I always figured it was like icy hot (having never actually used the product myself). It wasn't until a week ago I was informed it was just a stick of wax. Apparently there's more in it than just wax, but I'm guessing those dilutes are an infinitesimal amount.

From da wiki: Chemical analysis has shown that the product consists almost entirely of wax. The two ingredients listed as "active", white bryony (a type of vine) and potassium dichromate (a known carcinogen), are diluted to 1 ppt and 1 ppm respectively.

EDIT: http://www.videosift.com/video/James-Randi-explains-Homeopathy

Apparently the solution of White Bryony in headon is 12X or 1:1,000,000,000,000, for comparison the legal amount of arsenic that can be in drinking water is

"You could live off that oxygen even if there was mustard gas outside in your garage. Then you could take a deep breath, open the car and exit via the door." - Dannym3141

Wrong Fool!
Mustard gas is a strong vesicant (blister-causing agent). Due to its alkylating properties, it is also strongly mutagenic (causing damage to the DNA of exposed cells) and carcinogenic (cancer causing). Those exposed usually suffer no immediate symptoms. Within 4 to 24 hours the exposure develops into deep, itching or burning blisters wherever the mustard contacted the skin; the eyes (if exposed) become sore and the eyelids swollen, possibly leading to conjunctivitis and blindness. According to the Medical Management of Chemical Casualties handbook, there have been experimental cases in humans where the patient has suffered miosis, or pinpointing of pupils, as a result of the cholinomimetic activity of mustard. At very high concentrations, if inhaled, it causes bleeding and blistering within the respiratory system, damaging the mucous membrane and causing pulmonary edema. Blister agent exposure over more than 50% body surface area is usually fatal.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mustard_gas

*clap clap clap*

By the way, I loved your "Anesthetist's Hymn" sift. I was watching it, then looked at your username, then looked at the sift, then looked at your name, and said, "OHHHHHHH...."

In reply to this comment by snoozedoctor:
Sham science is a real menace to our society. While not discounting the possible harmful health effects of low energy electromagnetic radiation, (microwaves are fairly low energy, but you don't want your body water to get resonating because of them), there exists no credible epidemiological studies to suggest that EM radiation emitted from cell phones or power lines does. While we study mutagenic and teratogenic effects on cell-lines, bacteria, and some of our mammalian cousins (I'm steering clear of that debate), for good reason, it must, ultimately, stand the test of having an effect at the macrobiotic level. We also know the hazards of extrapolating between species. I like chocolate, but I don't feed it to my dog.

Reputable companies are being forced to pay out billions of dollars in settlements because of sham science. Whether it's the auto-immune effects of silicone implants (disproved), or the class action suits of smokers who developed lung cancer from a voluntarily inhaled carcinogen, but claim its because the pipes in the attic of their workplace were wrapped in asbestos, sham science costs us all.

I hope Motorola's not next.

Sham science is a real menace to our society. While not discounting the possible harmful health effects of low energy electromagnetic radiation, (microwaves are fairly low energy, but you don't want your body water to get resonating because of them), there exists no credible epidemiological studies to suggest that EM radiation emitted from cell phones or power lines does. While we study mutagenic and teratogenic effects on cell-lines, bacteria, and some of our mammalian cousins (I'm steering clear of that debate), for good reason, it must, ultimately, stand the test of having an effect at the macrobiotic level. We also know the hazards of extrapolating between species. I like chocolate, but I don't feed it to my dog.

Reputable companies are being forced to pay out billions of dollars in settlements because of sham science. Whether it's the auto-immune effects of silicone implants (disproved), or the class action suits of smokers who developed lung cancer from a voluntarily inhaled carcinogen, but claim its because the pipes in the attic of their workplace were wrapped in asbestos, sham science costs us all.

I hope Motorola's not next.

In the intro to the pdf you posted, it refs a study on human cells which agrees with my assertion about exposure mutation.

