Ok WP , you still cant provide good links to peer reviewed data huh ?
This is a report ( sorry pdf ) that details paleoclimate carbon ppm measurements ,
and surprise , theorizes those high levels are the case of the high temperatures .
http://earth.geology.yale.edu/~ajs/1991/04.1991.03Cerling.pdf

also
The only thing that is political in this movement is that studied observation MAY lead the way to better governance
The word is MAY , as in might , or possibly .

Have you ever heard the ultimate conspiracy theory?
It goes like this .
I don't believe in any conspiracies , because if i believed in a conspiracy , it would mean i knew something about said conspiracy , and therefore would be a danger to it , and therefore it would be a danger to me , therefore i don't believe in any conspiracies .
Circular logic is what it's called .
So what your saying is ALL the governments in the whole world except the U.S. , as they did not sign the Kyoto Accord , are working together to rip you off .
Paranoia is the easiest form of narcissism.

So lets say they win , and it's false, what do they do with all the tax money ?
How do they keep from getting whacked by a disgruntled polity?

Ok lets say they lose , and it's real .
We lose 1/3 of the worlds population , weighted more heavily among the poor , and populations near any coastline . Wasn't it well over 50% of the world population that lives within 50 miles of the coast ? We gain 40 feet , 12.19 meters , of sea level . Hence the title of this video .

Option 3 is obviously , They win and it's real .
Well they may be able to slow it down before it goes into a self-sustaining loop .
All that methane hydrate stored at the bottom of glaciers doesn't come bubbling lose . All that carbon sequestered in the permafrost stays put. Which it isn't .
http://www.321energy.com/editorials/lamontagne/lamontagne080109.html
Maybe governments have a few extra resources to deal with all the problems that will be caused by it . They still wont have enough because even their reports have been watered down .

Option 4 , They lose , and it's false .
I have a hard time addressing this one , as the odds of the latter are so low, though the odds of the former are well , a real possibility .

winston , no there has not been a period since we have been able to measure it , or in ANY historical sample that has carbon ppm as high as it is now . That's in 400,000 years.

Go back further. This is one of the key problems with the many flawed "global warming" models that people are trying to pass off as science. Why only look 400,000 years back? If you are going to do a comprehensive analysis then you have to look at the entire record. Cenozoic, Mesozoic, Paleozoic... In the past, atmosphereic C02 levels have been as high as 4,000+ PPM. TEN TIMES the current measley 380 PPM. When you look at the whole record, our current C02 levels are at a very low point.

Now - the way global warming alarmists discuss C02 you would think that at 10X the C02 levels our planet would be a wasteland of acidified oceans, baking deserts, and inhospitable wastes. Pht. Those periods of time were points where earth had far greater variety in plant and animal life and far more of earth's surface could sustain life. So why are global warming alarmists so all-fired paranoid about the relatively tiny increase from the LOW point of 280 PPM to a miniscule 390 PPM?

The only thing that is political in this movement is that studied observation may lead the way to better governance

The carbon taxes they want to impose would amount to one of the largest (if not THE largest) transfers of wealth to government in all of human history. Literally trillions of unaccountable dollars will be pouring into world governments all supposedly to 'fix' global warming. And you are trying to say that this isn't political? This is a cash grab, and they are getting useful idiots to play along by making the scientific community their little dancing monkeys in a game of modern-day patronage. When you follow the money trail, all these so-called 'climate studies' are bought and paid for by governments who winnow the results to get the scary headlines they need to spook the slow-witted and gullible into happily giving up their freedoms.

And government doesn't have to do squat except rake in the free money. They can't influence C02 levels any more than they can stop the sun, but they'll take your trillions of dollars - thanks. It is simple matter of Return on Investment. Is there ANY possibility that trillions of dollars going into government will in any way move the dial? There is no evidence that it will do a blessed thing. Therefore, why should we give up trillions to accomplish nothing except make paranoid people feel better about themselves? If you want to feel better about yourself then just go plant a tree and keep out of everyone's wallet.

winston , no there has not been a period since we have been able to measure it , or in ANY historical sample that has carbon ppm as high as it is now . That's in 400,000 years. The only thing that is political in this movement is that studied observation may lead the way to better governance ,with much fewer fatalities , that the current system . What is amazing is that so many defend the ole system , it's the serfs defending the royals, to prey on your old analogy . The old idea of resource based wealth , which leads to power , is just fucking doomed . It's not an if , it's a when . Hopefully enough people will see this and act before it becomes too late for ANY correction that doesnt involve half the fucking human race dying.
Also what a wonderful way to respond , with no sources, no proof, while demanding scientific credulity, yea,, your a clear logical thinker .

>> ^DrPawn:
Global warming is about as real as Y2K was. Is there 390 ppm CO2 now in the atmosphere, instead of 385 ppm CO2 in 1940 ? Yes. Is it warming the planet somewhat, yes a couple fractions of a degree overall. Has warming happened in the past yes. Will cooling happen in the future yes.
Are zombies like the one above overreacting yes. Any science that claims that global warming could have positive impacts on the planet is scorned. Do scientists gain from doom saying and predicting the worst possible consequences for the planet ... you bet they do. If they predicted negligible effects they would immediately lose their grants and be fired from whatever school they are in. Its not politically correct to challenge global warming.
And you cant get a grant to study how global warming might be not so bad after all.
Science is being hijacked by radical environmentalists on a political mission. Anyone that lives in the great white north knows that its so cold up there that life can barely hang on. Yet all you hear is how its killing polar bears.
Bullshit. A little warming will do the artic much more good then harm. Human beings are here to stay and yes 6 billion of us will change the world. Some species will have to deal with the sudden changes and some will not survive. Some will flourish.
I will never agree with Bill Orielly on principle, because he is a nutjob. However on this one he is less wrong then normal.


1) Don't know where you got your numbers but they are wrong. In 1940, the CO2 ppm was around 310 as reported by the CDIAC in this table here.

2) You apparently don't understand how science works. If someone were, as you seem to be suggesting, to put out an erroneous hypothesis for their own personal gain (i.e. to keep their job or get grant money), it would quickly be discovered since other scientists with no vested interest in the topic will examine the data and conduct experiments themselves and eventually show that the original results were falsified. Remember Hwang Woo-Suk? He tried to do exactly what you are describing and got called out on it.

3) The effects of global warming will do more good than harm? Really. Care to back that up with scientific evidence? Because the evidence that does exist points to catastrophic effects for most of the world. Rising sea levels are already flooding parts of the world like Tuvalu. Weather patterns are changing and wreaking havoc with current ecosystems. Forests in the U.S. are dying out an alarming rate due to the warming. Coral bleaching, species migration pattern disruption, increased death rates in Arctic and Antarctic species like penguins--all of these have been linked to temperature increases. You're saying these are good things?

Global warming is about as real as Y2K was. Is there 390 ppm CO2 now in the atmosphere, instead of 385 ppm CO2 in 1940 ? Yes. Is it warming the planet somewhat, yes a couple fractions of a degree overall. Has warming happened in the past yes. Will cooling happen in the future yes.

Are zombies like the one above overreacting yes. Any science that claims that global warming could have positive impacts on the planet is scorned. Do scientists gain from doom saying and predicting the worst possible consequences for the planet ... you bet they do. If they predicted negligible effects they would immediately lose their grants and be fired from whatever school they are in. Its not politically correct to challenge global warming.

