I know this is dipping into conspiracy theory here, but the thing that stuck out in my mind after reading that article was "...Risks of ingesting fluoride include Chronic Kidney Disease, Thyroid Disease, reduced brain development in children, reduced IQs, dental fluorosis, skeletal fluorosis, and increases in hip and other bone fractures. ..."

Paired with the fact that 'They' want us to drink more and more water per day under the guise of 'General Health and Wellbeing' just adds more fuel.

>> ^Sagemind:

"ANOTHER LOOK AT FLUORIDE IN THE WATER SUPPLY"
http://www.ecomall.com/greenshopping/fluoride.htm


--


The water-table-effect is scary as well, guaranteeing that humankind as a whole is affected, rather than just civilized/urban areas. Why stupify 50% of the population when you can get 100%?

</tinfoil_hat>

Seriously though, potentially scary stuff... Pharmaceuticals in the water table are cause for a lot of *fear as well. I can't wait until literally everyone with a penis is walking around with a permanent hardon due to the massive amounts of Cialis, Viagra, and Levitra being dumped into the world-water-supply. Funny shit.

And no one will be depressed, but they may all be potentially suicidal.

I wonder about birth control as well. Surely 100% of the medication isn't being metabolized, so it would gather in waste water also. Population decrease, lower IQ, and perma-stiffy's the world 'round.

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

Fluoride May Damage the Brain, New Report Says

New York – February 26, 2008 -- "It is not clear that the benefits of adding fluoride to drinking water outweigh risks of neurodevelopment or other effects such as dental fluorosis," according to an Institute for Children's Environmental Health report. (1)

Fluoride chemicals are added to 2/3 of U.S. public water supplies ostensibly to reduce tooth decay. Fluoride is found in dental products, supplements and virtually all foods and beverages (2).

"Excessive fluoride ingestion is known to lower thyroid hormone levels, which is particularly critical for women with subclinical hypothyroidism; decreased maternal thyroid levels adversely affect fetal neurodevelopment," reports a prestigious committee of scientists and health professionals in a “Scientific Consensus Statement on Environmental Agents Associated with Neurodevelopmental Disorders.”

Studies they reviewed and others link fluoride to brain abnormalities and/or IQ deficits. (3)

"The question is what level of exposure results in harmful effects to children. The primary concern is that multiple routes of exposure, from drinking water, food and dental care products, may result in a high enough cumulative exposure to fluoride to cause developmental effects," they write.

"Given the serious consequences of LDDs [learning and developmental disabilities], a precautionary approach is warranted to protect the most vulnerable of our society," the authors caution.

"It's time to stop water fluoridation," says lawyer Paul Beeber, President, New York State Coalition Opposed to Fluoridation. “With many neurological diseases, such as autism and ADD, afflicting too many American children, fluoride's dubious promises of less cavities no longer outweigh fluoride's serious health risks," says Beeber.

The National Research Council reviewed fluoride toxicology evidence and reported in March 2006 that studies linking fluoride to lowered IQ are plausible.(3a)

"The real dental dilemma facing American children today is their inability to get dental care," says Beeber. “Eighty-percent of dentists refuse Medicaid patients (4) and 108 million Americans don’t have dental insurance (5),” says Beeber.

Studies show that when fluoridation ends, cavities actually go down. (6)

Please sign the petition urging Congress to end fluoridation and hold hearings about why federal officials continue to promote water fluoridation in the face of growing scientific evidence of harm at http://www.FluorideAlert.org/Congress .

Dr. Phyllis Mullenix was the first U.S. scientist to find evidence that fluoride damages the brain. She published her study in a respected peer-reviewed scientific journal (7) and then was fired because she wouldn’t squelch it.(8)




References:

1) Institute for Children's Environmental Health, “Scientific Consensus Statement on Environmental Agents

Associated with Neurodevelopmental Disorders,”

Developed by the Collaborative on Health and the Environment’s

Learning and Developmental Disabilities Initiative

November 7, 2007 released February 20, 2008

http://www.iceh.org/pdfs/LDDI/LDDIStatement.pdf

2) USDA National Fluoride Database of Selected
Beverages and Foods - 2004 http://www.nal.usda.gov/fnic/foodcomp/Data/Fluoride/Fluoride.html
3) http://www.fluoridealert.org/health/brain/index.html#human