Well, that was kind of the point of my referencing that particular study, as the basis for using a study on S. cerevisiae was as a setup to establish a baseline by which to compare mutagenicity, carcinogenic response, and other potential to reactions. It references the human cell exposure (notably, melanoma and osteosarcoma cells) study and a few others specifically because it was indirectly questioning the validity of those results, as they study S. cerevisiae's mutagenesis but also its recombinational repair. If you note in the conclusion, Shimizu et. al. suggest that ELF-MF "LF-MF does not injure the basic genetic system in the same manner as ionizing radiation or chemical carcinogen does". It is because of this that they call for further research on yet-more indirect mechanisms for any effects of MF exposure, and also a call for better exclusion of experimental setup issues ("involvement of eddy currents induced in the culture medium could not be precluded"). In fact, I do believe these issues of experimental procedure are very difficult to deal with - going through similar papers, they are a constant concern, especially when it comes to bacteria. This is ultimately a large issue of expanding all disease-related effects from simple organisms to more complex organisms, as complex organisms - in full, not just isolated cells - will ultimately not respond to such delicate, unintentional and untracked variable changes in experimental environment. This is, again, why epidemiological studies of humans will trump small-scale bacterial studies.

Certainly many of the things we take for granted in our lives are many times more dangerous then HV lines, you will get no argument from me on that. While I do see the tendency by many to fixate on a minor risk while ignoring real risks(terrorism vs car accidents for instance), that does not mean that the proper response should be to discount concerns of risk which are based on unexceptional claims, even if we lack conclusive proof.

I see your point, in that in the face of a great risk, minor risks should not be ignored. However, my argument is that in the face of all adequate studies, all evidence points to an either insignificant or non-existent risk.

Due to the complexity of the systems involved the correlation of leukemia to HV lines (as in the 2005 study from Oxford) is very similar to the correlation of global atmospheric temperature to CO2.

To the specific study (Childhood cancer in relation to distance from high voltage power lines in England and Wales: a case-control study):
This study actually is pretty deep and requires a strong analysis not typically afforded it. Of note in the study, is the fact that they control using the Carstairs deprivation index for socioeconomic status statistically, specifically for affluence vs. risk of childhood leukemia. This needs to be considered with the fact that they're studying an association between distance of home address at birth from high voltage power lines. Do you see the issue in the combination of that control and that effect study? The basic control isn't so easily useable because of the number of confounding variables, including numbers of moves vs. birth location (stress factor), parental employment vs. location, etc. (These are only indirectly related to socioeconomic status as countered by Carstairs index, which uses four indicators: population density, owning a car, low social class, and male unemployment.) Then when you consider, within 200m, the analysis found a relative risk of 1.69 (95% confidence interval 1.13 to 2.53), the result becomes not merely questionable but likely variably confounded, something that the paper notes: "There is no accepted biological mechanism to explain the epidemiological results; indeed, the relation may be due to chance or confounding." and "We have no satisfactory explanation for our results in terms of causation by magnetic fields, and the findings are not supported by convincing laboratory data or any accepted biological mechanism." and "We emphasise again the uncertainty about whether this statistical association represents a causal relation.", which altogether amounts to an immense amount of ass-covering.

It is also worth mentioning that assuming "400-420 cases of childhood leukaemia occurring annually, about five would be associated with high voltage power lines" approximately, and childhood leukemia is a pretty rare disease as it is. The amount of money blown on these types of studies would cover the treatment for these patients many times over. Of course, the issue of extended disease results still needs to be dealt with, but from the standpoint of pragmatism....

Overall my concern is more that the HV lines are an anachronism, just as with CO2 spewing cars and power plants, it is not technologically necessary to put up with these things when we have better option which use less energy, and produce less waste, both in physical and EMF terms. I think arguing that it may be a small risk, but it would be better to do away with the tech even if it were not, is more pragmatic then arguing from a complex, and sometimes conflicting, body of data that we should ignore it.

My argument with this sift specifically lies in epidemiological claims, and I take up the debate because of my interest in the topic and my exposure to the issue. I am arguing against claims of increase in disease incidence as caused by EMF exposure from power lines, cell phone towers, etc., something that has not only not been demonstrated but that, if causally linked, is highly unlikely to matter in any reasonable scale of public life. From a scientific/academic perspective, it's worth researching. From a medical perspective, most likely not. From a public health perspective, almost certainly not. And we're being practical here.