And you cant get a grant to study how global warming might be not so bad after all.

Science is being hijacked by radical environmentalists on a political mission. Anyone that lives in the great white north knows that its so cold up there that life can barely hang on. Yet all you hear is how its killing polar bears.

Bullshit. A little warming will do the artic much more good then harm. Human beings are here to stay and yes 6 billion of us will change the world. Some species will have to deal with the sudden changes and some will not survive. Some will flourish.

I will never agree with Bill Orielly on principle, because he is a nutjob. However on this one he is less wrong then normal.

I wouldn't say absinthe has any hallucinagenic qualities at all. However, it is not liquor and does have psychoactive properties you won't find in any other spirit.
With that being said, I can respond to an intelligent previous post. The required ppm which is mg/liter I believe is less than 10 in the US. In Europe I think it's somewhere like 35 and I think the average European absinthe contains around 28-30. So, like I said it's not hallucinagenic, but the affinity of thujone is on the level of LSD (as far as amount required to achieve some desired effect though their effects and effective targets differ greatly). So, imagine the difference between taking one hit of acid versus three hits of acid (assuming you're relatively new to it).

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

Rembar thinks mercury alloy is absolutely safe, ipso facto this is not *science, even if it's published in a peer-reviewed *scientific journal and it uses the *scientific method and it comes from the *science faculty of a respectable university, because the almighty Medical Establishment is infallible and never persisted in using an incorrect treatment for hundreds of years. Leeches? Mercuric chloride for syphilis? Never happened Science is not about unanimity of opinion. It's about the method. Mercury has been known as a neurotoxin for some time. So when you look at neurons grown in vitro under a microscope, and expose some of them to a few PPM of mercury, the mercury should cause some visible difference in structure or behavior of the neurons exposed to mercury. That's a prediction. And they verified the prediction, videotaped it, and posted the video. They even identified the site where mercury binds to a neuronal protein. Should rembar have a monopoly on *science at the sift?

http://movies.commons.ucalgary.ca/mercury/

Everything is a poison; the dose determines whether it is harmful. And the science has been done to prove that 1ppm of F- ion in drinking water causes brain damage in rats. The typical range of F- ion equivalent in fluoridated drinking water is 0.7-1.3 ppm, usually delivered as hexafluorosilicate.

The paper is the first result in the google scholar link that I posted. It tested rats with double distilled deionized water (DDW) in the control group and DDW + 2.1 ppm NaF in the test group. 2.1ppm NaF is equal to 1ppm fluoride ion. The rats were not force-fed; the difference was just the type of water in their water bottles. It used a computer program to evaluate rat behavior. It's cited by 60 other papers. http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=fluoride+varner

In reply to this comment by rembar:
Could you link me or direct me to the paper in which the clinical trial demonstrating the 1 ppm effect on rats is detailed? The video you commented on is teetering towards the edge of getting the boot from the Science channel, and I thought it might be fun to see if it could be rescued before it flails its way into the abyss.

In reply to this comment by jwray:
TV news is so reminiscent of http://www.videosift.com/video/Monty-Python-The-Argument-Clinic-Full-Version

They don't actually go into the details of the placebo-controlled clinical trial that shows 1ppm of fluoride ion in drinking water causes a pattern of behavioral deficits in rats, or the studies of the biochemical mechanisms of its neurotoxicity. Dental Fluorosis is the most benign of the problems excess fluoride can cause. http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=fluoride+varner

Could you link me or direct me to the paper in which the clinical trial demonstrating the 1 ppm effect on rats is detailed? The video you commented on is teetering towards the edge of getting the boot from the Science channel, and I thought it might be fun to see if it could be rescued before it flails its way into the abyss.

In reply to this comment by jwray:
TV news is so reminiscent of http://www.videosift.com/video/Monty-Python-The-Argument-Clinic-Full-Version

They don't actually go into the details of the placebo-controlled clinical trial that shows 1ppm of fluoride ion in drinking water causes a pattern of behavioral deficits in rats, or the studies of the biochemical mechanisms of its neurotoxicity. Dental Fluorosis is the most benign of the problems excess fluoride can cause. http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=fluoride+varner

^ here you are JAPR with a little bit of context as to why those scientists would be upset over the issue of clissifying fluoride as an essential element. I am showing snippets from both sides so please read the entire letters for the fullest conext of what transpired between the two groups.

TWO UNANSWERED LETTERS
http://www.fluoride-journal.com/98-31-3/313-153.htm

the Dietary Reference Intakes report on calcium, magnesium, phosphorus, vitamin D, and fluoride prepared by the Institute of Medicine of the National Academy of Sciences and scheduled for publication this month, contains a number of recommendations concerning fluoride that are cause for grave concern over their validity for setting public health policy. This concern has been heightened by statements made by speakers and panel members and their responses to queries at the recent September 23rd workshop on the report held at the National Academy of Sciences.

We, the undersigned, regard the problem as so serious that we are requesting you to take immediate steps to delete the fluoride section of the report and to have it re-addressed by a panel that includes members of the scientific community who are not committed to promoting or supporting fluoride use. What follows is a brief summary of the basis for our concern.

Of even greater concern, in relation to public health, is the proposal in the report that only the early stages of skeletal fluorosis are the appropriate criteria for fluoride intoxication. For this purpose a tolerable upper level ingestion limit of 10 milligrams of fluoride per day for 10 or more years in persons age 9 or older is proposed. But this level of intake is not tolerable, and, according to the sources cited in the report, it can and does lead to crippling skeletal fluorosis (Hodge, 1979). For young adults, assuming 50% retention of ingested fluoride in hard tissues, as stated on page 8-2 of the prepublication copy of the report, an absorbed intake of 10 mg/day amounts to a yearly accumulation of 1.8 grams or over 50 grams after 30 years. At this level debilitating skeletal fluorosis was observed by Raj Roholm in his classic studies of cryolite workers. But before this condition is reached, there are various pre-skeletal phases of fluoride intoxication with serious health implications that arise from much lower levels of intake, especially when calcium and magnesium are marginal, an aspect not considered in the report. Among these manifestations are increased hip-fracture among the elderly from deterioration in bone strength and quality (in agreement with long-term laboratory animal studies), increased osteosarcoma in young males (also demonstrated in male rats), chronic gastrointestinal irritation (reversible with decreased exposure to fluoride), and various neuromuscular disorders whose connection with fluoride has been well confirmed in peer-reviewed publications without convincing refutation. Recent studies showing decreased IQ scores correlating with dental fluorosis (again backed up by laboratory animal research) were also omitted from consideration.

When questioned at the workshop about these omissions, the speakers and the members of the panel became defensive and were unwilling or unable to explain why such findings had been excluded in setting the upper tolerance level of fluoride at 10 mg/day. From the record of some of the committee members' past promotion or support of fluoride use, including slow-release fluoride for treatment of osteoporosis (known to produce abnormal bone of inferior strength), these responses, although disappointing, are perhaps not too surprising. But, in such an important matter, should not at least some balance of viewpoint have been represented? As seen in the videotape (a copy of which has been sent to the Academy) the attitude of some of the presenters and panelists toward those who cited contrary data and questioned why such findings were not discussed can only be described as condescending and demeaning.
__________________________________

http://www.fluoride-journal.com/99-32-3/323-187.htm

The two letters referred to at the beginning of the letter were also published in Fluoride 31(3) 153-157 August 1998.

