ok, i don't have time to watch the whole 30 mins right now, but i'll upvote.

but if come back later, and the last 10 minutes is quotes from Dr. Strangelove?...

i'm calling hijinks.

also check out the summarization of this movie:
http://www.videosift.com/video/Fluoride-Deception-Toxic-like-asbestos-and-lead

*requeue

Re-queueing this video for one more try; last queued Sunday, December 2nd, 2007 6:50pm PST - requeue requested by submitter Constitutional_Patriot.

This post has been removed from the Science channel by channel owner rembar. Please review the FAQ to learn about appropriate channel assignments.

rembar, by removing this from the science channel, you're disputing Dr. Phyllis Mullinex's scientific methods for studying the neuotoxicidy of flouride done at the Forsythe Dental Center regarding it's effects on lab animals resembling ADD and hypertension disorders?

This is frightening, mainly the ADD/ADHD part really hit home with me. In a country where the fastest growing "disorder" is every kid claiming he/she has ADD and research showing that our water supply could possibly cause it you would think would get an incredible amount of attention, especially today. The fact that I have yet to hear about it and that I dont even know if the tap water I drink everyday (alteast 2 bottles worth) has been treated really freaks me out

*science

Adding video to channels (Science) - requested by qruel.

for those who have seen my previous posts on the subject of you fluoride, you might know that this is a subject of great interest to me. So for the new eyes that may view this video and the comments, I will be re-posting some information into this tread that bears repeating

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

also, the ADA recommends that babies do not get any fluoride.
http://www.archetype-productions.com/nfo/flouride/infant-fluoride-warning.pdf

Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons 2005
Water Fluoridation:
a Review of Recent Research and Actions


Artificial fluoridation of drinking water by municipalities at 1 ppm of fluoride ion probably does not reduce tooth decay, except for a minor effect on deciduous teeth. Hexafluorosilicic acid and its sodium salt, which contain other toxic substances because they are not purified, certainly have no significant benefit.

Proponents of fluoridation have censored most media, ignored intelligent discussion of fluoridation, slandered most opponents of fluoridation, and overturned legal judgments against fluoridation in a manner that demonstrates their political power. Many published studies that had conclusions favoring fluoridation were later found unsupported by their raw data.

There is evidence that fluoridation increases the incidence of cancer, hip fractures, joint problems, and that by causing fluorosis it damages both teeth and bones. Other medical problems may also occur, including neurologic damage.

Antifluoridationists compromise their credibility by unwarranted assertions that many stable fluorine-containing materials are harmful.

The EPA should set the enforceable Maximum Contaminant Level at 0.4 ppm fluoride in drinking water.

The FDA should reverse its position on permitting sale of products containing fluoride that claim dental benefit without proof of safety or effectiveness.

Fluoridation of municipal water should cease.

Defluoridation of naturally fluoridated water down to 0.4 ppm of fluoride should
be mandated. Individuals should remove fluoride from their tap water if fluoridation cannot be stopped.

http://www.archetype-productions.com/nfo/flouride/Journal_of_American_Physicians_and_Surgeons_2005_Water_Fluoridation_review.pdf

here is a much better (graphic) run down of the daily items we consume that has fluoride in them

http://www.fluoridealert.org/f-sources.htm

1) National Research Council: Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) fluoride standards are unsafe

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

3) Too much fluoride can damage the developing brain

4) Infant fluoride exposure linked to permanent tooth discoloration

5) Kidney patients at risk of chronic fluoride poisoning

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

7) Fluoride exposure linked to kidney damage in children

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

9) Dental fluorosis linked to tooth decay & psychological stress

10) Water fluoridation & the “Precautionary Principle”

detailed info viewable at http://www.fluorideaction.net/top-10.htm

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.

This post has been removed from the Science channel by channel owner rembar. Please review the FAQ to learn about appropriate channel assignments.

Do you think I slipped and fell and accidentally removed this video from the Science channel? Because I didn't.

I will respond when I have the time and the patience. You see, I work for a public health research company, and that sort of work takes away from my energy used for discussing....public health issues....online. So until I do respond (and in fact, after I do respond), please have the courtesy to not try to reverse my second removal of this sift from the Science channel.

Oh, and Mr. Patriot: No, I'm not disputing Dr. Mullinex's studies, methods, or results thereof. Yet. I haven't been able to dig up his studies, so it would be unfair and intellectually dishonest of me to refer to them in any argument that I would make. Do you have any copies to send me? My email is on my profile.

