Stranger: Hello stranger!
You: i am going to smoke a fat bowl of weed my friend
You: how about you
Stranger: I don't find the need to advertise my vices over the internet to make me look cool.
You: well i do]
You: anonymously as well
You: so tell me a secret
Stranger: Your personality doesn't need to be based soley on your drug habit.
You: it is integrated in a complex manner
Stranger: I will take your word for it.
You: sometimes i think you will
You: but you never love me for me
You: ive never judged your red name
Stranger: From my point of view, it is YOU with a red name.
You: now im scared
You: i dont know what to say
Stranger: me too hold me dick
You: heheheh
Stranger: KEKEKEKEKE
You: indeed i will
You: indeed i will.
Stranger: Have a great summer, stay CUTE.

>> ^bcglorf:
>> ^EndAll:
Did you watch any of them, in full, bcglorf?

Nope, the trailers are more than enough for me to tell there are much better ways to spend my time. Should a person be expected to read the Koran and Bible from cover to cover before being allowed an opinion on religions based on them?

healthy skepticism is good,in my opinion a must-have in this media drenched climate,but to dismiss information based soley on trailers does not fit into that category.it weakens your stance and makes your opinion less likely to be taken seriously.

many documentaries have a bias,as do so many news shows we are subjected to,but the points they bring up should be pursued and discussed.what many documentaries bring to the table are questions,valid ones many times.they give a much more well-rounded context which gives us a more complete picture.i agree it us up to us to sift through the rhetoric because sometimes that all it is....rhetoric.

let me make an example.
you stated about the "thermite babble".
ok...that should be a topic of discussion,but to out of hand dismiss all other points due to a disagreement on one detail disregards a much greater point that the
"conspiracy theory" we were given and the questions therein have never been fully answered by the american government.

this is the same mentality of a fundamentalist concerning the bible.they cannot accept any conflicting information concerning the bible because to do so would be,in their minds,rejecting god.so we have creationists and young earthers.their inability to even consider ideas which challenge their understanding of the world must,at all costs,be rejected because if they even considered the possibility they may have to change their concepts and ideology.political ideology can be just as dogmatic and implaccable as religious ideology.it is a dangerous place to get stuck in for it leads to stagnation and rot.

i enjoy your comments,and even debating with you,but you are so much better than what you portray here my friend.i have no problem with disagreements,but at least digest the material before you critique said material.
seewhatimsayin?

oh this post just fucking pissed me off.
i have long refused to suckle at the giant teat of iranian propaganda,and what is happening to the common people who are protesting is egregious in its violence.maybe americans and british should pay attention,this might be foreshadowing.
on it own, this post would be noble,even praiseworthy,but to call americans cowards?
bold words coming from a panty waist sitting in his boxers typing on a keyboard.
sad thing is,i actually agree that consumerism=slavery.that most americans have no clue.
but thats not COWARDICE,thats IGNORANCE,get your nouns right dipshit.
so..
you wanna play "horror-troll" do ye?
ok..ill take your shooting and raise ya:
one "active-denial system" massacre of beit hanoun.
http://sabbah.biz/mt/archives/2006/11/13/us-officers-planned-the-beit-hanoun-massacre/
they used microwaves to do this..MICROWAVES..isreal+america,yet ask an american if he knows about this.ill tell ya..they dont.
do you think it is ONLY in iran,or palestine,chechnya,bosnia,somolia etc etc where horrendous violent acts against humans happens?
do you think america is soley responsible?
while america for the past 50 years has been the greatest aggregator of violence and bloodshed for global hegemony.you think they did it ALONE?
FUCK...your stupidity is making my brain hurt..how can you arbitrarily blame a countries people?
the network of elites who use their money,power and influence to perpetuate their own status quo at the cost of the majority is nothing new to human history.
for FUCKS sake boy! it was the AMERICAN PEOPLE who stopped the vietnam war!!
but it was only when the truth of the war,fair and honest reporting,and the revelation of the gulf of tonkin came out.
so instead of sitting at your chair and feeling clever,maybe you should take the time to consider that you admonish a people who just DONT KNOW.
what i DO know is that you have no idea what the fuck you are talking about.
fuck this and fuck you..
cowards..phhht..
asshat ..l..

