I've delivered many prepackaged, human remains to airport cargo terminals. Some airlines will ship your remains free if you were employed by the airline. Talk about perks!

I haven't read all the comments so I'm not sure if anyone feels the same as I do. This seems to be a popular video but I also think it's a little much for VideoSift. I'd hate to see this site become a gore site. I see this video was published just about 6 years ago, to my surprise.

I do body recovery, meaning that if there are human remains from motor vehicle crashes, crime scenes, suicides etc, it's my job to pick them up and bag them. My point being that I'm not offended by content like this but, rather it's something that tends to "grow kids up" before they are ready. There is no "NSFK" warning so I think videos like this might be better off at sites that publish this kind of content.

Just my opinion. Anyone else?

Fighting evil does not make you evil. Fighting back against a bully does not make you a bully, it makes you a deliverer of consequences. Many bullies and bad people ADORE the 'hey you can't give me consequences or talk back to me, that makes you as bad as me' backwards talk bullshit... and that is all it is... a bullshit copout being said by shitty people and should be disregarded. People who support these people are just perpetuating terrible, repulsive behaviour within humanity. Normalizing it, supporting it, and ensuring humanity remains the garbage it is for that much longer. Telling victims they should lower their eyes/heads and take the harassment if fucking disgusting.

This guy got consequences for his actions. Fuck him.

The 10,000 years thing is mostly derived from discerning the described geneology from Adam and Eve down. I'm not suggesting the Bible can't be a source for truth. I'm saying it's one source of many, and just like other information sources, some information is not valid, and all facts presented in the book should be read as such with a healthy amount of skepticism.

Translation: I have no problem if people use the Bible as sources of truth, but it must be balanced with other sources. Statements like "the Bible is 100% historically accurate" is an absurd lie, and the attitude is downright dangerous because it encourages blind acceptance of everything in the Bible, often taken literally. There likely has never been an actually history book ever written that's been unquestionably 100% accurate, either. I don't read the bible or any nonfiction book for that matter and assume everything in it is true.

That was my entire point of the post. It was not intended as an attack against Christians, or the Bible as a source of fact. It's an attack on the infallibility of the Bible as a source of knowledge, and those who make ridiculous statements like "nothing in the Bible has been proven wrong", when the above is an obvious example.

I do want to point out there's a difference between "Young Earth" arguments and arguments about how long human beings have been on the planet. I would agree with you the Bible doesn't actually say how long the earth or universe has been in existence. But it can be derived using biblical stories roughly how long humans have been on the earth. So, when those stories are taken literally, there have been numerous archeological finds that prove something in the Bible is false. That doesn't invalidate the entire Bible either, though.

>> ^smooman:

>> ^heropsycho:
You mean besides the Bible estimating the world to be only 10,000 years at most, when archaeological finds show just humans alone to be well over that? As in over 150,000 years old? 400,000 years old?
http://newsfeed.time.com/2010/12/29/worlds-oldest-human-remain
s-found-in-israel/
Now, I'm sure you're gonna make the argument that archaeologists are not dating artifacts correctly, which is funny, because archaeologists are in fact the experts on how to do this, but nevermind that...
Dude, come on. 100% historically reliable? Seriously?!
>> ^shinyblurry:
On the contrary, the historicity of the illad is in great dispute, is sparse at best, and certainly isn't cited very often by historians or archaelogists for much of anything. Archaelogical finds have confirmed some minor details and disputed others. It is widely considered to be mostly legendary.
Far from fiction, the bible has been confirmed to be accurate in great detail..as over 25,000 archaelogical discoveries over the last 150 years have proven the bible to be 100 percent historically reliable, and no archaelogical find has ever overturned a biblical reference. Over 80 persons from the bible have been confirmed externally to be historical people, and there are over 39 external sources confirming 100 facts about Jesus alone. Your premise is indeed a fallacy as it is a false equivalence strawman