Like I said, I have no experience or anything approaching debate-worthy levels of knowledge on the technological necessity or lack thereof of HV lines, something separate from its possibility of causing diseases. If you would like to sift something about the technology of HV lines and its economic feasibility or some such that I could watch and then read up on, I'd be more than happy to look into it.

Haha, I love it. We've all got to have something to be hypocritical about. And yes, PETA's methods are a big part of what I was referring to.

In reply to this comment by MINK:
all good man.. i chose the video carefully for the reasons you describe... i can't stand PETA's methods.

and i am not so much saying "don't eat meat" as "don't pollute the fucking planet just because you like the taste of something carcinogenic".

i smoke by the way
hypocrisy is great.

In reply to this comment by JAPR:
You have a point there. I just don't like things that basically tell me that my eating meat is bad. I don't actually even eat meat every day, and while some people do consume too much, I think that people go about trying to convince people to eat less meat the wrong way. Shocking images like slaughterhouse photos, videos showing animals pooping (I watched the whole video before voting, in case you were wondering), etc. just don't really do much other than annoy people a lot of the time. Sure you'll get a few people who will be "you know, they've got a point," but it mainly just gets people defensive about things.

For the record I have tons of vegetarian friends and don't see anything wrong with being vegetarian. I just would prefer that people didn't preach to me, just as I don't preach to them. I found the message in that video okay, but the video itself was just annoying and silly to me, so I downvoted. I will admit though, that the thing of having just one day where they don't eat meat was one of the most reasonable suggestions I've seen on this issue, as opposed to the whole "EATING MEAT IS EVIL AND YOU SHOULD STOP" thing that usually gets thrown at people. I hope it makes it out of the sift, and on second thought maybe I should have upvoted to promote discussion, but unfortunately votes can't be changed.

In reply to this comment by MINK:

and your point about climate change was...?

In reply to this comment by JAPR:
Fucking vegitarian nuts. Omnivores: we eat meat AND vegetables. Now excuse me while I eat an entire cow by myself.

all good man.. i chose the video carefully for the reasons you describe... i can't stand PETA's methods.

and i am not so much saying "don't eat meat" as "don't pollute the fucking planet just because you like the taste of something carcinogenic".

i smoke by the way
hypocrisy is great.

In reply to this comment by JAPR:
You have a point there. I just don't like things that basically tell me that my eating meat is bad. I don't actually even eat meat every day, and while some people do consume too much, I think that people go about trying to convince people to eat less meat the wrong way. Shocking images like slaughterhouse photos, videos showing animals pooping (I watched the whole video before voting, in case you were wondering), etc. just don't really do much other than annoy people a lot of the time. Sure you'll get a few people who will be "you know, they've got a point," but it mainly just gets people defensive about things.

For the record I have tons of vegetarian friends and don't see anything wrong with being vegetarian. I just would prefer that people didn't preach to me, just as I don't preach to them. I found the message in that video okay, but the video itself was just annoying and silly to me, so I downvoted. I will admit though, that the thing of having just one day where they don't eat meat was one of the most reasonable suggestions I've seen on this issue, as opposed to the whole "EATING MEAT IS EVIL AND YOU SHOULD STOP" thing that usually gets thrown at people. I hope it makes it out of the sift, and on second thought maybe I should have upvoted to promote discussion, but unfortunately votes can't be changed.

In reply to this comment by MINK:

and your point about climate change was...?

In reply to this comment by JAPR:
Fucking vegitarian nuts. Omnivores: we eat meat AND vegetables. Now excuse me while I eat an entire cow by myself.

I've learned to take pleasure in the slow filtering of functional martial arts into mainstream attention and media, so when I see something like Flash Point, I just nudge my training buddies and say, "Look dude, an RNC!" and then continue stuffing carcinogenic popcorn and swedish fish in my mouth in complete disobedience of any regular dietary regiment and with total disregard for my physical health.

I don't kick newbies off the mats during BJJ training for spazzing out or giving up their back. They're newbies, it's what they do. Donnie Yen is the cinematic equivalent of a no-stripe white belt. Pat him on the back, maybe mention how next time he should probably not try bench-pressing the guy from under mount, and tell him you'll see him tomorrow, same place, same time. That's how progress is made, y'know?