3a) The National Academies of Science, Committee on Fluoride in
Drinking Water, National Research Council, "Fluoride in Drinking
Water: A Scientific Review of EPA's Standards," March 2006

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/11571.html?onpi_newsdoc03222006



4) Slate, “Hidden Rations Why poor kids can't find a dentist,” by Anne Alstott
May 29, 2007 http://www.slate.com/id/2167190/


5) American Dental Education Association/American Association for Dental Research Testimony presented by Dr. Nick Mosca

March 27, 2007 Before the House Energy and Commerce Committee



http://www.iadr.com/files/public/LA07testimonyMosca.pdf



6) http://thyroid.about.com/cs/toxicchemicalsan/a/fluoridepr.htm



7) Mullenix P, et al. (1995). “Neurotoxicity of Sodium Fluoride in Rats,” Neurotoxicology and Teratology 17:169-177)



Dr. Phyllis Mullenix interview:

http://www.fluoridealert.org/mullenix-interview.htm



Videos: Part 1 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9daqPRUWpMc



Part 2 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A4QrTcyrrvw





SOURCE: NYS Coalition Opposed to Fluoridation, Inc

PO Box 263

Old Bethpage, NY 11804

http://www.orgsites.com/ny/nyscof

http://www.FluorideAction.Net

In a statement first released August 9, 2007, over 1,500 professionals urge Congress to stop water fluoridation until Congressional hearings are conducted. They cite new scientific evidence that fluoridation, long promoted to fight tooth decay, is ineffective and has serious health risks. (http://www.fluorideaction.org/statement.august.2007.html)

Signers include a Nobel Prize winner, three members of the prestigious 2006 National Research Council (NRC) panel that reported on fluoride’s toxicology, two officers in the Union representing professionals at EPA headquarters, the President of the International Society of Doctors for the Environment, and hundreds of medical, dental, academic, scientific and environmental professionals, worldwide.

Signer Dr. Arvid Carlsson, winner of the 2000 Nobel Prize for Medicine, says, “Fluoridation is against all principles of modern pharmacology. It's really obsolete.”

An Online Action Petition to Congress in support of the Professionals' Statement is available on FAN's web site, www.fluorideaction.org/congress .

“The NRC report dramatically changed scientific understanding of fluoride's health risks," says Paul Connett, PhD, Executive Director, Fluoride Action Network. "Government officials who continue to promote fluoridation must testify under oath as to why they are ignoring the powerful evidence of harm in the NRC report,” he added.

The Professionals’ Statement also references:

-- The new American Dental Association policy recommending infant formula NOT be prepared with fluoridated water.
-- The CDC’s concession that the predominant benefit of fluoride is topical not systemic.
-- CDC data showing that dental fluorosis, caused by fluoride over-exposure, now impacts one third of American children.
-- Major research indicating little difference in decay rates between fluoridated and non-fluoridated communities.
-- A Harvard study indicating a possible link between fluoridation and bone cancer.
-- The silicofluoride chemicals used for fluoridation are contaminated industrial waste and have never been FDA- approved for human ingestion.

The Environmental Working Group (EWG), a DC watchdog, revealed that a Harvard professor concealed the fluoridation/bone cancer connection for three years. EWG President Ken Cook states, “It is time for the US to recognize that fluoridation has serious risks that far outweigh any minor benefits, and unlike many other environmental issues, it's as easy to end as turning off a valve at the water plant.”

Further, researchers reporting in the Oct 6 2007 British Medical Journal indicate that fluoridation, touted as a safe cavity preventive, never was proven safe or effective and may be unethical. (1)

In New York State, Cobeskill stopped 54 years of fluoridation in 2007, the Central Bridge Water District stopped fluoridation in 2006, Homer in 2005, Canton in 2003. Oneida rejected fluoridation in 2002. Ithaca rejected fluoridation in 2002. Johnstown rejected it in 1999. Before that several towns in Nassau County stopped fluoridation. Suffolk County rejected fluoridation in the 1990's.

On October 2, 2007 Juneau Alaska voters rejected fluoridation despite the American Dental Association's $150,000 political campaign to return fluoride into the water supply after the legislative body voted it out.