In a separate letter from the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), also dated November 20, 1998, James Jensen, Director of the National Research Council Office of Congressional and Governmental Affairs of NAS, replied to an inquiry from Pennsylvania Senator Arlen Specter on behalf of one of his constituents, who wanted to know why my joint letter of October 15, 1997 to Dr. Bruce Alberts, President of NAS, had not received a reply. In his letter to Senator Specter, Mr. Jensen wrote:

"When Dr. Burgstahler’s letter on fluoridation [actually, it was about the proposed Dietary Reference Intake standards for fluoride and only indirectly about fluoridation] arrived at the Academy, a response was drafted but never sent out. There is little excuse for this, but this is what occurred. . . .

__________________________________

NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES INSTITUTE OF MEDICINE (reply)
http://www.fluoride-journal.com/99-32-3/323-187.htm

We want to thank you and your co-signers for your October 15, 1997 letter to us concerning the Food and Nutrition Board’s (FNB) recent report, Dietary Reference Intakes for Calcium, Phosphorus, Magnesium, Vitamin D and Fluoride. The publication of the report represents the initial report of a major new activity of the FNB: the development of a comprehensive set of reference values for nutrients and food components of possible benefit to health, that may not meet the traditional concept of a nutrient. If adequate scientific data exist that support a health benefit from the inclusion of these components in the diet, reference intakes will be established.

In replying to your letter, we have consulted with the Committee that produced the FNB report and asked them to review the important points that you raised concerning their report and the associated workshop, as well as to explain why they have reached the conclusions they reached despite the information you cite.

First, let us reassure you with regard to one concern. Nowhere in the report is it stated that fluoride is an essential nutrient. If any speaker or panel member at the September 23rd workshop referred to fluoride as such, they misspoke. As was stated in Recommended Dietary Allowances 10th Edition, which we published in 1989: "These contradictory results do not justify a classification of fluoride as an essential element, according to accepted standards.

________________


Albert W. Burgstahler. Professor Emeritus of Chemistry, The University of Kansas (reply)
http://www.fluoride-journal.com/99-32-3/323-187.htm

But clearly, the average fluoride intake of an adult drinking water containing more than 10 ppm fluoride will very likely exceed 10 mg/day and therefore, according to Professor Whitford, would create a risk for crippling skeletal fluorosis, even in the United States and Canada. Why residents of these two countries supposedly do not develop skeletal fluorosis from levels of fluoride intake that are well known to cause it elsewhere is deftly shoved aside by citing studies in the U.S. that did not report finding it.

Equally disturbing in the Alberts-Shine letter is the unexplained jump of an "adequate" fluoride intake of only 0.01 mg/day for infants up to age six months to 0.05 mg/kg body weight/day for the second six months of life and thereafter. By age six months, a baby weighing 6-8 kg would therefore have an "adequate" fluoride intake of 0.3 to 0.4 mg/day – a 30- to 40-fold increase from the first six months to the second six months of life after birth! No such huge increase is proposed for any other dietary component.

As pointed out by Dr. John Yiamouyiannis at the end of the following letter, this 0.05 mg/kg/day figure for fluoride appears to be based on an effort to justify or "sanctify" water fluoridation. Thus, an average daily total fluoride intake of 3.5-mg by a 70-kg adult drinking 1-ppm fluoridated water amounts to 3.5 mg/70 kg/day or 0.05 mg/kg/day. And this is sound "scientific" thinking by the U.S. National Academy of Sciences?

In the end, however, all these considerations are moot, since the basis for setting an "adequate intake" of fluoride rests on its alleged ability to prevent tooth decay. But since any such dental benefit from fluoride, to whatever extent it exists, is now known to be largely topical and not systemic (from ingestion), how can there even be a daily "adequate intake"?

you are 100% correct about the collusion of science, industry and government. The book does a wonderful job of documenting the collusion.

My problem with rembars stance is that he states that there is no scientific evidence supporting the adverse health affects of fluoride use. He goes so far as to call it a conspiracy and equates it with intelligent design. Even when I present him numerous scientific studies he does not acknowledge them, apparently because they do not coincide with his opinions. I should not have to prove anything other than there is REAL scientific work bring done by scientists (not just some crazy conspiracy theorist). Very frustrating to present evidence and have it discounted soley on the basis that he doesn't agree. That is to say, he can not agree with the outcome of the studies, but to classify them as conspiritorial and scientifically baseless is inexcusable.

Hundreds of scientist have been studying the affects of fluoride, here is the top ten of 2006

Fluoride: Top 10 Scientific Developments of the Year (only 2006)

Fluoride Action Network
January 23, 2007
Over the past year, many important papers on fluoride toxicity were published in the peer-reviewed scientific literature. To give an indication of this recent research, the Fluoride Action Network (FAN) has selected the “Top 10” scientific developments of the year, from 2006 through to the early weeks of 2007.

1) National Research Council: EPA’s fluoride standards are unsafe

The National Research Council’s long-awaited review of fluoride, released in March of 2006, was a watershed moment in the fluoride debate. The 500 page review, which took 12 scientists over three years to produce, describes in great detail why EPA’s purportedly “safe” drinking water standard (4 ppm) needs to be reduced in order to protect human health (1). The report documents myriad potential hazards from fluoride exposure, including damage to the bones, brain, and various glands of the endocrine system. According to Dr. Bob Carton, a former risk-assessment scientist at EPA, this report “should be the centerpiece of every discussion on fluoridation. It changes everything.”

1) National Research Council. (2006). Fluoride in Drinking Water: A Scientific Review of EPA's Standards. National Academies Press, Washington D.C. (Reviewed in: Fluoride 2006; 39(3):163-172.)

2) Harvard Study: Fluoridation associated with bone cancer in boys

In the wake of media scrutiny and an NIH ethics investigation, the first paper from Harvard University’s ongoing study of fluoride and bone cancer was finally published (2). The paper -- published 14 years after the study began -- reported that boys exposed to fluoridated water had a significantly higher rate of an often fatal form of bone cancer called osteosarcoma. According to the study, the boys with the highest rate of osteosarcoma were those that were exposed to fluoridated water during the ages of 6 to 8, although other years of life were also associated with increased risk – including the first year of life. These findings, which are consistent with a 1990 government study that reported the same form of bone cancer in fluoride-treated rats, have resulted in a similar degree of controversy. For example, in 1992, the top toxicologist in EPA’s Office of Drinking Water was fired after publicly expressing concern that the government was downplaying the study’s findings, while, in 2005, the principal investigator of the Harvard study (a dental professor with ties to Colgate) sparked a public outcry after it was revealed he had withheld the study’s findings from federal authorities while claiming it showed no relationship between fluoridation and bone cancer. Together, the government and Harvard studies reveal a disturbing pattern: when it comes to fluoride and cancer, politics can become a malignant force.

2) Bassin EB, Wypij D, Davis RB, Mittleman MA. (2006). Age-specific fluoride exposure in drinking water and osteosarcoma (United States). Cancer Causes and Control 17: 421-8.

