. Maybe you're familiar with it? Oh, and my own personal favorite, nuclear power.

Not too bad for people with low intellegence and ADD!

So if the effects are so bad, why aren't they having any, well, effect? Hmm?

And why am I running circles around you logically if I'm so unable to focus and pay attention? That's really gotta sting. A fluoride-infested drooling idiot is making you look bad. Wow. Makes me wonder what's in YOUR water!

 

[Ladewig]

The mechanism, fluoride reduces I.Q, alters the hypothalamus and causes ADD. By damaging brain function and reducing intelligence people are less likely to worry about things in the world that require thought.

Since you just asked about chemicals in general, many chemicals are made to pacify dissent in patients. Seraquill and Thorazine are commonly used.

Rep or Dem? Neither. It is lobbyist paid for by aluminum and phosphate corporations. Since fluoride is toxic it is expensive to dispose of. Now it is sold for profit instead of being an expense.

Examples? A loaded question if I ever heard one.

So the heads of aluminum and phosphate corporations are willing to unabashedly hinder America's progress and put the lives of its citizens (and themselves) in jeopardy for some extra money. Do these corporate criminals not fly on airplanes piloted by fluoridated pilots? Do they not use the services of fluoridated surgeons or pharmacists? Do they not use bridges, elevators, and buildings constructed by fluoridated engineers?

As for the link between lower IQ and docileness, I don't see it. The folks near the bottom of the IQ scale seem positively rambunctious given their agitation and fear over Obama's super sekret political platform. If the goal is submission, then it's seems obvious that now is not the time to wave the "Mission: Accomplished" banner.

 

[Without Rights]

Amazing! Maybe you should actually try reading what I posted, maybe this time comprehending it?
What I posted about ad hom stands. Insult is not ad hom. Learn the difference. I can't cure your ignorance without some effort on your part.

So, Mr. Paranoid Person, let's try another tack, shall we? Since the last one was totally ignored.

Again, using your own words about what should have happened to everyone if all this evil stuff about fluoride is true, our IQ's would have dropped, we'd all have ADD and we couldn't think straight. Now, again, since wide-scale fluoridation didn't start until after WWII, one would think that our technical progress would pretty much have halted at that level, since we all would be too stupid and unable to focus on doing stuff.

However, the exact opposite has occurred. Since WWII, we have gone from few black & white TVs to HDTV in color. Polio was rampant, as were other diseases, which now are preventable by vaccines. (You're not also an anti-vax moron, too, are you?) There had been no satellites launched, now every Joe Schmoe has GPS. No one had even been in space, now we've landed on the moon and have a permanent space station (I'm sure you're not a "no moon landing" idiot as well, right?). The computers that existed then filled a large room, took massive amounts of power to run. Today, you can carry around one in a small briefcase. Oh, and you can get in touch with everyone on WiFi and e-mail. And there's this little thing called the internet. Maybe you're familiar with it? Oh, and my own personal favorite, nuclear power.

Not too bad for people with low intellegence and ADD!

So if the effects are so bad, why aren't they having any, well, effect? Hmm?

And why am I running circles around you logically if I'm so unable to focus and pay attention? That's really gotta sting. A fluoride-infested drooling idiot is making you look bad. Wow. Makes me wonder what's in YOUR water!

Wow!

O.k., like I said earlier, fluoride will not reduce IQ to the point where you are drooling on yourself and not every one will be effected the same due to many factors. I am not going to set out to prove everyone on this thread has a damaged brain. The prevalence of A.D.D. has risen drastically as has mental disorders. I present scientific evidence that you refuse to except because we have color TVs and can argue on a forum. Compelling. Boy are you making me look dumb. Hey, cigarettes don't cause emphysema because I smoke and I don't have it. Hell, cancer either. I am cancer free so no way cigs cause cancer. Liquor doesn't kill braincells either, I mean I drink and I can form complete sentences. Completely absurd.

Here is something that can maybe give you something rational to argue.

Fluorides are general protoplasmic poisons, probably because of their capacity to modify the metabolism of cells by changing the permeability of the cell membrane and by inhibiting certain enzyme systems.
- Journal of the American Medical Association, Sept 18, 1943

these findings indicate that children drinking high F water are at risk for impaired development of intelligence."
SOURCE: Trivedi MH, et al. (2007). Effect of high fluoride water on intelligence of school children in India

High fluoride burden has a definite effect on the intellectual and physical development of children."
SOURCE: Wang S, et al. (2005). Effects of coal burning related endemic fluorosis on body development and intelligence levels of children. Journal of Applied Clinical Pediatrics

"The results of this study show that the children living in high fluoride areas have lower IQs than the children from the non-endemic area. Chinese Journal of Endemiology 10:98-100


Oh, these don't matter. We've been to space.

Interesting, the US Census Bureau records IQ.

1950 mean IQ 91.64
2000 mean IQ 89.2

So IQs are dropping, albeit not extreme, but this in a period where fluoridation was relatively low.