Many communities rejected or stopped fluoridation over the years. See: http://www.fluoridealert.org/communities.htm


SOURCE: Fluoride Action Network http://www.FluorideAction.Net


References:

(1) “Adding fluoride to water supplies,” British Medical Journal, KK Cheng, Iain Chalmers, Trevor A. Sheldon, October 6, 2007

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

um, wouldn't it be ironic if you were reading this thread while brushing your teeth, drinking fluoridated water, or eating one of thousands of items that contain fluoride? Now if the toothache was a result of fluorosis then yea, that would be ironic and I feel your pain.

Or did you mean ironic in the sense of the song "isn't it ironic" by Alanis Morisette where she was singing about things that weren't actually ironic, but just plain sucked.

^ 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"?

that is a great point about the levels at which health problems occur. something else to note about how those lvels were implimented and set.

Why EPA's Headquarters Professionals' Union Opposes Fluoridation
<snippet>

Then, as EPA was engaged in revising its drinking water standard for fluoride in 1985, an employee came to the union with a complaint: he said he was being forced to write into the regulation a statement to the effect that EPA thought it was alright for children to have "funky" teeth. It was OK, EPA said, because it considered that condition to be only a cosmetic effect, not an adverse health effect. The reason for this EPA position was that it was under political pressure to set its health-based standard for fluoride at 4 mg/liter. At that level, EPA knew that a significant number of children develop moderate to severe dental fluorosis, but since it had deemed the effect as only cosmetic, EPA didn't have to set its health-based standard at a lower level to prevent it. We tried to settle this ethics issue quietly, within the family, but EPA was unable or unwilling to resist external political pressure, and we took the fight public with a union amicus curiae brief in a lawsuit filed against EPA by a public interest group. The union has published on this initial involvement period in detail (1).

go here for the rest of the story

http://www.fluoridealert.org/hp-epa.htm


In reply to this comment by cybrbeast:
I just read a part of qruel's submitted free online book, at The National Academies Press site, on fluoride by the Committee on Fluoride in Drinking Water, National Research Council.
http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=11571
I just browsed through the summary and it contains many conclusions of health problems at levels between 2 and 4mg per liter. Standard addition to water is 1mg per liter. This is very close to a toxic level which should typically lie a 100 times above normal exposure.

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

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

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

FLUORIDE’S EFFECTS ON THE BRAIN:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

FLUORIDE’S EFFECTS ON THE ENDOCRINE SYSTEM:

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

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

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

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

FLUORIDE’S EFFECTS ON THE THYROID:

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

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

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

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

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

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

FLUORIDE’S EFFECTS ON THE PINEAL GLAND:

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

FLUORIDE’S EFFECTS ON INSULIN SECRETION/DIABETES:

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

FLUORIDE’S EFFECTS ON THE IMMUNE SYSTEM:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

FLUORIDE & DOWNS SYNDROME:

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

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

FLUORIDE’S EFFECTS ON THE GASTROINTESTINAL SYSTEM:

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

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

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

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

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

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

FLUORIDE’S EFFECTS ON THE LIVER:

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

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

FLUORIDE’S EFFECTS ON THE KIDNEY:

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

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

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

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

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

FLUORIDE & CANCER:

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

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

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

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

Calling BULLSHIT on me? OH NOES, SERIOUS BUSINESS. Well, ok then, BATTLE ON CAPS LOCK CRUISE CONTROL.

(Patriot, I'm sorry I won't be addressing your specific concerns in this post, but Qruel really wants to earn that Earth Badge so he can catch 'em all and get this sift back in the mecca of manhood that is the Science channel, so this one's for him but you may read along as you please and we can continue our discussion once the dust settles and the poo falls.)

Now, where was I? ALLONS-Y PIKACHU GO.

SCIENCE CHANNEL
Funny how you just happened to leave off the second part of my channel's description. Let's read that part, shall we?

"Be proud that although quality science videos are somewhat rarer to come by and harder to find, we do not play to the lowest common denominator, that rather our Science sifts are raising the bar and challenging all sifters to step up and THINK.

On a casual note, what belongs here: science-related sifts, obviously. Please be sure not to sift technology-only videos, or slightly geeky/nerdy videos. Videos belong here only if there is something definitely about science in them. This can include appropriate descriptions, so be sure to add more reading material when possible. In addition, if the video is intended to be factual and not parody, it must be reasonably scientifically accurate."