In reply to this comment by highdileeho:
I got to say, Astrophysicists are the creationist of the scientific community. Almost every single modern theory regarding this subject is completly untestable. And in every other scientific discipline you cannot even create a hypothesis unless it is 'testable' let alone assert it as being a theory. Try publishing an ecological journal without signifigant testable data to back you up; It would be your last. You certainly wouldn't be visited by nerds, sipping wine at a vineyard talking about your insane ramblings. A theory based on what? the fact that another scientist cannot test it to be false simply because it is physiclly impossible? That logic is exactly aligned with religions 'faith' based principles that we all love to bash so freely. I think We can only say that certain sub-atomic and atomic particles react a peticular way. But making wild assertins as to how, why, and how we can manipulate those wild assertions is where we all went astray. I blame Einsteen, He duped the entire world, and became an icon to astrophysicists. So now they all follow his very arrogant and presumptious methodology. Being right 2 or 3 times when you were wrong hundreds is a terrible ratio for any scientist...well except for...you know fake scientists like these guys. ohhh snap, ecologists talking trash...what Son! We run this bitch!
And Relying soley on Mathamatics it very very faulty. Even newton who was thinking way beyond the scale of any measurable device was innovative enough to create devices to test his hypothosis'ss's. The bottom line is, it's not a theory unless you can repeatedly test a hypothosis as being true, beyond crunching numbers. Face it, you can bend any number into another to bolster a pre-existing concept. So I don't want to hear any rebuttle about how this is different because the scale is so much more vast than 'typical' science.

That's true, but I was making a more abstract point about a man's theoretical right to abort the fetus growing in his own womb. That men don't get pregnant doesn't change the ethical dimension at all; when pro-lifers oppose abortion, they're threatening human rights in general, not a peculiar liberty of women.

Fundamentally, I don't like the glib idea common to that thread and other abortion discussions, that men don't have anything to say to women on the issue.

In reply to this comment by mentality:
Yes, the father is essential for conception and therefore you can argue that the fetus belongs partially to the man. But men don't physically get pregnant; The pregnancy, and all the risk and complications belongs soley to the women.

In reply to this comment by gorillaman:
It's a human rights issue. Men have the same right to abort their pregnancies as women, that they don't get them is irrelevant.

Yes, the father is essential for conception and therefore you can argue that the fetus belongs partially to the man. But men don't physically get pregnant; The pregnancy, and all the risk and complications belongs soley to the women.

In reply to this comment by gorillaman:
It's a human rights issue. Men have the same right to abort their pregnancies as women, that they don't get them is irrelevant.

In reply to this comment by mentality:
It doesn't matter if men can understand it or not; It is still a women's issue, because it affects women, and not men. Just like a women can understand that cancer sucks, but prostate cancer is still a men's issue.

Top ten things I know of rasch based soley on the first 20 pages of an advanced search involving all of his comments from 8 months ago forward...
1. Koreans creep him out.
2. He will vote for anything that involves magical turtles.
3. He agrees that the essense of male thinking is "why don't we fly up to the moon and drive around?"
4. He has a demented friend named Philip Fry.
5. He advocates caucasing in moccasins.
6. "Gay Karate Man" is his definition of "wtf"
7. He actually assumed that peguins could fly based on a clip whos announcer was a guy from "Monty Python".
8. He believes in a frivilous litigious society. ("He should sue his hairdresser")
9. He's sympathetic to furries who jump onto handrails and effectively bust their own balls.
10. He likes some kind of noxious weed.

What can we say about such a person? I don't know, but I think he's really the guy in this clip.

>> ^imstellar28:
^your personal opinion may be to have a revolver or shotgun, but your opinion is not an appropriate argument for a law. if i want to defend myself with spoon, shotgun, cantaloupe, assault rifle, or bazooka, i'd say thats my personal choice as much as yours is to defend yourself with a handgun.

Seriously, a bazooka? This whole "fundamental principle trumps practicalities" approach is what puts most people off full blown libertarianism. Would you seriously expect to be allowed to carry a bazooka for self defense? You might well defend yourself successfully, but I wouldn't want my kids near you!

Funnily enough, one of the examples* you give of gun confiscation (the UK) illustrates this quite well. I have a feeling you have probably read up on the Dunblane massacre and know that the guns used were not legally owned, but that was not really the point. When the subject came up for debate no-one could really come up with a decent reason why anybody would want to own a handgun.

