I'm wondering if the Brits really do use such different terminology in anatomy.

I've been going over brain anatomy in class recently (my girlfriend and I are currently training to be CMTs). "Lower Brain" is more commonly referred to as the Cerebellum, and it is, in fact, largely responsible for our autonomic nervous system. It also acts like as an output filter of sorts - it helps manage the nervous impulses we need to generate to move skeletal (voluntary) muscles.

I'm confused why they're calling the entire Cerebrum the "cortex." The Cortex of the brain is it's "surface" - that's what "cortex" means ("corticosteroids" are secreted by the surface tissues of our adrenal glands). Also, I've never heard of an "amigdala" before (Wasn't she Natalie Portman's character in those awful Star Wars prequels?), but the structure highlighted in the video is the Diencephalon, which houses the hypothalimus and the pituitary glands. The "emotional center" of the brain is referred to as the "Limbic center," which resides behind the frontal lobe. Reflex actions are usually handled directly by the spinal cord for things that need to happen faster than our brains will process, like kicking your leg when your doctor hits your knee with that funny rubber hammer.

If you have the time, go an hour outside of Prague to the town of Kutná Hora to see the Sedlec Ossuary. It contains the skeletal remains of 40,000-70,000 plague victims ornamentally arranged.

http://www.videosift.com/video/Church-of-Bones-Sedlec-Ossuary

I CAN HAZ BENEVOLENT FEMALE MONARCH?

Well played, we now have our own king and queen in you and dystopianfuturetoday. All the other crowns are just princes in my world!

And pipe up if you want a congratulatory scratching on the head. My skeletal fingers are especially suited for the purpose.

also included is a *McCain action figure. Complete with, white velvet skin loosely draped over brittle chalk skeletal structure.



*limbs do not bend or move, some assembly may be required, dentures not included

Actually, there is a lot of evidence that a majority of the physical labor/supporting labor for the artisans in the construction of large structures came from farmers during the dry season, a place to sleep and food in exchange for their labor. Skeletal remains that have been found at these sites suggest basic medical care, such as evidence of setting and splinting broken bones, as opposed to the sort of "driven until death" that would be expected from slaves. That isn't to say that slave labor wasn't used, but probably not predominately.

>> ^my15minutes:
^ 4. Einstein goes back in time, kills Hitler, thus allowing Stalin to ... ahh fuck.
that horse is skeletal, j. done beating it?


Actually if someone assassinated Hitler the axis powers might have fared better. Hitler's incompetence led to the defeat at Stalingrad.

^ 4. Einstein goes back in time, kills Hitler, thus allowing Stalin to ... ahh fuck.

that horse is skeletal, j. done beating it?

So freakin' cool and a little creepy skeletalized like that.

I also saw them back in 1996 at the Quest Club in Minneapolis. One of the best shows I've ever been to. It was like being hooked up to an IV of adrenaline, the music itself just pumps energy into you.

In reply to this comment by Abel_Prisc:
I really appreciate the compliments.

And yes, I have. My very first concert was when they played at the Ogden Theater in Denver, Colorado. That was back in 1995-96ish, and The Suicide Machines opened for them. I then saw them again a few years later when they opened for Bad Religion in the DU Arena in Denver.

The Ogden Theater was really cool because the place was just so small. And this was back in the day when they had the skeletal masked guy touring with them, and during their encore, he'd breathe fire across the stage, and the whole place would just go nuts. In a tiny, ridiculously hot room like that, the whole experience was just unreal. Definitely one of my best concert experiences to say the least.

How about you?

I really appreciate the compliments.

And yes, I have. My very first concert was when they played at the Ogden Theater in Denver, Colorado. That was back in 1995-96ish, and The Suicide Machines opened for them. I then saw them again a few years later when they opened for Bad Religion in the DU Arena in Denver.

The Ogden Theater was really cool because the place was just so small. And this was back in the day when they had the skeletal masked guy touring with them, and during their encore, he'd breathe fire across the stage, and the whole place would just go nuts. In a tiny, ridiculously hot room like that, the whole experience was just unreal. Definitely one of my best concert experiences to say the least.

How about you?



In reply to this comment by gorgonheap:
I give you props for writing something that long without spelling errors or unintelligent dribble. You belong here on videosift. And your totally right their more recent albums, they lost their upbeat bounce that they had going.
Ever been to one of their shows?
In reply to this comment by Abel_Prisc:
I've been a fan of Less Than Jake since I was in elementary school (not exaggerating, I'm 21 now).

Less Than Jake's sound comes from their magical ability to bring the crazy energy that you'd get from going to a ska/punk concert, and somehow expressing it to perfection on a studio album. A good example of this would be their album "Hello Rockview!".

The band's drummer, Vinnie, is also rather well known for being the co-founder of what is probably today's biggest pop-rock label, Fueled By Ramen (FBR) Records, who has signed and made such bands as Panic! At the Disco, Paramore, and FallOut Boy. After the label obviously became more about 'Style over Substance', and less focused on the music, Vinnie dropped out of it and went his own way, creating a new record label, of which he is now re-releasing all of Less Than Jake's old albums on.