 

[Praktik]

Ok fine. I think there's been some questions about the methodology of these studies but let's accept their findings at face value for the sake of argument.

There's still no connection between a 3-5 point IQ drop and docility. At least none that I have been made aware of. Have you seen science that demonstrates a connection?

To my mind all of this is based on unsubstantiated speculation on the motives of Nazis and Commies for using it - with no hard evidence to back it up.

 

[Without Rights]

As for the link between lower IQ and docileness, I don't see it. The folks near the bottom of the IQ scale seem positively rambunctious

Not just lower IQ, a damaged brain. There is a difference between the two.


As for the rest of your post, I am not going to argue corporate morals. That is another thread.

 

[Silly Green Monkey]

Pardon me, I meant collagen. Without collagen fibers, our skin and bones are not flexible. Collagen production declines with age.

I notice you have focused on high levels of fluoride, any evidence that the levels of fluoridation maintained by water departments can be called high?

 

[Praktik]

Not just lower IQ, a damaged brain. There is a difference between the two.


As for the rest of your post, I am not going to argue corporate morals. That is another thread.

Ok... but I voluntarily damage my brain all the time when I ingest drugs like alcohol or recreational drugs - does this make me more "docile"?

Only when I smoke pot.... And that actually does NO brain damage (studies have show it "freezes" brain cells, rather than kill them as alcohol or cocaine would).

"Brain Damage" is a pretty general term - damaged how? To a degree where personality changes occur? If so - that needs to be substantiated.

 

[dudalb]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N1KvgtEnABY

Because somebody had to do it in this thread.

 

[Without Rights]

Ok... but I voluntarily damage my brain all the time when I ingest drugs like alcohol or recreational drugs - does this make me more "docile"?

Only when I smoke pot.... And that actually does NO brain damage (studies have show it "freezes" brain cells, rather than kill them as alcohol or cocaine would).

"Brain Damage" is a pretty general term - damaged how? To a degree where personality changes occur? If so - that needs to be substantiated.

Personality changes do occur with long term drug or alcohol use. Anybody who knows a drug addict or alcoholic can testify to this fact.

Studies show fluoride effects the hippocampal neurons.

"when fluoride was present intracellularly, the inactivation kinetics of the calcium current were accelerated and the persistent component of the current was largely suppressed" J Neurosci 1986 Oct

Another study

"After controlling by significant confounders, urinary fluoride correlated positively with reaction time and inversely with the scores in visuospatial organization...An increase in reaction time could affect the attention process, also the low scores in visuospatial organization could be affecting the reading and writing abilities in these children."

Influence of Fluoride Exposure on Reaction Time and Visuospatial Organization in Children, Epidemiology July 2000, Volume 11, Number 4 Supplement S153

Another...

"Neurological changes associated with skeletal fluorosis have been attributed to compression radioculomyelopathy.10 Axonal degeneration with secondary demyelination in myelinated fibres in the sural nerves in patients with skeletal fluorosis has also been reported.11 The central and peripheral nerves were damaged directly by fluoride, and the damaged function of motor nerves was imputed to osteoproliferation of vertebrae.12"
Council of Scientific and Industrial Research, New Delhi, India

 

[Without Rights]

Pardon me, I meant collagen. Without collagen fibers, our skin and bones are not flexible. Collagen production declines with age.

I notice you have focused on high levels of fluoride, any evidence that the levels of fluoridation maintained by water departments can be called high?

I haven't focused at all on high doses. One study I posted uses 1PPM, the same used in most water systems. Another shows that fluoride accumulates in bones and teeth over time. Also everything that is processed with fluoridated water compounds the 1PPM prescribed to us Dr Sam.

 

[Without Rights]

Ok fine. I think there's been some questions about the methodology of these studies but let's accept their findings at face value for the sake of argument.

I cant do that because my argument is that the study is skewed.

There's still no connection between a 3-5 point IQ drop and docility. At least none that I have been made aware of. Have you seen science that demonstrates a connection?

Not docility directly but damage to the hypothalamus, and the protective cellular membrane. The connection would be in damage to the brain, not low IQ. Low IQ is just a result of the damaged brain. I don't think it is a stretch to theorize that it could serve as a pacifier by harming the hypothalamus. The endocrine system relies on the hypothalamus to function properly. The endocrine system is instrumental in determining mood. Therefore it can produce a docile mood by restricting the neuron flow from the hypothalamus and the nervous system.

 

[dudalb]

I cant do that because my argument is that the study is skewed.



Not docility directly but damage to the hypothalamus, and the protective cellular membrane. The connection would be in damage to the brain, not low IQ. Low IQ is just a result of the damaged brain. I don't think it is a stretch to theorize that it could serve as a pacifier by harming the hypothalamus. The endocrine system relies on the hypothalamus to function properly. The endocrine system is instrumental in determining mood. Therefore it can produce a docile mood by restricting the neuron flow from the hypothalamus and the nervous system.

In other words you have no real evidence but a lot theories that take the evidence and strectch it to the breaking point.
But Carry on. Our Precious Bodily Fluids must be preserved.