mind if i butt in? this claim you speak of, the one that says the world is less than 10000 years old...........appears no where in the bible. not a single instance, reference, or even an allusion to it. Young Earth theory (or, crap, as i like to call it) was created by some church dudes back in the day and came about because they took all the "begets" in the old testament and did math presuming, of course, that these were the only people to ever beget in the history of begetting on top of this taking the genesis creation story to be a literal word for word historical event (which is fine for some people, just not for me) and came up with 10 grand.
and truth be told, while not 100% historically accurate, for obvious reasons, the bible as a written work is, generally speaking, pretty reliable. the ancient hebrew, as with most cultures in those times, took their writings and history very seriously and took great care to preserve their history as accurately as possible. because of the more supernatural elements tho (the creation story for example) critics would completely disregard the body of archived history the bible encompasses all because of some fantastical stories that are woven throughout. that, by definition, is intellectually irresponsible

>> ^heropsycho:

You mean besides the Bible estimating the world to be only 10,000 years at most, when archaeological finds show just humans alone to be well over that? As in over 150,000 years old? 400,000 years old?
http://newsfeed.time.com/2010/12/29/worlds-oldest-human-remain
s-found-in-israel/
Now, I'm sure you're gonna make the argument that archaeologists are not dating artifacts correctly, which is funny, because archaeologists are in fact the experts on how to do this, but nevermind that...
Dude, come on. 100% historically reliable? Seriously?!
>> ^shinyblurry:
On the contrary, the historicity of the illad is in great dispute, is sparse at best, and certainly isn't cited very often by historians or archaelogists for much of anything. Archaelogical finds have confirmed some minor details and disputed others. It is widely considered to be mostly legendary.
Far from fiction, the bible has been confirmed to be accurate in great detail..as over 25,000 archaelogical discoveries over the last 150 years have proven the bible to be 100 percent historically reliable, and no archaelogical find has ever overturned a biblical reference. Over 80 persons from the bible have been confirmed externally to be historical people, and there are over 39 external sources confirming 100 facts about Jesus alone. Your premise is indeed a fallacy as it is a false equivalence strawman



mind if i butt in? this claim you speak of, the one that says the world is less than 10000 years old...........appears no where in the bible. not a single instance, reference, or even an allusion to it. Young Earth theory (or, crap, as i like to call it) was created by some church dudes back in the day and came about because they took all the "begets" in the old testament and did math presuming, of course, that these were the only people to ever beget in the history of begetting on top of this taking the genesis creation story to be a literal word for word historical event (which is fine for some people, just not for me) and came up with 10 grand.

and truth be told, while not 100% historically accurate, for obvious reasons, the bible as a written work is, generally speaking, pretty reliable. the ancient hebrew, as with most cultures in those times, took their writings and history very seriously and took great care to preserve their history as accurately as possible. because of the more supernatural elements tho (the creation story for example) critics would completely disregard the body of archived history the bible encompasses all because of some fantastical stories that are woven throughout. that, by definition, is intellectually irresponsible

You mean besides the Bible estimating the world to be only 10,000 years at most, when archaeological finds show just humans alone to be well over that? As in over 150,000 years old? 400,000 years old?

http://newsfeed.time.com/2010/12/29/worlds-oldest-human-remains-found-in-israel/

Now, I'm sure you're gonna make the argument that archaeologists are not dating artifacts correctly, which is funny, because archaeologists are in fact the experts on how to do this, but nevermind that...

Dude, come on. 100% historically reliable? Seriously?!

>> ^shinyblurry:

On the contrary, the historicity of the illad is in great dispute, is sparse at best, and certainly isn't cited very often by historians or archaelogists for much of anything. Archaelogical finds have confirmed some minor details and disputed others. It is widely considered to be mostly legendary.
Far from fiction, the bible has been confirmed to be accurate in great detail..as over 25,000 archaelogical discoveries over the last 150 years have proven the bible to be 100 percent historically reliable, and no archaelogical find has ever overturned a biblical reference. Over 80 persons from the bible have been confirmed externally to be historical people, and there are over 39 external sources confirming 100 facts about Jesus alone. Your premise is indeed a fallacy as it is a false equivalence strawman

I realize I'm feeding a troll here but...

@shinyblurry You need to do some research that isn't listening to a preacher who's sole purpose is indoctrination.