Talk out your arse much cobalt?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_issues_and_the_effects_of_cannabis

[edit] Toxicity
According to the Merck Index,[2] the LD50 (dosage lethal to 50% of rats tested) of Δ9-THC by inhalation is 42 mg/kg of body weight. That is the equivalent of a man weighing 75 kg (165 lb) inhaling the THC found in 21 grams of extremely high-potency (15% THC) marijuana all in one sitting, assuming no THC is lost through smoke loss or absorption by the lungs. For oral consumption, the LD50 for male rats is 1270 mg/kg, and 730 mg/kg for females—equivalent to the THC in about a pound of 15% THC marijuana.[3] The ratio of cannabis material required to saturate cannabinoid receptors to the amount required for a fatal overdose is 1:40,000.[4] There have been no reported deaths or permanent injuries sustained as a result of a marijuana overdose. It is practically impossible to overdose on marijuana, as the user would certainly either fall asleep or otherwise become incapacitated from the effects of the drug before being able to consume enough THC to be mortally toxic. According to a United Kingdom government report, using cannabis is less dangerous than tobacco, prescription drugs, and alcohol in social harms, physical harm and addiction.[5]





[edit] Confounding combination
The most obvious confounding factor in cannabis research is the prevalent usage of other recreational drugs, including alcohol and tobacco.[6] One paper claims marijuana use can increase risk of squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck. [7] Such complications demonstrate the need for studies on cannabis that have stronger controls, and investigations into the symptoms of cannabis use that may also be caused by tobacco. Some people question whether the agencies that do the research try to make an honest effort to present an accurate, unbiased summary of the evidence, or whether they "cherry-pick" their data, and others caution that the raw data, and not the final conclusions, are what should be examined.[8]

However, contrasting studies have linked the smoking of cannabis to lung cancer and the growth of cancerous tumors.[9][10][11][12] A 2002 report by the British Lung Foundation estimated that three to four cannabis cigarettes a day were associated with the same amount of damage to the lungs as 20 or more tobacco cigarettes a day.[13] Some of these finding may be attributed to the well-known custom that many British citizens often mix tobacco with marijuana. It should also be noted that a recent study conducted at a lab in UCLA has found no link between marijuana usage and lung cancer.[citation needed]

Cannabis also has a synergistic toxic effect with the food additive Butylated hydroxyanisole (BHA) and possibly the related compound butylated hydroxytoluene (BHT). The study concluded, "Exposure to marijuana smoke in conjunction with BHA, a common food additive, may promote deleterious health effects in the lung." BHA & BHT are man-made fat preservatives, and are found in many packaged foods including: plastics in boxed Cereal, Jello, Slim Jims, and more. [14]


[edit] Memory
Cannabis is known to act on the hippocampus (an area of the brain associated with memory and learning), and impair short term memory and attention for the duration of its effects and in some cases for the next day[15]. In the long term, some studies point to enhancement of particular types of memory.[16] Cannabis was found to be neuroprotective against excitotoxicity and is therefore beneficial for the prevention of progressive degenerative diseases like Alzheimer's disease.[17] A 1998 report commissioned in France by Health Secretary of State Bernard Condevaux and directed by Dr. Pierre-Bernard Roques determined that, "former results suggesting anatomic changes in the brain of chronic cannabis users, measured by tomography, were not confirmed by the accurate modern neuro-imaging techniques," (like MRI). "Moreover, morphological impairment of the hippocampus [which plays a part in memory and navigation] of rat after administration of very high doses of THC (Langfield et al., 1988) was not shown (Slikker et al., 1992)" (translated). He concluded that cannabis does not have any neurotoxicity as defined in the report, unlike alcohol and cocaine.[18][19][20]


[edit] Adulterated cannabis
Contaminants may be found in hashish when consumed from soap bar-type sources[21]. The dried flowers of the plant may be contaminated by the plant taking up heavy metals and other toxins from its growing environment[22]. Recently, there have been reports of herbal cannabis being adulterated with minute (silica [usually glass or sand], or sugar} crystals in the UK and Ireland. These crystals resemble THC in appearance, yet are much heavier, and so serve again to increase the weight, and hence street value of the cannabis[23].