3) Too much fluoride can damage the developing brain

In March, the National Research Council broke important ground by dedicating an entire chapter of its report to the growing body of evidence indicating that fluoride can damage the brain. According to the NRC, “it is apparent that fluorides have the ability to interfere with the functions of the brain and the body by direct and indirect means.” However, since we’ve already selected the NRC report as our #1 pick, our #3 pick goes to two recent papers that add further support to the NRC’s conclusions on fluoride’s potential to damage the brain.

The first paper was a review, published in the esteemed medical journal The Lancet, examining the various chemicals in today’s world that may damage a child’s developing brain (3A). The review classified fluoride, along with the rocket fuel additive perchlorate, as an “emerging neurotoxic substance” due to studies linking it to brain damage in animals and lower IQs in children.

The Lancet’s review was officially published on December 16, 2006, less than a month before an environmental health journal in the US published a new study demonstrating -- once again -- that high fluoride exposure can reduce children’s IQ (3B). The study, published in Environmental Health Perspectives, reports that groups of children exposed to 8 ppm fluoride in water have lower average IQ’s, less children attaining high IQ, and more children affected by low IQ. While 8 ppm is higher than the fluoride level added to water in fluoridation programs (0.7-1.2 ppm), previous studies from China indicate that fluoride may affect IQ at lower levels (Xiang 2003), including as low as 0.9 ppm among children with iodine-deficiencies (Lin Fa Fu 1991).

Together, the publication of the Lancet review & the Environmental Health Perspectives study suggest that the mainstream medical literature is finally beginning to recognize this critically important, but previously ignored, issue.

3A) Grandjean P, Landrigan P. (2006). Developmental neurotoxicity of industrial chemicals. The Lancet 368: 2167-2178

3B) Wang SX, et al. (2007). Water arsenic and fluoride exposure and children’s intelligence quotient and growth in Shanyin County, Shanxi, China. Environmental Health Perspectives [Epub Jan 9].

4) Infant fluoride exposure linked to permanent tooth discoloration

The upper front two teeth are the most visible teeth when a person smiles. If a baby is exposed to fluoride during the first year of their life, these two teeth are at risk of being permanently discolored – according to a new study from the University of Iowa (4). And the risk is not just for “baby teeth”, but for permanent teeth as well.

According to the study, exposure to fluoride during the child’s first year of life can cause a tooth defect, known as dental fluorosis, that won’t become apparent until the teeth erupt 7 or 8 years later. Dental fluorosis can result in white and/or brown staining of the teeth and sometimes corrosion of the enamel – effects which will last the child’s entire life if cosmetic treatment cannot be afforded.

The Iowa researchers’ findings may help explain why the American Dental Association later warned, on November 9th, that infants should not receive fluoridated water. The ADA’s warning did not, however, go far enough. According to the Iowa study, the risk of developing fluorosis on the permanent teeth is greatest for those children exposed to fluoride for each of their first four years of life. The take home message: To avoid fluorosis on the permanent front two teeth, keep fluoride away from children until they are at least 5 years old.

4) Hong L, Levy SM, et al. (2006). Timing of fluoride intake in relation to development of fluorosis on maxillary central incisors. Community Dentistry and Oral Epidemiology 34:299-309.

5) Kidney patients at risk of chronic fluoride poisoning

It’s not just infants that should avoid fluoridated water. New research provides yet further reason why people with kidney disease – particularly advanced kidney disease – should be advised to avoid fluoride as well.

Because kidney patients have a reduced ability to clear fluoride from their body, they have long been recognized to be at heightened risk of fluoride poisoning. In 2006, new research helped to further highlight this risk. Research from India confirmed that fluoride can cause a painful bone disease in kidney patients (5A), while research from Poland indicated that the health risks may extend well beyond the bones (5B). According to the Polish researchers, the heightened body burden of fluoride that kidney patients face (as measured by high levels of fluoride in their blood) may increase the rate of cell damage (oxidative stress) throughout the body – making them more vulnerable to a host of illnesses.

So, should people with kidney disease be concerned about drinking fluoridated water? According to two new reviews, the answer is yes (5C,D). According to one review, "Individuals with kidney disease have decreased ability to excrete fluoride in urine and are at risk of developing fluorosis even at normal recommended limit of 0.7 to 1.2 mg/l” (5C).

It’s time, therefore, for dental and medical organizations to start warning kidney patients to avoid water with added fluoride. As noted by Dr. Kathleen Thiessen, a scientist who helped author the National Research Council’s review on fluoride: “People with kidney disease should be very concerned about drinking fluoridated water because it does put them at a higher risk for a number of problems.”

5A) Harinarayan CV, et al. (2006). Fluorotoxic metabolic bone disease: an osteo-renal syndrome caused by excess fluoride ingestion in the tropics. Bone 39: 907-14.

5B) Bober J, et al. (2006). Fluoride aggravation of oxidative stress in patients with chronic renal failure. Fluoride 39:302-309. [See paper]

5C) Bansal R, Tiwari SC. (2006). Back pain in chronic renal failure. Nephrology Dialysis Transplantation 21:2331-2332.

5D) Ayoob S, Gupta AK. (2006). Fluoride in Drinking Water: A Review on the Status and Stress Effects. Critical Reviews in Environmental Science and Technology 36:433–487

6) Cornell scientist diagnoses fluoride poisoning in horses drinking fluoridated water

When fluoride is added to drinking water, it’s not just humans who will consume it. Millions of dogs, cats, and other animals will consume it as well. As we await the publication of a national study investigating the relationship between fluoridated water and bone cancer in dogs, a study published in 2006 provides compelling evidence that some animals may indeed be silent victims of the national water fluoridation program (6A,B).

For years, Cathy Justus’ horses in Pagosa Springs, Colorado, were experiencing symptoms that, no matter what medical treatment she tried, would not go away. The symptoms included colic (i.e. gastrointestinal pain), arthritis-like stiffness of the bones, and skin allergies. Cathy brought her horses to multiple veterinarians in the area, but none were able to find a cure for the horses’ problems -- that is, until she met Dr. Lennart Krook, a retired veterinary researcher from Cornell University. Upon examining the horses, Dr Krook quickly discovered that Cathy’s horses had dental fluorosis – a fluoride-induced condition that created large brown stains and pits on the horses’ teeth. (None of the previous veterinarians Cathy went to had ever bothered to examine the horses’ teeth, and had therefore missed this important warning sign.)

Following the discovery of dental fluorosis, Dr. Krook conducted microscopic analyses of some of the deceased horses’ bones, and found changes in the bone structure that were consistent with skeletal fluorosis. While the horses’ bone fluoride levels (between 600 and 900 ppm) were well below the levels typically associated with skeletal fluorosis (in cattle), Dr. Krook concluded that the horses were, in fact, suffering from “chronic fluoride intoxication.”

Although some have questioned Dr. Krook’s diagnosis (based on the low fluoride levels in the horses’ bones), the owner of the horses swears by it. After her town council voted (in March 2005) to end its water fluoridation program, the symptoms that had plagued Cathy’s horses for nearly 20 years, began to subside – and have not returned since. Coincidence? According to Cathy Justus, the proof is in the pudding.

So, how many other horses are being affected in a similar manner? Dr Krook and Cathy think this is a question horse owners would do well to consider. We agree.