This song is on their second most recent album (if you exclude their b-sides album that released afterwards), "Anthem". It pains me to say that the album following Anthem, and their most recent, "In With the Out Crowd" is a horrible abomination of everything that Less Than Jake is. It's so bad, that even Vinnie (The drummer) has spoken out saying that the album just 'didn't work'. It lacked the energy that was so excellently portrayed in the earlier efforts of the band, and came out flat, with a very cliche 'radio-pop rock', unoriginal sound.

They're currently in studios working on their new album, promising the great things that made their band original and unique to begin with.

All in all- outstanding band, with a very personal and unique lyricist in Vinnie, and a very fun, bouncy sound.

Paid for by skeletally asymmetric people with mismatched eyeballs.

>> ^spoco2:
edit: Let me just add that your major issue seems to be that you think that we should have evolved by now... well, aside from the fact that we are (we're getting taller etc. etc.), the timescales you think of as far as human evolution are all wrong. Have a look at this and the timescale on there... humans and monkeys 'split' apart evolution wise 5 million years ago... we've been evolving for a far longer time than you seem to think.

Not once did I ever say that we have only been "evolving" for a short amount of time. I have plenty of these charts that show this theorized time-line. But there are also large hole with that as well. As several of you have pointed out (Bamdrew, Crosswords and <a rel="nofollow" href=">/a>. Gargoyle. and spoco^) One of the generally more accepted (and In my eyes the only) way to explain evolution, is by darwinism, or "survival of the fittest" But heres where the major hole appears to be. Hominids supposedly stemmed from primates, though genetically speaking, we share more genetic markers with pigs than we do with primates. But, well run with the primate theory. Everything is linear. Since we do have strikingly familiar resemblance to primate skeletal structures, it is a safe bet the humans did evolve from primates. (playing devils advocate now)Primates feet will be a good starting point. their 5th digit has gone completely sideways, compared to ours.

All 5 digits on our feet point in the same direction off the same line. Primates have an opposable 5th digit. so to bounce this back of off the survival of the fittest idea, humans essentially de-evolved in regards to this matter. Primates can make use of this like a thumb, basically giving them 2 more hands instead of feet. I wish I had that. You ever try to pick up a beer with your toes? I can do it, but its tough. Now, if I had monkey feet, than this wouldn't be a problem. I can't see an advantage from having a foot like ours, compared to monkey-feet-hands. Yet somehow, small mutations such as straighter feet took place, and selective breeding led to our feet the way they are. Something like this does not support a Darwin theory at all. But as far as the linear piece goes, why is it only straight toed hominids managed to spawn from primates? As far as primates go, their feet are used for climbing shit right? wouldn't it be better to have 3 toes one way, and 2 the other? So why didn't they evolve that way? What about a straight-toed monkey was better than the opposable digit monkey? Yet, the "straight-toed monkey" is what survives today.

(Please keep in mind I am not trying to throw things out there and treat them like they are an end all point and nothing you can say will invalidate what I have said. I welcome your thoughts on what I have to say, so long as they are at least quasi-intelligent.)

Again to play devils advocate, the douche in the video is part right. "You have people and monkeys" Again, the theory of evolution. Every predecessor to the Homo Sapien has gone extinct. Presumably, because the next, more advanced version had what it took to surive. We are now at Human, V7.1. So if we all evolved from monkeys, then there must have been a reason for the selective breeding. That is to say, what made all the more upright, straight-toed versions of monkeys more desirable? or was it that the small mutations had some how proved beneficial, that led to more of them being around to breed and further the process. If this is the case, why are there monkeys? Why is there anything that stemmed from something else? If the changes weren't essential to the surviving of a species, they would not have spread through it. So if we run with the survival of the fittest theory, then monkeys were not the fittest, and therefore, should have died off. (ok devils advocate over)

@smibbo and bamdrew. Rare medical conditions: First off, I'm glad you came out on the better end of the deal on that one. I am unfamiliar with the condition you have, though you, (and the sikle cell patients) are the minority of what others with that condition. So to say that these mutations are happening, than its working at a backwards rate. If these conditions are killing people they aren't a step forward. Sickle cell anemia, and a stronger resistance to malaria. Well until they can separate the mega bad from the tiny good, its not where it needs to be yet. I can't argue against these though, because in the long run, if malaria is taken care of, this trait will mean nothing, and sickle cell sufferers will go back to having nothing good about an unfortunate disease. Shit. I need sleep. I actually got way off on researching this stuff and started really looking into it. I thought it might change some of my thoughts. Nope.

Coulter is Charged with the following:

Being a skeletal freak who hates the world and lives to anger people into buying her books. Says Jews need to be "perfected," as if Christians are in better shape. Is against her own right to vote. Called John Edwards a faggot, when really he's just a little swishy. Is about as sexy as a praying mantis. If Coulter were a man, she'd never be allowed on TV.

Evidence: She has stated, "Faggot isn't offensive to gays; it's got nothing to do with gays."

Punishment: Forced marriage to Osama bin Laden.

^ 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?