Note that last bit there. It's the same reason why I will kick out videos that say we never landed on the moon because the earth is actually flat. Oh, sure, it's a theory. It's also an incorrect theory. The term science is so damn broad that it could encompass damn near everything, but I'm not going to lower the quality of sifts on my channel just because it might include something poorly passable as science. It should NOT matter whether I agree or not IT IS BAD SCIENCE AND SO IT GETS KICKED OUT OF THE CHANNEL.
______________________________________________

I went to the Science channel and checked out videos and comments and have had a number of instances where I require submitters to prove the worthiness of their video, and subsequently removed it from the channel. That's not our job. It's my job. You think I don't require the same certain standard for other sifts? Tell me exactly what my comment was on this Schrodinger's Cat sift. Hell, and that's even well within scientifically supported theory, rather than a theory that's been dissed and dismissed for decades. Don't tell me about how I'm running the Science channel. I would know. I RUN IT, CHRIS BROWN STYLE.

This video discusses SCIENCE, and as I stated, IT DOESN'T MATTER. There are a shitload of intelligent design apologists' videos out there that discuss SCIENCE and I sure as hell won't willingly put those religious closet-case videos on here either.

I'm reading through your post above and I see numerous NON-SCIENTIFIC REFERENCES to studies done on fluoride by BIASED WEBSITES and just happened to notice that YOU FAILED TO QUOTE ANY STUDIES YOURSELF. Copy-pasting is not exactly awe-inspiring debate, and copy-pasting sources that can't be described with words like "PEER REVIEWED" and "STATISTICALLY SIGNIFICANT" and "DIRECT PROOF" is actually not even worth debating. Come back with real sources and then maybe we can actually begin the debate proper.

I kicked the video out after putting on a number of comments on fluoride and getting nowhere, specifically the part about meeting on even scientific ground by citing papers from well-accepted journals. And here you are again, copy-pasting from FLUORIDETRUTH911.org or whatever site it is you've found on Google.

I should NOT reinstate this video into the SCIENCE channel until I really feel like it deserves to be there, and I hate to say that things don't look promising.

Now, let's take a look at two real scientific papers! I'm going to toss these out here, and you come back and analyze the data and refute the conclusions. I'm serious. You can choose to meet me on a scientifically-accepted level, or this sift can sit and watch all the real science sifts play while psychic healing videos try to get it to pay attention to them.

STUDY 1 WO MEN QU LE HAO DOU TIAN
Community water fluoridation and caries prevention: a critical review.
Abstract: The aim of this paper was to critically review the current role of community water fluoridation in preventing dental caries. Original articles and reviews published in English language from January 2001 to June 2006 were selected through MEDLINE database. Other sources were taken from the references of the selected papers. For the past 50 years community water fluoridation has been considered the milestone of caries prevention and as one of the major public health measures of the 20th century. However, it is now accepted that the primary cariostatic action of fluoride occurs after tooth eruption. Moreover, the caries reduction directly attributable to water fluoridation have declined in the last decades as the use of topical fluoride had become more widespread, whereas enamel fluorosis has been reported as an emerging problem in fluoridated areas. Several studies conducted in fluoridated and nonfluoridated communities suggested that this method of delivering fluoride may be unnecessary for caries prevention, particularly in the industrialized countries where the caries level has became low. Although water fluoridation may still be a relevant public health measure in poor and disadvantaged populations, the use of topical fluoride offers an optimal opportunity to prevent caries among people living in both industrialized and developing countries.

This article is gathering evidence through a metastudy of sorts in order to analyze the efficacy of community water fluoridation in preventing dental damage associated with low fluoride levels in combination with poor dental care (significant past 0.1%) while also noting that efficacy drops off due to proper fluoridation through topical application and personalized regular professional dental care. The paper goes on to suggest that suboptimal care results in a negative trending in the absence of general fluoridation.