6A) Krook LP, Justus CJ. (2006). Fluoride poisoning of horses from artificially fluoridated drinking water. Fluoride 39:3-10. [See paper]

6B) Justus CJ, Krook LP. (2006). Allergy in horses from artificially fluoridated water. Fluoride 39:89-94. [See paper]

7) Fluoride exposure linked to kidney damage in children

The kidney has long been recognized as a potential target of fluoride toxicity. This is because, as noted by the National Research Council, “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.”

It was of great interest, therefore, to read the results of a new study investigating the relationship between water fluoride exposure and kidney damage in children (7). According to the study: “our results suggest that drinking water fluoride levels over 2.0 mg/L (ppm) can cause damage to liver and kidney function in children.”

The authors reached this conclusion after studying a group of 210 children living in areas of China with varying levels of fluoride in water (from 0.61 to 5.69 ppm). Among this group, the children drinking water with more than 2 ppm fluoride – particularly those with dental fluorosis - were found to have increased levels of NAG and y-GT in their urine, both of which are markers of kidney damage. The children’s urine also contain increased levels of lactic dehydrogenase – a possible indicator of liver damage.

While definitive conclusions can not be drawn from this single study, it’s findings are consistent with previous animal studies which reported kidney damage from fluoride exposure at levels as low as 1 ppm in rats, and 5 ppm in monkeys. Taken together, the studies suggest that minimizing fluoride intake could well have a positive effect on kidney health.

7) Xiong X, et al. (2007). Dose-effect relationship between drinking water fluoride levels and damage to liver and kidney functions in children. Environmental Research 103:112-116. (Reviewed in: American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) Grand Rounds; 2007; 17:7).

Water fluoridation linked to higher blood lead levels in children from old homes

Can water fluoridation increase the levels of lead circulating in a child’s blood? This is the question that has been asked ever since Dartmouth scientist, Dr Roger Masters, and chemical engineer, Myron Coplan, published studies in 1999 and 2000 reporting that exposure to fluoridated water was associated with increased blood lead levels in children surveyed from Massachusetts and New York State. According to Masters and Coplan, this association was not observed for all fluoride chemicals, but only those water supplies treated with “silicofluorides” (e.g. fluorosilicic acid and sodium silicofluoride).

Prompted by Masters’ & Coplan’s research, a team of scientists from the University of Maryland and Centers for Disease Control (CDC) examined the blood lead levels of children from a recent national survey to assess if there is any association with water fluoridation (8). In January 2006, the authors published the results of their study in Environmental Health Perspectives. While their findings do not neatly agree with Master’s and Coplan’s earlier studies, they also do not rule out a relationship between fluoridation and blood lead. Indeed, the authors report that water fluoridation is associated with significantly higher blood lead levels among children living in houses built prior to 1946. This is quite a striking finding as there is no shortage of houses built prior to 1946!

Thus, while the study may add a few important nuances to Masters’ & Coplan’s research, it is consistent with the theory that water fluoridation can increase the level of lead in children’s blood. Considering that lead exposure during childhood can result in permanent learning and behavioral disorders, this paper easily deserves recognition as one of the top 10 most important papers on fluoride of the past year.

Macek M, et al. (2006). Blood lead concentrations in children and method of water fluoridation in the United States, 1988-1994. Environmental Health Perspectives 114:130-134.

9) Dental fluorosis linked to tooth decay & psychological stress

One of the myths that has long been perpetuated about fluoride is that dental fluorosis – no matter how severe - is simply a “cosmetic effect.” Based, however, on the research of the past year, it appears this myth is finally on its way out. In March, the National Research Council kicked things off by stating that severe dental fluorosis (marked by extensive staining and pitting of enamel) is an adverse health effect due to its ability to make teeth weaker and prone to decay.

NRC’s conclusion was further reinforced by a study published in December in the journal Community Dental Health (9A). The study, a national survey of children’s teeth in Puerto Rico, found that both severe fluorosis and moderate fluorosis are associated with increased tooth decay and/or restorations.

The physical damage that fluorosis may cause to teeth is not, however, the only concern. Another concern, as detailed over 20 years ago by the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH), is the psychological impact that dental fluorosis may have on a child. The NIMH’s warning gained renewed support this past year from a study published in Community Dentistry & Oral Epidemiology (9B). According to the study, children with severe dental fluorosis are more likely to be perceived by their peers as less intelligent, less attractive, less social, less happy, less careful, less hygienic, and less reliable – characteristics which could have major effects on a child’s self-esteem. (The latest surveys of dental fluorosis in the US indicate that about 1% of American children now have severe fluorosis, while about 1-3% have moderate fluorosis.)

9A) Elias-Boneta AR, et al. (2006). Relationship between dental caries experience (DMFS) and dental fluorosis in 12-year-old Puerto Ricans. Community Dental Health 23:244-50.

9B) Williams DM, et al. (2006). Attitudes to fluorosis and dental caries by a response latency method. Community Dentistry and Oral Epidemiology 34:153-9.

10) Water fluoridation & the “Precautionary Principle”

Based on the studies from 2006 and early 2007, it is clear that fluoride exposure – at relatively low levels – can harm human health. It has the potential to cause bone cancer, damage the brain, damage the kidney, damage the thyroid, damage the bones (particularly in kidney patients), increase the uptake of lead, and damage the teeth. However, in order to fully prove and understand the nature of these risks (including the range of doses that can cause the effects, and how these doses vary based on environmental, genetic, and dietary factors) more research would need to be conducted. Is it ethical, however, to continue exposing entire populations to fluoride in their water or salt (often against people’s will), while additional long-term studies are carried out to clarify the risks?

That is the crux of the question posed by an insightful analysis published in the March 2006 issue of the Journal of Evidence Based Dental Practice. The analysis, written by Joel Tickner and Melissa Coffin, examines the water fluoridation controversy in the context of the “precautionary principle.” The precautionary principle has become a core guiding principle of environmental health regulations in Europe and reflects the position that:

“if there is uncertainty, yet credible scientific evidence or concern of threats to health, precautionary measures should be taken. In other words, preventive action should be taken on early warnings even though the nature and magnitude of the risk are not fully understood.”

As noted by Tickner & Coffin “The need for precaution arises because the costs of inaction in the face of uncertainty can be high, and paid at the expense of sound public health.”

In determining whether the precautionary principle should be applied to fluoridation, the authors note that:

there are other ways of delivering fluoride besides the water supply;
fluoride does not need to be swallowed to prevent tooth decay;
tooth decay has dropped at the same rate in countries with, and without, water fluoridation;
people are now receiving fluoride from many other sources besides the water supply;
studies indicate fluoride’s potential to cause a range of adverse, systemic effects;
since fluoridation affects so many people, “one might accept a lower level of proof before taking preventive actions.”

While the authors never state their personal opinion on water fluoridation, the issues and questions they’ve raised certainly help to put the debate about fluoridation on the right track.

10) Tickner J, Coffin M. (2006). What does the precautionary principle mean for evidence-based dentistry? Journal of Evidence Based Dental Practice 6:6-15.

http://fluoridealert.org/top-10.htm


In reply to this comment by dag:
I get the impression after watching this- that the whole background of flouridation is tainted by corrupt corporate fucktards and bought scientists.