1) Provide an example of one human fossil found in strata determined to be millions of years before humans. There is no documentation of this that hasn't been debunked. The fact you bring this up proves that you don't even know your own side, as this argument has been terribly embarrassing for creationists.

2) The polystrate fossil claim is a straw man. Yes, there are fossils that cross multiple strata, but these examples always show evidence of rapid sedimentation/deposition. Not every layer takes thousands/millions of years

3) What does the speed of stalactite production have to do with the age of the earth? Another straw man.

There is no controversy. Really. Do some real research, stop repeating already debunked garbage that came from your preacher.
>> ^shinyblurry:

You can stick your fingers in your ears and close your eyes all you want..there is a controversy and the only ones who dispute that are the ones who just buy into it without doing any real investigation. Also you've missed the entire point..this isnt an anti-science video. Science supports a young earth creation and I am all for it. This video debunks evolution, which is a hoax perpetrated on the public, taught in schools as if it were fact, and we believe it. I believed it. Every geologist knows there are problems with these dating methods.
If you watch some of the other videos you'll find out things the scientific community doesn't tell you like:
They find human remains in all levels of the strata..layaers that are supposed to be hundreds of millions of years before human beings.
They find polystrate fossils all the time, which are trees that poke through hundreds of millions of years worth of layers.
Fossils and stalactites don't take millions of years to form..just decades.
That's just the tip of the iceberg. So if you want to pretend there is no controversy, feel free. I know your entire world view hinges on it. The evidence however speaks for itself, and its out there for anyone with an actual curiosity to find.

>> ^Stormsinger:
You can scrape the bottom of the intellectual barrel to come up with these moronic videos for as long as you like. But until you can design, build and power a computer with prayer, I'll continue to put -my- trust (not faith) in the scientific method. And this ain't it.
THERE IS NO CONTROVERSY over whether or not evolution takes place. The only controversy comes from religious fanatics trying to teach their superstitions in our science classes.

You can stick your fingers in your ears and close your eyes all you want..there is a controversy and the only ones who dispute that are the ones who just buy into it without doing any real investigation. Also you've missed the entire point..this isnt an anti-science video. Science supports a young earth creation and I am all for it. This video debunks evolution, which is a hoax perpetrated on the public, taught in schools as if it were fact, and we believe it. I believed it. Every geologist knows there are problems with these dating methods.

If you watch some of the other videos you'll find out things the scientific community doesn't tell you like:

They find human remains in all levels of the strata..layaers that are supposed to be hundreds of millions of years before human beings.

They find polystrate fossils all the time, which are trees that poke through hundreds of millions of years worth of layers.

Fossils and stalactites don't take millions of years to form..just decades.

That's just the tip of the iceberg. So if you want to pretend there is no controversy, feel free. I know your entire world view hinges on it. The evidence however speaks for itself, and its out there for anyone with an actual curiosity to find.



>> ^Stormsinger:
You can scrape the bottom of the intellectual barrel to come up with these moronic videos for as long as you like. But until you can design, build and power a computer with prayer, I'll continue to put -my- trust (not faith) in the scientific method. And this ain't it.
THERE IS NO CONTROVERSY over whether or not evolution takes place. The only controversy comes from religious fanatics trying to teach their superstitions in our science classes.

>> ^gorillaman:

A constitutional democracy is a system in denial. If democracy's such a good idea what do you want a constitution for, and if the constitution's so wonderful why bother with democracy?
It's also unstable. Very nice for wise and benevolent founders to write down a list of rules for the mob to observe, until they decide not to observe them any more. Gradually or suddenly, every constitution is subverted. An effective model wouldn't be vulnerable to these periodic collapses.

Let me one up you in pessimism and cynicism. Humans are never going to create a society that everyone finds just. At least, not as long as humans remain human, and the physical laws continue to work as we presently understand them.

Also, physical laws and human behavior being what they are, no society is ever going to be static. Further, no society is going to dynamically adjust to change without someone somewhere feeling an injustice has been done to them. No paradigm of government is guaranteed to last forever.

So now that we agree everything is hopeless, and justice and freedom will never permanently eradicate tyranny and suffering, let's move on to actually talking about the best options for what we can do in this life with the tools we have at our disposal today.