[edit] Pregnancy
Studies have found that children of marijuana-smoking mothers more frequently suffer from permanent cognitive deficits, concentration disorders, hyperactivity, and impaired social interactions than non-exposed children of the same age and social background.[24][25] A recent study with participation of scientists from Europe and the United States, have now identified that endogenous cannabinoids, molecules naturally produced by our brains and functionally similar to THC from cannabis, play unexpectedly significant roles in establishing how certain nerve cells connect to each other. The formation of connections among nerve cells occurs during a relatively short period in the fetal brain. The study tries to give a closer understanding of if and when cannabis damages the fetal brain[26][27].[28]

Other studies on Jamaica have suggested that cannabis use by expectant mothers does not appear to cause birth defects or developmental delays in their newborn children.[29][30] In a study in 1994 of Twenty-four Jamaican neonates exposed to marijuana prenatally and 20 non exposed neonates comparisons were made at 3 days and 1 month old, using the Brazelton Neonatal Assessment Scale, including supplementary items to capture possible subtle effects. Results showed there were no significant differences between exposed and nonexposed neonates on day 3. At 1 month, the exposed neonates showed better physiological stability and required less examiner facilitation to reach organized states. The neonates of heavy-marijuana-using mothers had better scores on autonomic stability, quality of alertness, irritability, and self-regulation and were judged to be more rewarding for caregivers. This work was supported by the March of Dimes Foundation.[31]


[edit] Cancer
On 23 May 2006, Donald Tashkin, M.D., Professor of Medicine at the David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA in Los Angeles announced that the use of cannabis does not appear to increase the risk of developing lung cancer, or increase the risk of head and neck cancers, such as cancer of the tongue, mouth, throat, or esophagus.[32]The study involved 2252 participants, with some of the most chronic marijuana smokers having smoked over 22,000 marijuana cigarettes.[32][33][34][35] The finding of Donald Tashkin, M.D., and his team of researchers in 2006 refines their earlier studies published in a Dec. 17th 2000 edition of the peer-reviewed journal Cancer Epidemiology Biomarker and Prevention.[12] Many opponents of marijuana incorrectly cite the original finding of UCLA Medical Center from 2000 as "proof" that marijuana leaves the users at higher risk for cancer of the lung, and cancerous tumors,[9] even though the researchers at the UCLA Medical Center have revised their finding with a more in-depth study on the effects of the use of marijuana. This seemed to contradict assumptions made after some studies, like those from Dale Geirringer et al., which found that 118 carcinogens were produced when marijuana underwent combustion, and two carcinogens {2-Methyl-2, 4(2H-1-benzopyran-5-ol) & 5-[Acetyl benz[e]azulene-3,8-dione} formed when marijuana underwent vaporization with the Volcano Vaporizer.[36] To help explain this seemingly chemical proof of carcinogenity inherent in the process of combustion, Tashkin noted that "one possible explanation for the new findings, he said, is that THC, a chemical in marijuana smoke, may encourage aging cells to die earlier and therefore be less likely to undergo cancerous transformation."[32]

REMBAR

Thanks for your response. Bear with me as I try to give a nuanced response back to your critique.

Perhaps you missed reading in depth several of the headings in that report, for which they based their title “National Research Council: EPA’s fluoride standards are unsafe” . http://www.fluoridealert.org/health/epa/nrc/excerpts.html
I think the title they chose is fair and accurate in that the NRC is advocating that the EPA lower the allowable level of fluoride in our water due to adverse health affects (see the itemized list in the link above for specifics). This directly contradicts both of your statements. (#1 & #2)

#1. I happened to take the time to look up this study and skim through it (actually, the real title of the study is "Fluoride in Drinking Water: A Scientific Review of EPA's Standards" and does not actually say anything of the sort that fluoride standards are unsafe

Your statement is incorrect.

On March 22, 2006, a prestigious 12-member panel of the National Research Council completed a three year review of the appropriateness of the Enviromental Protection Agency's (EPA) safe drinking water standard for fluoride (officially called the Maximum Contaminant Level Goal, or MCLG) which is currently set at 4 ppm. After one of the most thorough and objective reviews of the literature in 60 years, the NRC panel unanimously found that the MCLG is too high and has asked EPA to lower the standard in order to protect children against severe dental fluorosis and to protect all groups from bone fracture. They have asked the EPA to perform a risk assessment to determine what the standard should be.. http://www.fluoridealert.org/health/epa/nrc/fluoridation.html

#2. “but that low doses, as properly regulated and administered, had no harmful effects on humans.”