It's no wonder that people are suspicious - given its provenance - and regardless of its efficacy.

OK - let's move on to taking iodine from salt. Vitamin D from milk? 13 vitamins and minerals from Captain Crunch?

Rembar wanted PEER REVIEWED scientific literature to prove that the issue of Fluoridation (fluoride use) is NOT some consipiracy theory by people with NO scientific knowledge.
HERE IT IS. Hundreds of scientist have been studying the affects of fluoride, here is the top ten of 2006

Fluoride: Top 10 Scientific Developments of the Year (2006)

Fluoride Action Network
January 23, 2007
Over the past year, many important papers on fluoride toxicity were published in the peer-reviewed scientific literature. To give an indication of this recent research, the Fluoride Action Network (FAN) has selected the “Top 10” scientific developments of the year, from 2006 through to the early weeks of 2007.

1) National Research Council: EPA’s fluoride standards are unsafe

The National Research Council’s long-awaited review of fluoride, released in March of 2006, was a watershed moment in the fluoride debate. The 500 page review, which took 12 scientists over three years to produce, describes in great detail why EPA’s purportedly “safe” drinking water standard (4 ppm) needs to be reduced in order to protect human health (1). The report documents myriad potential hazards from fluoride exposure, including damage to the bones, brain, and various glands of the endocrine system. According to Dr. Bob Carton, a former risk-assessment scientist at EPA, this report “should be the centerpiece of every discussion on fluoridation. It changes everything.”

1) National Research Council. (2006). Fluoride in Drinking Water: A Scientific Review of EPA's Standards. National Academies Press, Washington D.C. (Reviewed in: Fluoride 2006; 39(3):163-172.)

2) Harvard Study: Fluoridation associated with bone cancer in boys

In the wake of media scrutiny and an NIH ethics investigation, the first paper from Harvard University’s ongoing study of fluoride and bone cancer was finally published (2). The paper -- published 14 years after the study began -- reported that boys exposed to fluoridated water had a significantly higher rate of an often fatal form of bone cancer called osteosarcoma. According to the study, the boys with the highest rate of osteosarcoma were those that were exposed to fluoridated water during the ages of 6 to 8, although other years of life were also associated with increased risk – including the first year of life. These findings, which are consistent with a 1990 government study that reported the same form of bone cancer in fluoride-treated rats, have resulted in a similar degree of controversy. For example, in 1992, the top toxicologist in EPA’s Office of Drinking Water was fired after publicly expressing concern that the government was downplaying the study’s findings, while, in 2005, the principal investigator of the Harvard study (a dental professor with ties to Colgate) sparked a public outcry after it was revealed he had withheld the study’s findings from federal authorities while claiming it showed no relationship between fluoridation and bone cancer. Together, the government and Harvard studies reveal a disturbing pattern: when it comes to fluoride and cancer, politics can become a malignant force.

2) Bassin EB, Wypij D, Davis RB, Mittleman MA. (2006). Age-specific fluoride exposure in drinking water and osteosarcoma (United States). Cancer Causes and Control 17: 421-8.

3) Too much fluoride can damage the developing brain

In March, the National Research Council broke important ground by dedicating an entire chapter of its report to the growing body of evidence indicating that fluoride can damage the brain. According to the NRC, “it is apparent that fluorides have the ability to interfere with the functions of the brain and the body by direct and indirect means.” However, since we’ve already selected the NRC report as our #1 pick, our #3 pick goes to two recent papers that add further support to the NRC’s conclusions on fluoride’s potential to damage the brain.

The first paper was a review, published in the esteemed medical journal The Lancet, examining the various chemicals in today’s world that may damage a child’s developing brain (3A). The review classified fluoride, along with the rocket fuel additive perchlorate, as an “emerging neurotoxic substance” due to studies linking it to brain damage in animals and lower IQs in children.

The Lancet’s review was officially published on December 16, 2006, less than a month before an environmental health journal in the US published a new study demonstrating -- once again -- that high fluoride exposure can reduce children’s IQ (3B). The study, published in Environmental Health Perspectives, reports that groups of children exposed to 8 ppm fluoride in water have lower average IQ’s, less children attaining high IQ, and more children affected by low IQ. While 8 ppm is higher than the fluoride level added to water in fluoridation programs (0.7-1.2 ppm), previous studies from China indicate that fluoride may affect IQ at lower levels (Xiang 2003), including as low as 0.9 ppm among children with iodine-deficiencies (Lin Fa Fu 1991).

Together, the publication of the Lancet review & the Environmental Health Perspectives study suggest that the mainstream medical literature is finally beginning to recognize this critically important, but previously ignored, issue.

3A) Grandjean P, Landrigan P. (2006). Developmental neurotoxicity of industrial chemicals. The Lancet 368: 2167-2178

3B) Wang SX, et al. (2007). Water arsenic and fluoride exposure and children’s intelligence quotient and growth in Shanyin County, Shanxi, China. Environmental Health Perspectives [Epub Jan 9].

4) Infant fluoride exposure linked to permanent tooth discoloration

The upper front two teeth are the most visible teeth when a person smiles. If a baby is exposed to fluoride during the first year of their life, these two teeth are at risk of being permanently discolored – according to a new study from the University of Iowa (4). And the risk is not just for “baby teeth”, but for permanent teeth as well.

According to the study, exposure to fluoride during the child’s first year of life can cause a tooth defect, known as dental fluorosis, that won’t become apparent until the teeth erupt 7 or 8 years later. Dental fluorosis can result in white and/or brown staining of the teeth and sometimes corrosion of the enamel – effects which will last the child’s entire life if cosmetic treatment cannot be afforded.

The Iowa researchers’ findings may help explain why the American Dental Association later warned, on November 9th, that infants should not receive fluoridated water. The ADA’s warning did not, however, go far enough. According to the Iowa study, the risk of developing fluorosis on the permanent teeth is greatest for those children exposed to fluoride for each of their first four years of life. The take home message: To avoid fluorosis on the permanent front two teeth, keep fluoride away from children until they are at least 5 years old.

4) Hong L, Levy SM, et al. (2006). Timing of fluoride intake in relation to development of fluorosis on maxillary central incisors. Community Dentistry and Oral Epidemiology 34:299-309.

5) Kidney patients at risk of chronic fluoride poisoning

It’s not just infants that should avoid fluoridated water. New research provides yet further reason why people with kidney disease – particularly advanced kidney disease – should be advised to avoid fluoride as well.

Because kidney patients have a reduced ability to clear fluoride from their body, they have long been recognized to be at heightened risk of fluoride poisoning. In 2006, new research helped to further highlight this risk. Research from India confirmed that fluoride can cause a painful bone disease in kidney patients (5A), while research from Poland indicated that the health risks may extend well beyond the bones (5B). According to the Polish researchers, the heightened body burden of fluoride that kidney patients face (as measured by high levels of fluoride in their blood) may increase the rate of cell damage (oxidative stress) throughout the body – making them more vulnerable to a host of illnesses.

So, should people with kidney disease be concerned about drinking fluoridated water? According to two new reviews, the answer is yes (5C,D). According to one review, "Individuals with kidney disease have decreased ability to excrete fluoride in urine and are at risk of developing fluorosis even at normal recommended limit of 0.7 to 1.2 mg/l” (5C).