>> ^gorillaman:
Would anyone here really dare to deny that smart people make better decisions than stupid people? Then we have an agreed foundation for building a superior government model and can put all this populism and consensus foolishness behind us.


I would agree that if I'm going to entrust someone with authority, I'd rather they be smart (and wise and kind) rather than stupid (or megalomaniacal or cruel).

But I think you have yet to state a coherent alternative you believe would be superior. If I thought it were possible to set up a reliable mechanism where only people of "golden souls" got to hold the reigns of power, I might actually prefer it to conventional forms of democracy. I just don't believe such a mechanism has been discovered, and I doubt that such a mechanism is possible.

I recently found this on Netflix on-demand, by accident of course. I thought it was absolutely hilarious. Non-stop "wtf was that?" moments. The English voice-over makes it even funnier.

There must have been a sale at the Body Parts Warehouse in Japan, cause they re-use a pile of severed human remains in nearly every scene.

This trailer shows some of the best ridiculousness - boob grenades, rocket-powered roundhouse kick, chainsaw leg (also rocket-powered in 1 scene), buzzsaw chest, 22 samurai sword holding ghost arms, a single-punch removal of the entire skeletal system (from Mortal Kombat?), and many more. What they don't show is magical guitar weapon the one character uses, or the CG monster penis that the final boss uses against the samurai ghost arms (and 1 real arm).

Apparently the lead actress is an adult film star in Japan (there is 1 love scene in a dream sequence that shows her best acting ability in the whole movie.) She should probably leave this movie off her CV, it is beneath porn...

>> ^Arg:
I'd be amazed if this man is capable of tying his own shoelaces.


I meet him and he is an intelligent, funny and likable guy. Of course you can mock and spout something about a person that you don't know instead of dealing with what he says.
Ben Stein was considered one of the smart guys before he decided to make his movie about Evolution. Now (even though he is not a Christian) he is mocked in similar fashion.
I was under the impression that this is a country where people can speak their mind and challenge thought?! Isn't that, an open discusion and reasoning, what makes sience worthwhile and lead to something?
Funny how nobody wants to talk about the things that Darwin said would have to fall into place to prove his theory. Funny how many of the “proof” comes out forged or plain false? If it is so clear and logigal… why the need to forge things? Funny how these known forgeries are still used in school text books today?!

Just to name a few:

Piltdown man: Found in a gravel pit in Sussex England in 1912, this fossil was considered by some sources to be the second most important fossil proving the evolution of man—until it was found to be a complete forgery 41 years later. The skull was found to be of modern age. The fragments had been chemically stained to give the appearance of age, and the teeth had been filed down!


Nebraska Man from the Illustrated London NewsNebraska man: A single tooth, discovered in Nebraska in 1922 grew an entire evolutionary link between man and monkey, until another identical tooth was found which was protruding from the jawbone of a wild pig.


Java man: Initially discovered by Dutchman Eugene Dubois in 1891, all that was found of this claimed originator of humans was a skullcap, three teeth and a femur. The femur was found 50 feet away from the original skullcap a full year later. For almost 30 years Dubois downplayed the Wadjak skulls (two undoubtedly human skulls found very close to his "missing link"). (source: Hank Hanegraaff, The Face That Demonstrates The Farce Of Evolution, [Word Publishing, Nashville, 1998], pp.50-52)


Orce man: Found in the southern Spanish town of Orce in 1982, and hailed as the oldest fossilized human remains ever found in Europe. One year later officials admitted the skull fragment was not human but probably came from a 4 month old donkey. Scientists had said the skull belonged to a 17 year old man who lived 900,000 to 1.6 million years ago, and even had very detail drawings done to represent what he would have looked like. (source: "Skull fragment may not be human", Knoxville News-Sentinel, 1983)


Neanderthal: Still synonymous with brutishness, the first Neanderthal remains were found in France in 1908. Considered to be ignorant, ape-like, stooped and knuckle-dragging, much of the evidence now suggests that Neanderthal was just as human as us, and his stooped appearance was because of arthritis and rickets. Neanderthals are now recognized as skilled hunters, believers in an after-life, and even skilled surgeons, as seen in one skeleton whose withered right arm had been amputated above the elbow. (source: "Upgrading Neanderthal Man", Time Magazine, May 17, 1971, Vol. 97, No. 20)