Your statement does not take into account that dosage cannot be controlled.

10) Due to other sources, many people are being over-exposed to fluoride . Unlike when water fluoridation first began, Americans are now receiving fluoride from many other sources* besides the water supply. As a result many people are now exceeding the recommended daily intake, putting them at elevated risk of suffering toxic effects. For example, many children ingest more fluoride from toothpaste alone than is considered “optimal” for a full day’s worth of ingestion. According to the Journal of Public Health Dentistry:

"Virtually all authors have noted that some children could ingest more fluoride from [toothpaste] alone than is recommended as a total daily fluoride ingestion." (52)

Because of the increase in fluoride exposure from all sources combined, the rate of dental fluorosis (a visible indicator of over-exposure to fluoride during childhood) has increased significantly over the past 50 years. Whereas dental fluorosis used to impact less than 10% of children in the 1940s, the latest national survey found that it now affects over 30% of children. (47, 53)

* Sources of fluoride include: fluoride dental products, fluoride pesticides, fluorinated pharmaceuticals, processed foods made with fluoridated water, tea and food.

Also, here is the 2004 USDA National Fluoride Database of Selected Beverages and Foods.

http://www.archetype-productions.com/nfo/flouride/fluoride-in-everything.pdf

As you’ll see below in each one of those headings, http://www.fluoridealert.org/health/epa/nrc/excerpts.html
the report came back with several concerns. From negative findings about fluorides affect on our health, recommending lowering what the EPA had set as an (unsafe) standard and mainly suggests more research.

This is a far cry from the 1993 book you cited which stated (only in regards to the Carcinogenicity effects of fluoride) that there is no connection.

I also disagree with you and Doc_M's criticism of my citing a website critical of fluoride, rather than the actual studies in question. That website acts as a repository of information, which also provides summaries of in depth scientific articles from nationally recognized agencies such as

The National Research Council
The National Research Council is part of the National Academies, which also comprise the National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering and Institute of Medicine. They are private, nonprofit institutions that provide science, technology and health policy advice under a congressional charter. The Research Council was organized by the National Academy of Sciences in 1916 to associate the broad community of science and technology with the Academy's purposes of further knowledge and advising the federal government.

So are you are saying the original site I quoted cannot be trusted because they post critical information from the NRC about EPA studies? You and Doc both make the blanket statement that if the site is biased, then it cannot be trusted. If you would like a website that addresses both arguments and compares and contrasts them, then check this out

http://www.fluoridedebate.com/index.html

Qruel

Thanks for your response. Bear with me as I try to give a nuanced response back to your critique.
Perhaps you missed reading in depth several of the headings in that report, for which they based their title “National Research Council: EPA’s fluoride standards are unsafe” . http://www.fluoridealert.org/health/epa/nrc/excerpts.html
I think the title they chose is fair and accurate in that the NRC is advocating that the EPA lower the allowable level of fluoride in our water due to adverse health affects (see the itemized list in the link above for specifics). This directly contradicts both of your statements. (#1 & #2)

#1. I happened to take the time to look up this study and skim through it (actually, the real title of the study is "Fluoride in Drinking Water: A Scientific Review of EPA's Standards" and does not actually say anything of the sort that fluoride standards are unsafe

Your statement is incorrect.

On March 22, 2006, a prestigious 12-member panel of the National Research Council completed a three year review of the appropriateness of the Enviromental Protection Agency's (EPA) safe drinking water standard for fluoride (officially called the Maximum Contaminant Level Goal, or MCLG) which is currently set at 4 ppm. After one of the most thorough and objective reviews of the literature in 60 years, the NRC panel unanimously found that the MCLG is too high and has asked EPA to lower the standard in order to protect children against severe dental fluorosis and to protect all groups from bone fracture. They have asked the EPA to perform a risk assessment to determine what the standard should be.. http://www.fluoridealert.org/health/epa/nrc/fluoridation.html

#2. “but that low doses, as properly regulated and administered, had no harmful effects on humans.”