Your response indicates that you have no idea who I'm speaking of. Her work (not his) is highlighted near the end of this movie. This also indicates that you didn't take the time to fully review this documentary before removing it from your channel.

Ok, we get it.. you support flouridation. As for Dr. Mullinex's studies (which were directed by her government funded employer), her work should be easy to find on the internet. I'll locate a hardcopy of it for you later if I can find it.

If you work for a public health research company, then I'm surprized you've never been exposed to this issue but I would think that you would be more of an expert on this topic than I for my specialty is in computer science, aviation and mathematics. If you have already touched on this issue before, please enlighten us when you have the time to defraud this documentary. Thanks.

Qruel lays out an extensive amount of support for the information being reported in this documentary as well. You should know that we're both curious as to why you don't feel this belongs in the Science category since it is concerned with a few fields of a scientific nature.

You missed my point about asking for Dr. Mullinex's studies. There is a large difference between a summary of someone's research and the actual research itself. Tell me, have you read all of Mullinex's work? Reviewed it fully? I'm asking because, if you're going to bring someone's research into a debate, if I address it, I will be reading it and I will expect you to have done so already.

By the by, you're damn straight I didn't watch this documentary fully through. I only got about halfway through while eating my lunch before I knew I was going to remove it from the Science channel. Note how I didn't vote on the video - I will reserve doing that until or if I finish watching the video, as I typically do. My moderation of the Science channel sifts is separate from my voting.

Oh, and the information above was put there by Qruel, not Qualm. This would indicate that you didn't take the time to fully review his information before replying to me about it.

I have certainly been exposed to this issue before, if you take the time to check out another fluoride sift. As to why it doesn't belong in the Science channel - please review my channel's description.

Yeah we both messed up on syntactics.. we're both are busy it seems. cute humour anyways.

Also, you might have noticed that I indicated that you would have more expertise in this field. I'll look up some more info for sure and I'll see if I can find her complete data and we can both write up essays on it.

So, in your opinion, is Flouridation of the water supplies good for us? Believe it or not but I DO value your opinion.

fluoride is a unique substance because it both harms and helps the human body. At least that's my understanding. Like so many other things it's about dosage and usage. For instance take caffeine. Caffeine only takes 15-20 minutes to get into your blood stream and the effects last for about 3.5 hours. Low amounts of caffeine have a mild stimulant effect that can make you feel more awake and alert. Symptoms of too much caffeine include headache, tremor, increased sensitivity, irritability, nervousness, jumpiness, insomnia, stomachaches, and racing heartbeat. In very high doses a person may hear odd noises and flashes of light. Most experts agree that if people choose to drink caffeine occasionally in moderation there are probably no health consequences or possibility of acquiring a habit.

I believe fluoride is much the same way. It can have negative effects but the dosage and use of it can turn it from a helpful substance to a harmful one.

Fluoride containing compounds such as sodium fluoride, calcium fluoride, and sodium monofluorophosphate are commonly added to toothpaste, drinking water, prescribed treatments, and other commercially available oral hygiene products because fluoride increases the resistance of the enamel to decay. Originally, sodium fluoride was used to fluoridate water; however, hexafluorosilicic acid (H2SiF6) and its salt sodium hexafluorosilicate (Na2SiF6) are more commonly used, especially in the United States.

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.

But there is the Water Fluoridation Controversy.

I'm calling BULLSHIT on Rembar

SCIENCE CHANNEL
This channel is dedicated to all things science: the laws that keep our world spinning, our sun shining, and our sifts sifting. Darwin, amnesia, hexafluoride, quantum mechanics, Bill Nye - we've got it all! (Except for lupus. It's never lupus.)

__________________

I will stop there. you mention hexafluoride specifically in your channel description. This video discusses that.

our water is fluoridated with hexafluorosilicic acid (H2SiF6) and sodium hexafluorosilicate (Na2SiF6) http://www.fluoridealert.org/phosphate/overview.htm

so are you specifically kicking this video out of your channel because you disagree with its assertions ? It should NOT matter whether you agree or not IT IS STILL SCIENCE.
______________________________________________

I went to your channel checked out videos and comments and have not seen one instance where you require submitters to "prove" the worthyness of their video. that is not our job.

this video discusses SCIENCE and as Constitutional_Patriot stated,

you're disputing Dr. Phyllis Mullinex's scientific methods for studying the neuotoxicidy of flouride done at the Forsythe Dental Center regarding it's effects on lab animals resembling ADD and hypertension disorders?