Concealed carrying of pretty much any offensive weapon is illegal in the UK, including knives, knuckle-dusters and of course guns. So handguns were never any good for personal protection. Guns could be kept in the home, but under very strict conditions. I have not researched this (sorry - I'm already spending too much time on this) but my Grandpa used to own target shooting rifles and the conditions for license included that they must be locked away at all times. If someone had broken into his home he would never have gone for the gun - unless they gave him 10 minutes notice to go unlock and load the guns. Basically, guns in the UK were used soley for sport and the need for sport shooters to have access to a type of gun not particularly well suited to sport shooting didn't seem too pressing.

Finally, to cap off my (far too long) post - This idea of gun control causing 56,000,000 deaths is ridiculous and meaningless. This is rather neatly illustrated by the fact that high gun-control countries like the UK have vastly lower murder rates than the US (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_rates). If gun control causes death, why are we dying so much less frequently than you guys? I find it hard to believe that Americans are twice as murderous as Brits. What seems likely is that gun control "causes" some deaths when undefended people are attacked, but saves many more by reducing (frequently deadly) gun attacks overall.

*For the record, I don't question your point in that post - that gun confiscation could happen and has happened in other countries.

>> ^Fusionaut:
There are no references and the narrator/writer obviously has no Astronomical training and relies soley on Astrological mumbo jumbo bullshit and his active imagination.


Hmmm, that reminds me of a story. See, there was this virgin...

Sirius doesn't "align" with orions belt. Sirius is not a planet and does not move (relative to earth) so it cannot align with anything on any particular day of the year. You also cannot see the Southern Cross constellation from the northern hemisphere.

The life of Jesus of Nazareth certainly needs to be examined critically but this is not a very good example of critical thinking. There are no references and the narrator/writer obviously has no Astronomical training and relies soley on Astrological mumbo jumbo bullshit and his active imagination.

I'm not going to downvote a video that creates so much discussion on the sift but I AM going to call BULLSHIT on this one.

Oh, the power of Top Gun. One of my buddies in the Navy joined soley because of that movie...

Great movie. Too bad Tom turned out crazy.

you are a joke. the standards for your channel are a joke.
you like to have your cake and eat it too. you quote (certain) government agencies as supporting your arguement, but disregarding others which say contrary.

As I've stated, before your idiotic requirements from me were posted.

My problem with rembars stance is that he has stated that there is no scientific evidence supporting the adverse health affects of fluoride use. (see his above post)

rembar goes so far as to call it a conspiracy and equates it with intelligent design (if he hasn't re-edited his posts again) 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 being done by hundreds of real scientists (not just some crazy conspiracy theorist).

It is very frustrating to present evidence and have it discounted soley on the basis that rembar doesn't agree. That is to say, it is fine if he does not agree with the outcome of the studies, but to classify them as conspiritorial and scientifically baseless is inexcusable.

Scientist are suppossed to be open to new evidence. There have been studies going on for decades showing adverse health affects of fluoride. Ashame that rembar has his mind and eyes closed.

regardless of whatever scientific credentials you might have, the level of your pride and arrogance is astounding and reflects badly on your character.

with the help of friends? seems to me like submitter is soley responsible then. Self link

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 being done by hundreds of real scientists (not just some crazy conspiracy theorist).

It is very frustrating to present evidence and have it discounted soley on the basis that he doesn't agree. That is to say, it is fine if he does not agree with the outcome of the studies, but to classify them as conspiritorial and scientifically baseless is inexcusable.

Scientist are suppossed to be open to new evidence. There have been studies going on for decades showing adverse health affects of fluoride.

here is more info about DR. PHYLLIS J. MULLENIX that cybrbeast mentioned

DR. PHYLLIS J. MULLENIX, Ph.D. is a pharmacologist and toxicologist by training... In the 1980s, Dr. Mullenix was Head of the Toxicology Department at the Forsyth Dental Center, a world renowned dental research institution affiliated with the Harvard Medical School. She was invited to start Forsyth's Toxicology Department because of her expertise in neurotoxicology. She is presently a Research Associate in Psychiatry at the Children's Hospital Medical Center in Boston. Dr. Mullenix's academic appointments, professional positions held, teaching experience, awards, honors and many published scientific research articles to her name are numerous.

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?