The theory of embryonic recapitulation asserts that the human fetus goes through various stages of its evolutionary history as it develops. Ernst Haeckel proposed this theory in the late 1860’s, promoting Darwin’s theory of evolution in Germany. He made detailed drawings of the embryonic development of eight different embryos in three stages of development, to bolster his claim. His work was hailed as a great development in the understanding of human evolution. A few years later his drawings were shown to have been fabricated, and the data manufactured. He blamed the artist for the discrepancies, without admitting that he was the artist. (source: Russell Grigg, "Fraud Rediscovered", Creation, Vol. 20, No. 2, pp.49-51)

I don't know if anyone read the comments on godtube, but they're pretty good (they always are, aren't they). One of them eludes to some type of mass cover up where human remains are always found inside dinosaur ones but archeologists remove them to perpetuate the LIE-- BUM BAH BAAAAAAAAA!!!!

for those reading this thread, please do not be mislead by rembars assertion that there is no scientific evidence of fluoride being harmful. I only have to prove there is scientists and scientific evidence that says fluoride is harmful. I don't personally have to prove it.

one would assume that if the EPA was to look at the subject they would be studying and comparing scientific studies. So here are Excerpts from: “Fluoride in Drinking Water: A Scientific Review of EPA’s Standards” (National Research Council, 2006)

FLUORIDE’S EFFECTS ON THE BRAIN:

“On the basis of information largely derived from histological, chemical, and molecular studies, it is apparent that fluorides have the ability to interfere with the functions of the brain and the body by direct and indirect means.” p187

“A few epidemiologic studies of Chinese populations have reported IQ deficits in children exposed to fluoride at 2.5 to 4 mg/L in drinking water. Although the studies lacked sufficient detail for the committee to fully assess their quality and relevance to U.S. populations, the consistency of the results appears significant enough to warrant additional research on the effects of fluoride on intelligence.” p6

“histopathological changes similar to those traditionally associated with Alzheimer’s disease in people have been seen in rats chronically exposed to AlF.” p178

“Fluorides also increase the production of free radicals in the brain through several different biological pathways. These changes have a bearing on the possibility that fluorides act to increase the risk of developing Alzheimer’s disease.” p186

“More research is needed to clarify fluoride’s biochemical effects on the brain.” p186

“The possibility has been raised by the studies conducted in China that fluoride can lower intellectual abilities. Thus, studies of populations exposed to different concentrations of fluoride in drinking water should include measurements of reasoning ability, problem solving, IQ, and short- and long-term memory.” p187

“Studies of populations exposed to different concentrations of fluoride should be undertaken to evaluate neurochemical changes that may be associated with dementia. Consideration should be given to assessing effects from chronic exposure, effects that might be delayed or occur late-in-life, and individual susceptibility.” p187

“Additional animal studies designed to evaluate reasoning are needed.” p. 187

FLUORIDE’S EFFECTS ON THE ENDOCRINE SYSTEM:

“In summary, evidence of several types indicates that fluoride affects normal endocrine function or response; the effects of the fluoride-induced changes vary in degree and kind in different individuals. Fluoride is therefore an endocrine disruptor in the broad sense of altering normal endocrine function or response, although probably not in the sense of mimicking a normal hormone. The mechanisms of action remain to be worked out and appear to include both direct and indirect mechanisms, for example, direct stimulation or inhibition of hormone secretion by interference with second messenger function, indirect stimulation or inhibition of hormone secretion by effects on things such as calcium balance, and inhibition of peripheral enzymes that are necessary for activation of the normal hormone.” p223

“Some of these [endocrine] effects are associated with fluoride intake that is achievable at fluoride concentrations in drinking water of 4 mg/L or less, especially for young children or for individuals with high water intake. Many of the effects could be considered subclinical effects, meaning that they are not adverse health effects. However, recent work on borderline hormonal imbalances and endocrine-disrupting chemicals indicated that adverse health effects, or increased risks for developing adverse effects, might be associated with seemingly mild imbalances or perturbations in hormone concentrations. Further research is needed to explore these possibilities.” p7