_________________________________________

Read my post above and you will see numerous references to many STUDIES done on fluoride that reveal it's dangerous health affects and discount it's use in our water.

_________________________________________

you say "damn straight" you didn't watch the whole thing before removing it from the science channel. So how do you know it didn't address anything that you deem "scientific" ?

oh and as far as you saying "if you take the time to check out another fluoride sift. As to why it doesn't belong in the Science channel - please review my channel's description."

you kicked the video out because you stated

"I am removing this sift from the Science channel, as this video does not well represent the scientific process by which we should all hope issues such as the use of fluoride would be given."

you should reinstate this video into the SCIENCE channel

The Phosphate Fertilizer Industry: An Environmental Overview
http://www.fluoridealert.org/phosphate/overview.htm

INTRODUCTION

They call them "wet scrubbers" - the pollution control devices used by the phosphate industry to capture fluoride gases produced in the production of commercial fertilizer.

In the past, when the industry let these gases escape, vegetation became scorched, crops destroyed, and cattle crippled.

Today, with the development of sophisticated air-pollution control technology, less of the fluoride escapes into the atmosphere, and the type of pollution that threatened the survival of some communities in the 1950s and 60s, is but a thing of the past (at least in the US and other wealthy countries).

However, the impacts of the industry's fluoride emissions are still being felt, although more subtly, by millions of people - people who, for the most part, do not live anywhere near a phosphate plant.

That's because, after being captured in the scrubbers, the fluoride acid (hydrofluorosilicic acid), a classified hazardous waste, is barreled up and sold, unrefined, to communities across the country. Communities add hydrofluorosilicic acid to their water supplies as the primary fluoride chemical for water fluoridation.

Even if you don't live in a community where fluoride is added to water, you'll still be getting a dose of it through cereal, soda, juice, beer and any other processed food and drink manufactured with fluoridated water.

Meanwhile, if the phosphate industry has its way, it may soon be distributing another of its by-products to communities across the country. That waste product is radium, which may soon be added to a roadbed near you - if the EPA buckles and industry has its way.

visit the link to read more

1) Introduction
2) Effects of Fluoride Pollution
3) Litigation from Fluoride Damage
4) Scrubbing away the problem
5) A Missed Opportunity: Little Demand for Silicofluorides
6) Fluoridation: "An ideal solution to a long-standing problem"?
7) Recent Findings on Silicofluorides
Gypsum Stacks & 'Slime Ponds'
9) Radiation Hazard
10) Will radioactive gypsum be added to roads?
11) Commercial Uranium Production
12) Cold War Secrets & Worker Health
13) Wastewater Issues
14) References
15) Photographs of the Phosphate Industry
16) Further Reading

At the request of Qruel and Constitutional_Patriot; I'm posting my response to information sent to me about flouride in the use of herbicides, pesticides, and Fertilizers:

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.

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.

yes, you most certainly did drop a big pile of "bullshit" as you say.

let me understand your position. are you saying...

There is no science that says fluoride is detrimental to our health and if there is science that says it, it should not be considered science." (science in the broad sense as in studies, journals, books, scientific literature)

if that is the case, then, when I show you scientific studies that do show there are detrimental affects of fluoride, will you then acknowledge that this should be filed under SCIENCE ?

back to your rant. You said it yourself...
"In addition, if the video is intended to be FACTUAL and NOT PARODY, it must be reasonably scientifically accurate."

This video was NOT parody, NOR was it scientifically INACCURATE. Considering the interview covers the issues he brings up in his book (which he has primary documented proof of). how about I forward you a copy of the book so you can meticulously check his references. To even go anywhere near comparing this to intelligent design frauds of science is completely wrong and misguided on your part because it dostorts the FACT that there has been numerous fluoride studies done for years that do NOT agree with your concensus.

ah, you pull out the old "biased" website bit again. how convienent when it doesn't square up with your viewpoints. Heck last time we talked about this you wouldn't allow me to quote the NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL (an agency that provides science, technology and health policy advice under a congressional charter.) when they came out with a laundry list of warning for hte EPA and urging them to study specific areas beacuse of health concerns.