Your statement does not take into account that dosage cannot be controlled.

10) Due to other sources, many people are being over-exposed to fluoride . Unlike when water fluoridation first began, Americans are now receiving fluoride from many other sources* besides the water supply. As a result many people are now exceeding the recommended daily intake, putting them at elevated risk of suffering toxic effects. For example, many children ingest more fluoride from toothpaste alone than is considered “optimal” for a full day’s worth of ingestion. According to the Journal of Public Health Dentistry:

"Virtually all authors have noted that some children could ingest more fluoride from [toothpaste] alone than is recommended as a total daily fluoride ingestion." (52)

Because of the increase in fluoride exposure from all sources combined, the rate of dental fluorosis (a visible indicator of over-exposure to fluoride during childhood) has increased significantly over the past 50 years. Whereas dental fluorosis used to impact less than 10% of children in the 1940s, the latest national survey found that it now affects over 30% of children. (47, 53)

* Sources of fluoride include: fluoride dental products, fluoride pesticides, fluorinated pharmaceuticals, processed foods made with fluoridated water, tea and food.

Also, here is the 2004 USDA National Fluoride Database of Selected Beverages and Foods.

http://www.archetype-productions.com/nfo/flouride/fluoride-in-everything.pdf

As you’ll see below in each one of those headings, http://www.fluoridealert.org/health/epa/nrc/excerpts.html
the report came back with several concerns. From negative findings about fluorides affect on our health, recommending lowering what the EPA had set as an (unsafe) standard and mainly suggests more research.

This is a far cry from the 1993 book you cited which stated (only in regards to the Carcinogenicity effects of fluoride) that there is no connection.
I also disagree with you and Doc_M's criticism of my citing a website critical of fluoride, rather than the actual studies in question. That website acts as a repository of information, which also provides summaries of in depth scientific articles from nationally recognized agencies such as

The National Research Council
The National Research Council is part of the National Academies, which also comprise the National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering and Institute of Medicine. They are private, nonprofit institutions that provide science, technology and health policy advice under a congressional charter. The Research Council was organized by the National Academy of Sciences in 1916 to associate the broad community of science and technology with the Academy's purposes of further knowledge and advising the federal government.
Functioning in accordance with general policies determined by the Academy, the National Research Council has become the principal operating agency of both the National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Engineering in providing services to the government, the public and the scientific and engineering communities. The Research Council is administered jointly by both Academies and the Institute of Medicine through the National Research Council Governing Board. The chairman of the National Research Council is Ralph J. Cicerone.


So are you are saying this site cannot be trusted because they post critical information from the NRC about EPA studies? If you would like a website that addresses both arguments and compares and contrasts them, then check this out http://www.fluoridedebate.com/index.html

Qruel

In reply to this comment by rembar:
I am removing this sift from the Science channel, as this video does not well represent the scientific process by which we should all hope issues such as the use of fluoride would be given.

In addition, for the record, Qruel, when you are citing evidence in an argument, do not choose headlines written that misrepresent the studies that are being cited. Doc_M's criticism of your citing a biased website rather than the actual studies in question was very legitimate, and appropriate in this particular case. If you want to cite studies, cite studies, don't quote somebody "quoting" from a study. This is a good reason for using primary documents in a scientific debate. For example, the first study, represented as "1) National Research Council: Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) fluoride standards are unsafe"...well, I happened to take the time to look up this study and skim through it (actually, the real title of the study is "Fluoride in Drinking Water: A Scientific Review of EPA's Standards" and does not actually say anything of the sort that fluoride standards are unsafe), and guess what it reads? It says that high doses of fluoride have been proven to cause health problems (which had already been well-documented), but that low doses, as properly regulated and administered, had no harmful effects on humans.

And for a bit of further reading, check out Health Effects of Ingested Fluoride (1993), which has such little gems as : "More than 50 epidemiological studies have been conducted to evaluate the relation between fluoride concentrations in drinking water and human cancer. With minor exceptions, these studies used the method of geographic or temporal comparisons of fluoridation status and regional cancer rates. There is no consistent observation of increased cancer risk with drinking-water fluoridation; most of the studies show no association. The large number of epidemiological studies combined with their lack of positive findings implies that if any link exists, it must be very weak."