STUDY 2 VAMOS A LEER DESU
Position of the American Dietetic Association: the impact of fluoride on health.
Abstract: The American Dietetic Association reaffirms that fluoride is an important element for all mineralized tissues in the body. Appropriate fluoride exposure and usage is beneficial to bone and tooth integrity and, as such, has an important, positive impact on oral health as well as general health throughout life. Fluoride is an important element in the mineralization of bone and teeth. The proper use of topical and systemic fluoride has resulted in major reductions in dental caries (tooth decay) and its associated disability. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention have named fluoridation of water as one of the 10 most important public health measures of the 20th century. Nearly 100 national and international organizations recognize the public health benefits of community water fluoridation for preventing dental caries. However, by the year 2000, over one third of the US population (over 100 million people) were still without this critical public health measure. Fluoride also plays a role in bone health. However, the use of high doses of fluoride for prevention of osteoporosis is considered experimental at this point. Dietetics professionals should routinely monitor and promote the use of systemic and topical fluorides, especially in children and adolescents. The American Dietetic Association strongly reaffirms its endorsement of the appropriate use of systemic and topical fluorides, including water fluoridation, at appropriate levels as an important public health measure throughout the life span.

Now, mind you, this is a position paper from the WORLD'S LARGEST ORGANIZATION OF FOOD AND NUTRITION PROFESSIONALS, WITH OVER THREE QUARTERS OF THE MEMBERSHIP AS REGISTERED DIETITIANS. Functional as a broadscope metastudy, the ADA took the position by announcing their support of fluoridation, noting the support of the CENTERS FOR DISEASE CONTROL, THE UNITED STATES' AGENCY FOR MONITORING DISEASE AND EFFECTING PROPER PUBLIC HEALTH POLICY IN RESPONSE. The ADA notes that high doses of fluoride have typically been avoided, while also noting the organization's widespread and unanimous rejection of the theory that fluoride levels have reached toxic levels or that such levels of toxicity are even accurate. Furthermore, they note that levels of toxicity have not been well-established in comparison to demonstrable negative health effects beyond surface-level observation of the possibility of dental caries developing with rats exposed to doses many times those any community in the US receives. They outright reject the theory that high levels of fluoride, even at factors well beyond the maximum range that limits first world countries' drinking supplies, can result in complications beyond aesthetically-noticeable but healthwise insignificant dental issues, even countering with a notable upcoming experimental study on the use of even higher doses of fluoride for pre-empting the development of osteoporosis.




Now feel free to sort through this comment's combination of knowledge and bullshit that I've just dropped in a steaming pile on this sift. Oh, and watch out....it's fluoridated.

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).

Fluoridation is UNETHICAL because:

1) It violates the individual's right to informed consent to medication.
2) The municipality cannot control the dose of the patient.
3) The municipality cannot track each individual's response.
4) It ignores the fact that some people are more vulnerable to fluoride's toxic effects than others. Some people will suffer while others may benefit.
5) It violates the Nuremberg code for human experimentation.

Fluoridation is UNNECESSARY because:

1) Children can have perfectly good teeth without being exposed to fluoride.
2) 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.
3) The vast majority of western Europe has rejected water fluoridation, but has been equally successful as the US, if not more so, in tackling tooth decay.
4) If fluoride was necessary for strong teeth one would expect to find it in breast milk, but the level there is 0.01 ppm , which is 100 times LESS than in fluoridated tap water (IOM, 1997).
5) Children in non-fluoridated communities are already getting the so-called "optimal" doses from other sources (Heller et al, 1997). In fact, many are already being over-exposed to fluoride.

Fluoridation is INEFFECTIVE because:

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).
5) The worst tooth decay in the United States occurs in the poor neighborhoods of our largest cities, the vast majority of which have been fluoridated for decades.
6) When fluoridation has been halted in communities in Finland, former East Germany, Cuba and Canada, tooth decay did not go up but continued to go down (Maupome et al, 2001; Kunzel and Fischer, 1997, 2000; Kunzel et al, 2000 and Seppa et al, 2000).

Fluoridation is UNSAFE because:

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.

Fluoridation is INEQUITABLE, because:

1) It will go to all households, and the poor cannot afford to avoid it, if they want to, because they will not be able to purchase bottled water or expensive removal equipment.
2) The poor are more likely to suffer poor nutrition which is known to make children more vulnerable to fluoride's toxic effects (Massler & Schour 1952; Marier & Rose 1977; ATSDR 1993; Teotia et al, 1998).
3) Very rarely, if ever, do governments offer to pay the costs of those who are unfortunate enough to get dental fluorosis severe enough to require expensive treatment.