It’s time, therefore, for dental and medical organizations to start warning kidney patients to avoid water with added fluoride. As noted by Dr. Kathleen Thiessen, a scientist who helped author the National Research Council’s review on fluoride: “People with kidney disease should be very concerned about drinking fluoridated water because it does put them at a higher risk for a number of problems.”

5A) Harinarayan CV, et al. (2006). Fluorotoxic metabolic bone disease: an osteo-renal syndrome caused by excess fluoride ingestion in the tropics. Bone 39: 907-14.

5B) Bober J, et al. (2006). Fluoride aggravation of oxidative stress in patients with chronic renal failure. Fluoride 39:302-309. [See paper]

5C) Bansal R, Tiwari SC. (2006). Back pain in chronic renal failure. Nephrology Dialysis Transplantation 21:2331-2332.

5D) Ayoob S, Gupta AK. (2006). Fluoride in Drinking Water: A Review on the Status and Stress Effects. Critical Reviews in Environmental Science and Technology 36:433–487

6) Cornell scientist diagnoses fluoride poisoning in horses drinking fluoridated water

When fluoride is added to drinking water, it’s not just humans who will consume it. Millions of dogs, cats, and other animals will consume it as well. As we await the publication of a national study investigating the relationship between fluoridated water and bone cancer in dogs, a study published in 2006 provides compelling evidence that some animals may indeed be silent victims of the national water fluoridation program (6A,B).

For years, Cathy Justus’ horses in Pagosa Springs, Colorado, were experiencing symptoms that, no matter what medical treatment she tried, would not go away. The symptoms included colic (i.e. gastrointestinal pain), arthritis-like stiffness of the bones, and skin allergies. Cathy brought her horses to multiple veterinarians in the area, but none were able to find a cure for the horses’ problems -- that is, until she met Dr. Lennart Krook, a retired veterinary researcher from Cornell University. Upon examining the horses, Dr Krook quickly discovered that Cathy’s horses had dental fluorosis – a fluoride-induced condition that created large brown stains and pits on the horses’ teeth. (None of the previous veterinarians Cathy went to had ever bothered to examine the horses’ teeth, and had therefore missed this important warning sign.)

Following the discovery of dental fluorosis, Dr. Krook conducted microscopic analyses of some of the deceased horses’ bones, and found changes in the bone structure that were consistent with skeletal fluorosis. While the horses’ bone fluoride levels (between 600 and 900 ppm) were well below the levels typically associated with skeletal fluorosis (in cattle), Dr. Krook concluded that the horses were, in fact, suffering from “chronic fluoride intoxication.”

Although some have questioned Dr. Krook’s diagnosis (based on the low fluoride levels in the horses’ bones), the owner of the horses swears by it. After her town council voted (in March 2005) to end its water fluoridation program, the symptoms that had plagued Cathy’s horses for nearly 20 years, began to subside – and have not returned since. Coincidence? According to Cathy Justus, the proof is in the pudding.

So, how many other horses are being affected in a similar manner? Dr Krook and Cathy think this is a question horse owners would do well to consider. We agree.

6A) Krook LP, Justus CJ. (2006). Fluoride poisoning of horses from artificially fluoridated drinking water. Fluoride 39:3-10. [See paper]

6B) Justus CJ, Krook LP. (2006). Allergy in horses from artificially fluoridated water. Fluoride 39:89-94. [See paper]

7) Fluoride exposure linked to kidney damage in children

The kidney has long been recognized as a potential target of fluoride toxicity. This is because, as noted by the National Research Council, “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.”

It was of great interest, therefore, to read the results of a new study investigating the relationship between water fluoride exposure and kidney damage in children (7). According to the study: “our results suggest that drinking water fluoride levels over 2.0 mg/L (ppm) can cause damage to liver and kidney function in children.”

The authors reached this conclusion after studying a group of 210 children living in areas of China with varying levels of fluoride in water (from 0.61 to 5.69 ppm). Among this group, the children drinking water with more than 2 ppm fluoride – particularly those with dental fluorosis - were found to have increased levels of NAG and y-GT in their urine, both of which are markers of kidney damage. The children’s urine also contain increased levels of lactic dehydrogenase – a possible indicator of liver damage.

While definitive conclusions can not be drawn from this single study, it’s findings are consistent with previous animal studies which reported kidney damage from fluoride exposure at levels as low as 1 ppm in rats, and 5 ppm in monkeys. Taken together, the studies suggest that minimizing fluoride intake could well have a positive effect on kidney health.

7) Xiong X, et al. (2007). Dose-effect relationship between drinking water fluoride levels and damage to liver and kidney functions in children. Environmental Research 103:112-116. (Reviewed in: American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) Grand Rounds; 2007; 17:7).

Water fluoridation linked to higher blood lead levels in children from old homes

Can water fluoridation increase the levels of lead circulating in a child’s blood? This is the question that has been asked ever since Dartmouth scientist, Dr Roger Masters, and chemical engineer, Myron Coplan, published studies in 1999 and 2000 reporting that exposure to fluoridated water was associated with increased blood lead levels in children surveyed from Massachusetts and New York State. According to Masters and Coplan, this association was not observed for all fluoride chemicals, but only those water supplies treated with “silicofluorides” (e.g. fluorosilicic acid and sodium silicofluoride).

Prompted by Masters’ & Coplan’s research, a team of scientists from the University of Maryland and Centers for Disease Control (CDC) examined the blood lead levels of children from a recent national survey to assess if there is any association with water fluoridation (8). In January 2006, the authors published the results of their study in Environmental Health Perspectives. While their findings do not neatly agree with Master’s and Coplan’s earlier studies, they also do not rule out a relationship between fluoridation and blood lead. Indeed, the authors report that water fluoridation is associated with significantly higher blood lead levels among children living in houses built prior to 1946. This is quite a striking finding as there is no shortage of houses built prior to 1946!

Thus, while the study may add a few important nuances to Masters’ & Coplan’s research, it is consistent with the theory that water fluoridation can increase the level of lead in children’s blood. Considering that lead exposure during childhood can result in permanent learning and behavioral disorders, this paper easily deserves recognition as one of the top 10 most important papers on fluoride of the past year.

Macek M, et al. (2006). Blood lead concentrations in children and method of water fluoridation in the United States, 1988-1994. Environmental Health Perspectives 114:130-134.

9) Dental fluorosis linked to tooth decay & psychological stress

One of the myths that has long been perpetuated about fluoride is that dental fluorosis – no matter how severe - is simply a “cosmetic effect.” Based, however, on the research of the past year, it appears this myth is finally on its way out. In March, the National Research Council kicked things off by stating that severe dental fluorosis (marked by extensive staining and pitting of enamel) is an adverse health effect due to its ability to make teeth weaker and prone to decay.

NRC’s conclusion was further reinforced by a study published in December in the journal Community Dental Health (9A). The study, a national survey of children’s teeth in Puerto Rico, found that both severe fluorosis and moderate fluorosis are associated with increased tooth decay and/or restorations.