http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=11571

lets be clear. the studies quoted HAVE NOT been done by any of your "biased" websites. Those studies are "quoted" by those "biased" websites. quoted by them because the studies support their arguement that fluoride is harmful.

if you truly support science and are trying to be fair and unbaised, then I urge to go to the following website which lists hundreds of scientific studies and scientific literature on fluoride many of which show detrimental results.

http://www.slweb.org/bibliography.html

also, since it seems we are getting nowhere on the bigger issue of fluoridation, let's stick to finding out SPECIFICALLY why you don't think this should be in the science channel. (if my above interpretation of your stance is incorrect)

if you watched the video you should be able to name specific instances that you felt were inaccurate. so please list them.

You think I'm not going to laugh when you rant, but I really am. Respond to the papers I have cited above and to my comments on them, and show their conclusions to be incorrect. I can't take you seriously until then.

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

^ apparently your "version" of what science is, is a joke.

specifically state what is inaccuarate in the video.

oh yeah, MORE PROOF of scientific studies done that show adverse affects of fluoride.

http://www.fluoridealert.org/health/sitemap.html

I think it should be in science but it's not my channel. They do refer to real scientists in the clip, at least it appears so. Though most of the sources in the clip that I quickly searched for turned up mostly anti-fluoride sites, which didn't do much to boost credibility. Here is a clip of Dr. Phyllis Mullenix who is referred to at the end of the clip.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9daqPRUWpMc&feature=related
I've also found an interesting Channel 4 documentary on the subject, the much used clip of Mullenix seems to come from this doc. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qPVP12DnBvU&feature=related

I don't know much about the fluoride issue though and I haven't read all these huge posts. The science is controversial and not settled. Why not let viewers of the science channel decide for themselves (by also reading the comments) whether or not it's true science. I must say I'm glad that I live in the Netherlands though and that my water is not fluoridated nor chlorinated. Why the hell would anyone add stuff to water? Why not add vitamins to your water then, they're good for you? NO it's supposed to be water, if people want to use fluoride for their teeth then let them buy it somewhere. I used to use fluoride in primary school, we sloshed a solution in our mouth and then spat it out, not swallowed it.

I don't know much about the fluoride issue though and I haven't read all these huge posts. The science is controversial and not settled.

See, that's where they get you, and that's where you're wrong. Just like how all those creationist/intelligent design apologists say, "Oh, evolution is just a theory, there's still a lot of debate in the scientific community," and all the media latches onto that because they want a "balanced" story, not a fair one, and they can't comprehend a story wherein there is no scientifically accepted opposition as they believe it should be (i.e. support for creationism/intelligent design in the scientific community), there is overwhelming support for fluoride in water in the scientific community. Anybody who does work in medicine or public health could tell you that. That's why this video will not be put into the Science channel.

If you're already coming to tell me that "the science is controversial", this video has already done damage, because that is simply not true. I'm not going to lend any of the Science channel's legitimacy to this sift and make it that much worse.

I just don't see why medicine should ever be added to tap water. It's supposed to be water, not medicine. People should have a choice in this. As stated many times, people in countries with unflourinated water have teeth that are just as healthy.

This just really reminds me of the use of lead, asbestos, and even radium.

"Radium was also put in some foods for taste and as a preservative, but also exposed many people to radiation. Radium was once an additive in products like toothpaste, hair creams, and even food items due to its supposed curative powers. Such products soon fell out of vogue and were prohibited by authorities in many countries, after it was discovered they could have serious adverse health effects."

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag.(show it anyway)

^ I'm with you cyberbeast. Personally I don't know for sure whether it's net beneficial or detrimental - I'm not a scientist (though I play one on VideoSift)

But really, what gives them the right to force this medicine on me? Just give me straight water please. I'll get a flouride treatment if I want it.

Even if it's completely benign - but it stresses people out - why should they be subjected to this? I think it's a case of good intentions run amuck - and a personal liberty issue. Vote for Ron Paul.

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.

^------ and this is why this video isn't allowed in the Science channel. All that glitters is not filled with fluoride.