“Further effort is necessary to characterize the direct and indirect mechanisms of fluoride’s action on the endocrine system and the factors that determine the response, if any, in a given individual.” p223

“The effects of fluoride on various aspects of endocrine function should be examined further, particularly with respect to a possible role in the development of several diseases or mental states in the United States.” p224

FLUORIDE’S EFFECTS ON THE THYROID:

“several lines of information indicate an effect of fluoride exposure on thyroid function.” p197

“it is difficult to predict exactly what effects on thyroid function are likely at what concentration of fluoride exposure and under what circumstances.” p197

“Fluoride exposure in humans is associated with elevated TSH concentrations, increased goiter prevalence, and altered T4 and T3 concentrations; similar effects on T4 and T3 are reported in experimental animals..” p218

“In humans, effects on thyroid function were associated with fluoride exposures of 0.05-0.13 mg/kg/day when iodine intake was adequate and 0.01-0.03 mg/kg/day when iodine intake was inadequate.” p218

“The recent decline in iodine intake in the United States (CDC 2002d; Larsen et al. 2002) could contribute to increased toxicity of fluoride for some individuals.” p218

“Intake of nutrients such as calcium and iodine often is not reported in studies of fluoride effects. The effects of fluoride on thyroid function, for instance, might depend on whether iodine intake is low, adequate, or high, or whether dietary selenium is adequate.” p222

FLUORIDE’S EFFECTS ON THE PINEAL GLAND:

“The single animal study of pineal function indicates that fluoride exposure results in altered melatonin production and altered timing of sexual maturity (Table 8-1). Whether fluoride affects pineal function in humans remains to be demonstrated. The two studies of menarcheal age in humans show the possibility of earlier menarche in some individuals exposed to fluoride, but no definitive statement can be made. Recent information on the role of the pineal organ in humans suggests that any agent that affects pineal function could affect human health in a variety of ways, including effects on sexual maturation, calcium metabolism, parathyroid function, postmenopausal osteoporosis, cancer, and psychiatric disease.” p221-22

FLUORIDE’S EFFECTS ON INSULIN SECRETION/DIABETES:

“The conclusion from the available studies is that sufficient fluoride exposure appears to bring about increases in blood glucose or impaired glucose tolerance in some individuals and to increase the severity of some types of diabetes. In general, impaired glucose metabolism appears to be associated with serum or plasma fluoride concentrations of about 0.1 mg/L or greater in both animals and humans. In addition, diabetic individuals will often have higher than normal water intake, and consequently, will have higher than normal fluoride intake for a given concentration of fluoride in drinking water. An estimated 16-20 million people in the U.S. have diabetes mellitus; therefore, any role of fluoride exposure in the development of impaired glucose metabolism or diabetes is potentially significant.” p. 217

FLUORIDE’S EFFECTS ON THE IMMUNE SYSTEM:

“Nevertheless, patients who live in either an artificially fluoridated community or a community where the drinking water naturally contains fluoride at 4 mg/L have all accumulated fluoride in their skeletal systems and potentially have very high fluoride concentrations in their bones. The bone marrow is where immune cells develop and that could affect humoral immunity and the production of antibodies to foreign chemicals.” p249

“There is no question that fluoride can affect the cells involved in providing immune responses. The question is what proportion, if any, of the population consuming drinking water containing fluoride at 4.0 mg/L on a regular basis will have their immune systems compromised? Not a single epidemiologic study has investigated whether fluoride in the drinking water at 4 mg/L is associated with changes in immune function. Nor has any study examined whether a person with an immunodeficiency disease can tolerate fluoride ingestion from drinking water.” p250

“bone concentrates fluoride and the blood-borne progenitors could be exposed to exceptionally high fluoride concentrations. Thus, more research needs to be carried out before one can state that drinking water containing fluoride at 4 mg/L has no effect on the immune system.” p250