A very simple but interesting exercise might be to ask your local dentist the next time you go for a checkup what he or she thinks of fluoride.

she's probably lactose intolerant, like billions of other people. or maybe she's vegan, like a few billion other people. maybe she just doesn't want The Man forcing carcinogenic saturated animal fat down her throat, i dunno.

Ah, Home...sweet, stinkin', carcinogenic Home! NYS Attorney General Cuomo has filed suit against Exxon and it looks to be a bigger case than the Exxon Valdez debacle.

Depleted uranium (DU) was used in tank kinetic energy penetrator and autocannon rounds on a large scale for the first time in the Gulf War. DU munitions often burn when they impact a hard target, producing toxic combustion products. The toxicity, effects, distribution, and exposure involved have all been the subject of a lengthy and complex debate.

Because uranium is a heavy metal and chemical toxicant with nephrotoxic (kidney-damaging), teratogenic (birth defect-causing), and potentially carcinogenic properties, uranium exposure is associated with a variety of illnesses. The chemical toxicological hazard posed by uranium dwarfs its radiological hazard because it is only weakly radioactive, and depleted uranium even less so.

Early studies of depleted uranium aerosol exposure assumed that uranium combustion product particles would quickly settle out of the air and thus could not affect populations more than a few kilometers from target areas, and that such particles, if inhaled, would remain undissolved in the lung for a great length of time and thus could be detected in urine. Uranyl ion contamination has been found on and around depleted uranium targets.

DU has recently been recognized as a neurotoxin. In 2005, depleted uranium was shown to be a neurotoxin in rats.

In 2001, a study was published in Military Medicine that found DU in the urine of Gulf War veterans. Another study, published by Health Physics in 2004, also showed DU in the urine of Gulf War veterans. A study of UK veterans who thought they might have been exposed to DU showed aberrations in their white blood cell chromosomes. Mice immune cells exposed to uranium exhibit abnormalities.

Increases in the rate of birth defects for children born to Gulf War veterans have been reported. A 2001 survey of 15,000 U.S. Gulf War combat veterans and 15,000 control veterans found that the Gulf War veterans were 1.8 (fathers) to 2.8 (mothers) times as likely to report having children with birth defects. In early 2004, the UK Pensions Appeal Tribunal Service attributed birth defect claims from a February 1991 Gulf War combat veteran to depleted uranium poisoning.

In 2005, uranium metalworkers at a Bethlehem plant near Buffalo, New York, exposed to frequent occupational uranium inhalation risks, were alleged by non-scientific sources to have the same patterns of symptoms and illness as Gulf War Syndrome victims.

The NATO countries of France, the United Kingdom and the United States have consistently rejected calls for a ban, maintaining that its use continues to be legal, and that the health risks are entirely unsubstantiated. The UK government further alleges that cancers and birth defects in Iraq could be blamed on the Iraqi Government's use of chemical weapons on its own citizens.

"Considering the disturbing reports on the ill effects of DU weapons in the Gulf and the Balkans, it is saddening to note that so far appeals for a moratorium coming from different quarters have not yet prevailed. Killing first and asking questions later has, however, never been a sensible solution"

- United Nations Sub-Commission on Promotion and Protection of Human Rights, at paragraph 171 under the title "Moratorium" for the use of military DU rounds.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depleted_uranium#Military_applications

EDIT - Unfortunately I don't see this issue being addressed by anyone soon, because pulling DU out of the entire military ammunition apparatus did not happen since 1991 and Gulf War Sickness when VA vets complained, and I don't see it happening now. This being all sickly ironic given that --

Aircraft may also contain depleted uranium trim weights (a Boeing 747-100 may contain 400 to 1,500 kg). This application of DU is controversial. If an aircraft crashes there is concern that the uranium would enter the environment: the metal can oxidize to a fine powder in a fire. Its use has been phased out in many newer aircraft; Boeing and McDonnell-Douglas discontinued using DU counterweights in the 1980s. Some amount of depleted uranium was released eg. during the Bijlmer disaster, when 152 kg was 'lost'. Counterweights are manufactured with cadmium plating and are considered non-hazardous while the plating is intact.

So unsafe in airplanes, safe in war zones. Huh.