Also, if it's a personal liberty issue, Dag, that's fine, I can dig that in a way (although in other issues, the issue of forcing medicine on people is a very controversial topic because of the need to consider the public good in the equation). As one of the studies I quoted shows, it's not even like fluoride in our (and by that, I mean all of us lucky enough to live in a first world country) water supplies are going to do that much, because we're already receiving enough fluoride through our personal dental care. That's not the issue at hand in this video, anyways.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag.(show it anyway)

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

I'm serious. You need to read the papers I've cited and respond. You still don't get it about citing studies, do you? You're third-handing research, copypasting and spitting up whatever pops up on Google. I'm willing to bet you haven't even read one of those damn papers yet. Ridiculous.

My problem with rembars stance is that he states that there is no scientific evidence supporting the adverse health affects of fluoride use.

He goes so far as to call it a conspiracy and equates it with intelligent design. Even when I present him numerous scientific studies he does not acknowledge them, apparently because they do not coincide with his opinions.

I should not have to prove anything other than there is REAL scientific work being done by hundreds of real scientists (not just some crazy conspiracy theorist).

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

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

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

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

For all that you're putting words in my mouth and building me up as a strawman, I'm not going to dignify you with a real response until you start actually going through the material I've presented and stop copypasting the same boring thirdhand writeups again and again. Stop sidestepping and actually read and analyze a real scientific paper for once in your life.

I'm going to agree with qruel now. Qruel has posted links to real scientific papers, which appear make this an unsettled scientific issue. Even though rembar has some papers saying the opposite doesn't suddenly make his papers more valid, as papers from both sources are peer reviewed. Therefore this is a scientific issue. Sorry to offend but this is starting to appear like a pride issue for rembar.

I'm not particularly worried, because, thank goodness, science and truth aren't ruled by democracy. Your statement of "papers from both sources are peer reviewed", so this is an "unsettled scientific issue" is completely what's wrong with your logic and this entire argument.

Papers are judged largely on the strength of their evidence and their import in the community. Have you read through any of the papers cited in this thread? No? Really? Then how exactly are you judging them again? Perhaps we should count up how many papers I cite and then how many papers the writeups that Qruel is copypasting cites? That's not the way these things go, I'm happy to say.

Also, the papers I'm citing don't, in fact, come to opposite conclusions to papers that Qruel's copypasta cites. You would know this if you read them. No, seriously. Read them. At least maybe one person can learn something from this sift. Then maybe we could break even.

Oh, and yes, it is a pride issue: I take pride in holding the Science channel to a higher standard of scientific accuracy. The day that the Science channel goes the way of this sift is the day I bid adieu to VideoSift. Until then, I'm going to continue cleaning house in my channel and you can stop me when you pull the kick link from my cold, sifting fingers.

And how am I supposed to read your papers without a subscription to scientific journals?
Also who is judging these papers on their strength if not the peer reviewers? You are, so you apparently know the details of every study and paper and can judge how valid their results are. Sure...

And how am I supposed to read your papers without a subscription to scientific journals?

....I honestly didn't consider that. Sorry, I've become to accustomed to having access to journals that the thought never crossed my mind. I'll look into seeing if I can find some way to get it across.

On the other hand, see, we've got a little problem here, because now, if you're saying you don't have access to major scientific journals, are you going to tell me that you decided that I was all wrong and ridden with hubris without having actually read a single paper on the issue itself? And you're going to tell me that I'm being unreasonable? How very logical of you. Tell me again how you made up your mind on this topic without having read a scientific paper.

Also who is judging these papers on their strength if not the peer reviewers? You are, so you apparently know the details of every study and paper and can judge how valid their results are. Sure...

Seriously? I can't tell if you're dropping some finely-tuned, subtle satire on me, or if you actually have no idea what peer review is.

I have read the abstracts of a few of these papers.
Peer review is just the process of having a paper accepted by experts in the field on the basis being credible research up to the standard of the field in question. So this process makes these papers a pretty good source of information. Of course some research turns out to be incorrect, but this is then proven in later papers.