Fluoridation is INEFFICIENT and NOT COST-EFFECTIVE because:

1) Only a small fraction of the water fluoridated actually reaches the target. Most of it ends up being used to wash the dishes, to flush the toilet or to water our lawns and gardens.
2) It would be totally cost-prohibitive to use pharmaceutical grade sodium fluoride (the substance which has been tested) as a fluoridating agent for the public water supply. Water fluoridation is artificially cheap because, unknown to most people, the fluoridating agent is an unpurified hazardous waste product from the phosphate fertilizer industry.
3) If it was deemed appropriate to swallow fluoride (even though its major benefits are topical not systemic) a safer and more cost-effective approach would be to provide fluoridated bottle water in supermarkets free of charge. This approach would allow both the quality and the dose to be controlled. Moreover, it would not force it on people who don't want it.

Fluoridation is UNSCIENTIFICALLY PROMOTED. For example:

1) In 1950, the US Public Health Service enthusiastically endorsed fluoridation before one single trial had been completed.
2) Even though we are getting many more sources of fluoride today than we were in 1945, the so called "optimal concentration" of 1 ppm has remained unchanged.
3) The US Public health Service has never felt obliged to monitor the fluoride levels in our bones even though they have known for years that 50% of the fluoride we swallow each day accumulates there.
4) Officials that promote fluoridation never check to see what the levels of dental fluorosis are in the communities before they fluoridate, even though they know that this level indicates whether children are being overdosed or not.
5) No US agency has yet to respond to Luke's finding that fluoride accumulates in the human pineal gland, even though her finding was published in 1994 (abstract), 1997 (Ph. D. thesis), 1998 (paper presented at conference of the International Society for Fluoride Research), and 2001 (published in Caries Research).
6) The CDC's 1999, 2001 reports advocating fluoridation were both six years out of date in the research they cited on health concerns.

Fluoridation is UNDEFENDABLE IN OPEN PUBLIC DEBATE.

The proponents of water fluoridation refuse to defend this practice in open debate because they know that they would lose that debate. A vast majority of the health officials around the US and in other countries who promote water fluoridation do so based upon someone else's advice and not based upon a first hand familiarity with the scientific literature. This second hand information produces second rate confidence when they are challenged to defend their position. Their position has more to do with faith than it does with reason.
Those who pull the strings of these public health 'puppets', do know the issues, and are cynically playing for time and hoping that they can continue to fool people with the recitation of a long list of "authorities" which support fluoridation instead of engaging the key issues. As Brian Martin made clear in his book Scientific Knowledge in Controversy: The Social Dynamics of the Fluoridation Debate (1991), the promotion of fluoridation is based upon the exercise of political power not on rational analysis. The question to answer, therefore, is: "Why is the US Public Health Service choosing to exercise its power in this way?"
Motivations - especially those which have operated over several generations of decision makers - are always difficult to ascertain. However, whether intended or not, fluoridation has served to distract us from several key issues. It has distracted us from:
a) The failure of one of the richest countries in the world to provide decent dental care for poor people.
b) The failure of 80% of American dentists to treat children on Medicaid.
c) The failure of the public health community to fight the huge over consumption of sugary foods by our nation's children, even to the point of turning a blind eye to the wholesale introduction of soft drink machines into our schools. Their attitude seems to be if fluoride can stop dental decay why bother controlling sugar intake.
d) The failure to adequately address the health and ecological effects of fluoride pollution from large industry. Despite the damage which fluoride pollution has caused, and is still causing, few environmentalists have ever conceived of fluoride as a 'pollutant.'
e) The failure of the US EPA to develop a Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) for fluoride in water which can be scientifically defended.
f) The fact that more and more organofluorine compounds are being introduced into commerce in the form of plastics, pharmaceuticals and pesticides. Despite the fact that some of these compounds pose just as much a threat to our health and environment as their chlorinated and brominated counterparts (i.e. they are highly persistent and fat soluble and many accumulate in the food chains and our body fat), those organizations and agencies which have acted to limit the wide-scale dissemination of these other halogenated products, seem to have a blind spot for the dangers posed by organofluorine compounds.
So while fluoridation is neither effective nor safe, it continues to provide a convenient cover for many of the interests which stand to profit from the public being misinformed about fluoride.

Unfortunately, because government officials have put so much of their credibility on the line defending fluoridation, it will be very difficult for them to speak honestly and openly about the issue. As with the case of mercury amalgams, it is difficult for institutions such as the American Dental Association to concede health risks because of the liabilities waiting in the wings if they were to do so.