“it is important to consider subpopulations that accumulate large concentrations of fluoride in their bones (e.g., renal patients). When bone turnover occurs, the potential exists for immune system cells and stem cells to be exposed to concentrations of fluoride in the interstitial fluids of bone that are higher than would be found in serum. From an immunologic standpoint, individuals who are immunocompromised (e.g., AIDS, transplant, and bone-marrow-replacement patients) could be at greater risk of the immunologic effects of fluoride.” p 258

“Within 250 ?m of a site of resorption, it is possible to encounter progenitor cells that give rise to bone, blood, and fat. Thus, one must assume that these cells would be exposed to high concentrations of fluoride. At this time, it is not possible to predict what effect this exposure would have on the functioning of skeletal elements, hematopoiesis, and adipose formation.” p115

“It is paramount that careful biochemical studies be conducted to determine what fluoride concentrations occur in the bone and surrounding interstitial fluids from exposure to fluoride in drinking water at up to 4 mg/L, because bone marrow is the source of the progenitors that produce the immune system cells.” p 259

“In addition, studies could be conducted to determine what percentage of immunocompromised subjects have adverse reactions when exposed to fluoride in the range of 1-4 mg/L in drinking water.” p259

FLUORIDE’S INTERACTIVE/SYNERGISTIC EFFECTS (w/ IODINE, ALUMINUM, ETC):

“Intake of nutrients such as calcium and iodine often is not reported in studies of fluoride effects. The effects of fluoride on thyroid function, for instance, might depend on whether iodine intake is low, adequate, or high, or whether dietary selenium is adequate.” p222

“Better characterization of exposure to fluoride is needed in epidemiology studies investigating potential effects. Important exposure aspects of such studies would include the following: collecting data on general dietary status and dietary factors that could influence exposure or effects, such as calcium, iodine, and aluminum intakes.” p72

“Available information now indicates a role for aluminum in the interaction of fluoride on the second messenger system; thus, differences in aluminum exposure might explain some of the differences in response to fluoride exposures among individuals and populations.” p222

“With the increasing prevalence of acid rain, metal ions such as aluminum become more soluble and enter our day-to-day environment; the opportunity for bioactive forms of AlF to exist has increased in the past 100 years. Human exposure to aluminofluorides can occur when a person ingests both a fluoride source (e.g., fluoride in drinking water) and an aluminum source; sources of human exposure to aluminum include drinking water, tea, food residues, infant formula, aluminum-containing antacids or medications, deodorants, cosmetics, and glassware.” p42

“Further research should include characterization of both the exposure conditions and the physiological conditions (for fluoride and for aluminum or beryllium) under which aluminofluoride and beryllofluoride complexes can be expected to occur in humans as well as the biological effects that could result.” p42

“Another possible explanation for increased blood lead concentrations which has not been examined is the effect of fluoride intake on calcium metabolism; a review by Goyer (1995) indicates that higher blood and tissue concentrations of lead occur when the diet is low in calcium. Increased fluoride exposure appears to increase the dietary requirement for calcium (see Chapter ; in addition, the substitution of tap-water based beverages (e.g., soft drinks or reconstituted juices) for dairy products would result in both increased fluoride intake and decreased calcium intake.” p43

“[G]iven the expected presence of fluoride ion (from any fluoridation source) and silica (native to the water) in any fluoridated tap water, it would be useful to examine what happens when that tap water is used to make acidic beverages or products (commercially or in homes), especially fruit juice from concentrate, tea, and soft drinks. Although neither Urbansky (2002) nor Morris (2004) discusses such beverages, both indicate that at pH < 5, SiF6 2- would be present, so it seems reasonable to expect that some SiF6 2- would be present in acidic beverages but not in the tap water used to prepare the beverages. Consumption rates of these beverages are high for many people, and therefore the possibility of biological effects of SiF62-, as opposed to free fluoride ion, should be examined.” p44
FLUORIDE’S EFFECTS ON THE REPRODUCTIVE SYSTEM:

“A few human studies suggested that high concentrations of fluoride exposure might be associated with alterations in reproductive hormones, effects on fertility, and developmental outcomes, but design limitations make those studies insufficient for risk evaluation.” p6

“the relationship between fertility and fluoride requires additional study.” p161

FLUORIDE & DOWNS SYNDROME:

“The possible association of cytogenetic effects with fluoride exposure suggests that Down’s syndrome is a biologically plausible outcome of exposure.” p170

“A reanalysis of data on Down’s syndrome and fluoride by Takahashi (1998) suggested a possible association in children born to young mothers. A case-control study of the incidence of Down’s syndrome in young women and fluoride exposure would be useful for addressing that issue. However, it may be particularly difficult to study the incidence of Down’s syndrome today given increased fetal genetic testing and concerns with confidentiality.” 172

FLUORIDE’S EFFECTS ON THE GASTROINTESTINAL SYSTEM:

“The numerous fluoridation studies in the past failed to rigorously test for changes in GI symptoms and there are no studies on drinking water containing fluoride at 4 mg/L in which GI symptoms were carefully documented.” p230

“GI effects appear to have been rarely evaluated in the fluoride supplement studies that followed the early ones in the 1950s and 1960s.” p231

“The table suggests that fluoride at 4 mg/L in the drinking water results in approximately 1% of the population experiencing GI symptoms.” p231

“Whether fluoride activates G proteins in the gut epithelium at very low doses (e.g., from fluoridated water at 4.0 mg/L) and has significant effects on the gut cell chemistry must be examined in biochemical studies.” p236

“There are a few case reports of GI upset in subjects exposed to drinking water fluoridated at 1 mg/L. Those effects were observed in only a small number of cases, which suggest hypersensitivity. However, the available data are not robust enough to determine whether that is the case.” p. 250

“Studies are needed to evaluate gastric responses to fluoride from natural sources at concentrations up to 4 mg/L and from artificial sources.” p. 258

FLUORIDE’S EFFECTS ON THE LIVER:

“It is possible that a lifetime ingestion of 5-10 mg/day from drinking water containing 4 mg/L might turn out to have long-term effects on the liver, and this should be investigated in future epidemiologic studies.” p248

“The effect of low doses of fluoride on kidney and liver enzyme functions in humans needs to be carefully documented in communities exposed to different concentrations of fluoride in drinking water.” p258

FLUORIDE’S EFFECTS ON THE KIDNEY:

“Human kidneys... concentrate fluoride as much as 50-fold from plasma to urine. Portions of the renal system may therefore be at higher risk of fluoride toxicity than most soft tissues.” p236

“Early water fluoridation studies did not carefully assess changes in renal function.” p236

“future studies should be directed toward determining whether kidney stone formation is the most sensitive end point on which to base the MCLG.” p247

“On the basis of studies carried out on people living in regions where there is endemic fluorosis, ingestion of fluoride at 12 mg per day would increase the risk for some people to develop adverse renal effects.” p247

“The effect of low doses of fluoride on kidney and liver enzyme functions in humans needs to be carefully documented in communities exposed to different concentrations of fluoride in drinking water.” p258

FLUORIDE & CANCER:

“Fluoride appears to have the potential to initiate or promote cancers, particularly of the bone, but the evidence to date is tentative and mixed (Tables 10-4 and 10-5). As noted above, osteosarcoma is of particular concern as a potential effect of fluoride because of (1) fluoride deposition in bone, (2) the mitogenic effect of fluoride on bone cells, (3) animal results described above, and (4) pre-1993 publication of some positive, as well as negative, epidemiologic reports on associations of fluoride exposure with osteosarcoma risk.“ p. 286

“Because fluoride stimulates osteoblast proliferation, there is a theoretical risk that it might induce a malignant change in the expanding cell population. This has raised concerns that fluoride exposure might be an independent risk factor for new osteosarcomas.” p109

“Osteosarcoma presents the greatest a priori plausibility as a potential cancer target site because of fluoride’s deposition in bone, the NTP animal study findings of borderline increased osteosarcomas in male rats, and the known mitogenic effect of fluoride on bone cells in culture (see Chapter 5). Principles of cell biology indicate that stimuli for rapid cell division increase the risks for some of the dividing cells to become malignant, either by inducing random transforming events or by unmasking malignant cells that previously were in nondividing states.” p275

“Further research on a possible effect of fluoride on bladder cancer risk should be conducted.” p288

Graphic pictures of burned human remains

Part 2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-UvWzttIDmk&feature=related