Now it appears to me as if you have somehow taken it on yourself to provide a qualitative decision over which of these sources is more correct.

rembar has pulled two studies from THE NATIONAL CENTER FOR BIOTECHNOLOGY PUBLICATION

Community water fluoridation and caries prevention: a critical review.
Position of the American Dietetic Association: the impact of fluoride on health.

one would think if his real intent is to determine the validity of adverse health affects on fluoride that he would at least acknowledge that there is abundant scientific literature on the subject (whether he agrees with it or not).
He has repeatedly suggested that anti-fluoridation arguements are conspiritorial and lack scientific evidence. Once again I will show that there have been scientific studies done in which the outcome shows concern for adverse health affects of fluoride. (these studies are pulled from the same website that rembar pulled his) There are opposing viewpoints from scientists about fluoride and fluoridation. Rembar is being biased and choosing NOT to ackowledge these studies which prove that this video should be in the science channel. (whether he agrees with them or not is beside the point)

Chronic administration of aluminum-fluoride or sodium-fluoride to rats in drinking water: alterations in neuronal and cerebrovascular integrity.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=9518651&dopt=AbstractPlus

Neurotoxicity of sodium fluoride in rats.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=7760776&dopt=AbstractPlus

Fluoride deposition in the aged human pineal gland.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=11275672&dopt=AbstractPlus

I have read the abstracts of a few of these papers.
Peer review is just the process of having a paper accepted by experts in the field on the basis being credible research up to the standard of the field in question.

*Buzz*. Ohhh...so sorry, wrong. Thanks for playing. You see, it does become pretty noticeable when someone scans Wikipedia hastily for an answer.

Oh, and abstracts don't cut it. Abstracts will never cut it. Ever.

Now it appears to me as if you have somehow taken it on yourself to provide a qualitative decision over which of these sources is more correct.

You no longer have the right to tell me how wrong I am or how terrible of a person I am. Come back when you know what peer review is and you've read the papers I've cited.

And Qruel, seriously, man. Stop trying to awkwardly insult me and pay more attention to the studies. That's right, start with the papers I cited. Read them. Respond to them. Make love to them. Then come back and we can talk.

I thought I knew what peer review was and went over to wiki to check it, yes. It agreed with my idea of it, is it not correct? Wikipedia is generally better than I am in giving a concise description.

No.

And by no, I don't mean Wikipedia's article is wrong.

Please do enlighten me then.

Glancing through your science channel, it appears to be a joke anyway. I can't understand why you hold this piece up to such a high level of scrutiny when you have bloody Brainiac posts in your channel. Brainiac is like the antitheses of science. You even have a post on the Water Car inventor there...

SCIENTISTS CHALLENGE NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES STANCE ON FLUORIDE

Professors of Chemistry Albert Burgstahler (University of Kansas) and Paul Connett (St. Lawrence University) and Professor Emeritus Lennard Krook (Cornell University) will be joined by Dr. William Hirzy (representing the union of scientists and attorneys at EPA headquarters) and New York attorney Paul Beeber in presenting information showing fluoride is neither an essential nutrient nor a beneficial element, contrary to what the NAS is attempting to establish, and that Americans are now over-dosed with that chemical.

Professor Burgstahler, who has been an active researcher on the toxic effects and chemistry of fluoride for over thirty years, will cover in detail the unscientific nature of the NAS's justification for attempting to anoint fluoride as an "beneficial element". He will explain errors in the NAS's arithmetic and reasoning on the subject and point out the bias of the NAS panel members involved. Professor Connett will present information on the mechanisms of fluoride's toxic effects, including suppression of the activity of the pineal gland, which responsible for many critical aspects of life such as aging and adaptation to day/night cycles. He will also discuss how fluoride's chemical properties explain much of that substance's toxicity, and the present state of America's over-dosing by fluoride and the role of the American Dental Association in it.

January,1999
CONTACT: DR. J. WILLIAM HIRZY, NTEU CHAPTER 280
PHONE: 202-260-4683 FAX: 202-401-3139 EMAIL: HIRZY.JOHN@EPA.GOV

Can we get the actual results of them challenging it rather than just the fact that they challenged it? That was back in '99, bro.

FLUORIDE
Quarterly Journal of the International Society for Fluoride Research

Fluoride, the official quarterly journal of the International Society for Fluoride Research (ISFR), is published for the advancement of research and dissemination of knowledge pertaining to agricultural, analytical, biochemical, biological, chemical, clinical, dental, ecological, environmental, industrial, medical, metabolic, pharmacological, synergistic, and toxicological aspects of inorganic and organic fluorides or fluorine compounds.

http://www.fluorideresearch.org/

Owned & published by the INTERNATIONAL SOCIETY FOR FLUORIDE RESEARCH © 2007. All rights reserved.
Editor: Prof Emeritus Albert W Burgstahler. Lawrence, KS, USA. E-mail: awburg@ku.edu