The physical damage that fluorosis may cause to teeth is not, however, the only concern. Another concern, as detailed over 20 years ago by the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH), is the psychological impact that dental fluorosis may have on a child. The NIMH’s warning gained renewed support this past year from a study published in Community Dentistry & Oral Epidemiology (9B). According to the study, children with severe dental fluorosis are more likely to be perceived by their peers as less intelligent, less attractive, less social, less happy, less careful, less hygienic, and less reliable – characteristics which could have major effects on a child’s self-esteem. (The latest surveys of dental fluorosis in the US indicate that about 1% of American children now have severe fluorosis, while about 1-3% have moderate fluorosis.)

9A) Elias-Boneta AR, et al. (2006). Relationship between dental caries experience (DMFS) and dental fluorosis in 12-year-old Puerto Ricans. Community Dental Health 23:244-50.

9B) Williams DM, et al. (2006). Attitudes to fluorosis and dental caries by a response latency method. Community Dentistry and Oral Epidemiology 34:153-9.

10) Water fluoridation & the “Precautionary Principle”

Based on the studies from 2006 and early 2007, it is clear that fluoride exposure – at relatively low levels – can harm human health. It has the potential to cause bone cancer, damage the brain, damage the kidney, damage the thyroid, damage the bones (particularly in kidney patients), increase the uptake of lead, and damage the teeth. However, in order to fully prove and understand the nature of these risks (including the range of doses that can cause the effects, and how these doses vary based on environmental, genetic, and dietary factors) more research would need to be conducted. Is it ethical, however, to continue exposing entire populations to fluoride in their water or salt (often against people’s will), while additional long-term studies are carried out to clarify the risks?

That is the crux of the question posed by an insightful analysis published in the March 2006 issue of the Journal of Evidence Based Dental Practice. The analysis, written by Joel Tickner and Melissa Coffin, examines the water fluoridation controversy in the context of the “precautionary principle.” The precautionary principle has become a core guiding principle of environmental health regulations in Europe and reflects the position that:

“if there is uncertainty, yet credible scientific evidence or concern of threats to health, precautionary measures should be taken. In other words, preventive action should be taken on early warnings even though the nature and magnitude of the risk are not fully understood.”

As noted by Tickner & Coffin “The need for precaution arises because the costs of inaction in the face of uncertainty can be high, and paid at the expense of sound public health.”

In determining whether the precautionary principle should be applied to fluoridation, the authors note that:

there are other ways of delivering fluoride besides the water supply;
fluoride does not need to be swallowed to prevent tooth decay;
tooth decay has dropped at the same rate in countries with, and without, water fluoridation;
people are now receiving fluoride from many other sources besides the water supply;
studies indicate fluoride’s potential to cause a range of adverse, systemic effects;
since fluoridation affects so many people, “one might accept a lower level of proof before taking preventive actions.”

While the authors never state their personal opinion on water fluoridation, the issues and questions they’ve raised certainly help to put the debate about fluoridation on the right track.

10) Tickner J, Coffin M. (2006). What does the precautionary principle mean for evidence-based dentistry? Journal of Evidence Based Dental Practice 6:6-15.

http://fluoridealert.org/top-10.htm

Hey Gorgonheap

at the request of Constitutional Patriot could you post your response back intot he thread for people

thanks

In reply to this comment by gorgonheap:
Actually my father is a agricultural scientist. One who has been in the industry for over 20 years now. He has a PhD in Phytopathology. Every one of his jobs has required him to test the effects of herbicides and pesticides on plats, animals, ground soil, and water systems.

In his years of research he has found that the only reason ecosystems become contaminated is because of improper use on the part of the farmer. Some have a philosophy of "if a little is good then a lot must be better". However when chemicals are properly used they are 100% biodegradable with no harmful effects on ecosystems.

I don't know about fertilizer that much. But having worked on farms for most all of my adolescent years I can see how they can be harmful. Coinciding all the protective gear I had to wear before fertilizing a field.

I appreciate your research and open mind about all of this. I need to do some more myself.

In reply to this comment by qruel:
Hey gorgonheap.

Thank you for posting about the use of hexafluorosilicic acid (H2SiF6) and sodium hexafluorosilicate (Na2SiF6). Do you realize that these are byproducts of the fertilizer industry and are classified as toxic and can contain lead ?

read this... it it insightful and disturbing

http://www.fluoridealert.org/phosphate/overview.htm

______________________________________

I think your views represent what "most" people think about fluoride. But I would urge you to take a little deeper look as the claim that it "helps" the body are decieving.

1) It accumulates in our bones and makes them more brittle and prone to fracture. The weight of evidence from animal studies, clinical studies and epidemiological studies on this is overwhelming. Lifetime exposure to fluoride will contribute to higher rates of hip fracture in the elderly.
2) It accumulates in our pineal gland, possibly lowering the production of melatonin a very important regulatory hormone (Luke, 1997, 2001).
3) It damages the enamel (dental fluorosis) of a high percentage of children. Between 30 and 50% of children have dental fluorosis on at least two teeth in optimally fluoridated communities (Heller et al, 1997 and McDonagh et al, 2000).
4) There are serious, but yet unproven, concerns about a connection between fluoridation and osteosarcoma in young men (Cohn, 1992), as well as fluoridation and the current epidemics of both arthritis and hypothyroidism.
5) In animal studies fluoride at 1 ppm in drinking water increases the uptake of aluminum into the brain (Varner et al, 1998).
6) Counties with 3 ppm or more of fluoride in their water have lower fertility rates (Freni, 1994).
7) In human studies the fluoridating agents most commonly used in the US not only increase the uptake of lead into children's blood (Masters and Coplan, 1999, 2000) but are also associated with an increase in violent behavior.
The margin of safety between the so-called therapeutic benefit of reducing dental decay and many of these end points is either nonexistent or precariously low.

The promoters (CDC, 1999, 2001) admit that the benefits are topical not systemic, so fluoridated toothpaste, which is universally available, is a more rational approach to delivering fluoride to the target organ (teeth) while minimizing exposure to the rest of the body.

____________________________________________


you also talk about dosage, which is a very important aspect. id you mean to say that "It can have negative effects but the dosage and use of it can turn it from a helpful substance to a harmful one." you wrote the opposite in your post.

If dose alone makes the poison, here is something to think about. Fluoride is found in almost everything. pesticides, fumigants, water, food, air.
http://www.archetype-productions.com/nfo/flouride/USDA_National_Fluoride_Database_of_Beverages_Foods_12-2005.pdf
_____________________________________________


you mentioned "Some studies suggest that fluoridation is associated with a median decline in the number of children with cavities of 12.5%, and a median decline of 2.25 teeth with cavities."

1) Major dental researchers concede that fluoride's benefits are topical not systemic (Fejerskov 1981; Carlos 1983; CDC 1999, 2001; Limeback 1999; Locker 1999; Featherstone 2000).
2) Major dental researchers also concede that fluoride is ineffective at preventing pit and fissure tooth decay, which is 85% of the tooth decay experienced by children (JADA 1984; Gray 1987; White 1993; Pinkham 1999).
3) Several studies indicate that dental decay is coming down just as fast, if not faster, in non-fluoridated industrialized countries as fluoridated ones (Diesendorf, 1986; Colquhoun, 1994; World Health Organization, Online).
4) The largest survey conducted in the US showed only a minute difference in tooth decay between children who had lived all their lives in fluoridated compared to non-fluoridated communities. The difference was not clinically significant nor shown to be statistically significant (Brunelle & Carlos, 1990).