Editor’s Note: When founded 40 years ago, the International Society for Fluoride Research
(ISFR) and its journal Fluoride were responding to an acute need for a more open climate for
conducting and publishing bio-medical and environmental fluoride-related research—a
climate that would be free from restrictions imposed by editorial policies of mainstream
journals bent on upholding a particular point of view about controversial issues such as the
subject of the guest editorial below. Unfortunately, this veil of forced conformity, although
beginning to be pierced, has not yet been entirely lifted, and in a number of countries it not
only continues to stifle and prevent funding of nonconforming research, but it also impedes
proper care and concern for public health and welfare that are the hallmarks of genuine and
honest science. Although the ISFR and Fluoride do not take an official position on the issue of
water fluoridation, it is in a spirit of openness to differing views that we are happy to publish
this guest editorial.


PROFESSIONALS MOBILIZE TO END WATER FLUORIDATION WORLDWIDE
http://www.fluorideresearch.org/403/files/FJ2007_v40_n3_p155-158.pdf

^ 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"?

Whoops, I'd forgotten to respond, as I'd told myself I would. Silly me. *ahem*.

As I have said several times, respond to my large-scale comment and prove you have a scientific analytical ability worth a damn, something you have failed to prove multiple times in the past. In particular, make sure to counter the papers and metastudies that I cited and negate their findings and/or conclusions as I have asked you repeatedly, a request you have repeatedly ignored and tried to hurry over by copy-pasting shit everywhere. I am unimpressed by your Google-fu, and scientific truth is not swayed by democratic vote. Long story short, as long as people want to bawww about how I run my channel, I will laugh from my ivory tower and hold the Science channel to scientifically-acceptable standards with an iron fucking fist.

Message will repeat as necessary. I'll be waiting.

rembar. yes please keep your standards up for your bullshit science channel, from the looks of it you have quite a bit of cleaning out to do. Your close mindedness and ignorance on the subject amazes me.

Your stance is that if one presents scientific studies that do not jibe with what your acronym associations say then it is not "real" science, your attitude my friend is the joke and an offense to the thousands of scientists worldwide who unlike yourself actually perform scientific studies on the health affects of fluoride.

Ironically if you'd actually watcheds the clip you'd learn how 'real" science has been subverted by corporate science and that the collusion between industry and government has had a stranglehold on this particular subject.

Perhaps you should explain your narrow minded thinking to Albert W. Burgstahler. Professor Emeritus of Chemistry, The University of Kansas who has been the editor of FLOURIDE, a scientific journal which has published scientific studies on the detrimental affects of fluoride for over 40 years. Go ahead an email him any questions you might have regarding your confusion on the subject awburg@ku.edu Read more about the journal in one of my posts above.

By denying this clip a place in the science channel you are also denying the fact that real scientist have done real studies on the aubject showing data contrary to your reguritated views. Apparently your narrow minded opinion of what constitutes science is only those studies that you agree with.

you are the one who has lost crediblity.

Rembar, please answer my question and explain why you have such a hard time with this video and not with Brainiac or the water car inventor? I could scour your channel and probably find many more examples of pseudoscience.

Message repeats:

As I have said several times, respond to my large-scale comment and prove you have a scientific analytical ability worth a damn, something you have failed to prove multiple times in the past. In particular, make sure to counter the papers and metastudies that I cited and negate their findings and/or conclusions as I have asked you repeatedly, a request you have repeatedly ignored and tried to hurry over by copy-pasting shit everywhere. I am unimpressed by your Google-fu, and scientific truth is not swayed by democratic vote. Long story short, as long as people want to bawww about how I run my channel, I will laugh from my ivory tower and hold the Science channel to scientifically-acceptable standards with an iron fucking fist.

Message will repeat as necessary. I'll be waiting.

lol. rembar probably knows more about science than 95% of the people on the sift, seriously.

hmmm, while he might know more about science than 95% of people on the sift, discarding and disavowing the validity of scientific studies which do not agree with his preconcieved notions does himself and those scientist who study the subject at hand a diservice.

I've quoted scientific studies and scientific journals. that is reason alone which proves the subject of fluoride is not a closed book and should be included in the science channel. Apparently the government also thinks so, and has recommended that further studies be done. but I've already shared that info with rembar in numerous threads.

perhaps rembar should go back and revisit the definition of The Scientific Method. If the studies I've presented adhere to the scientific method then why should not this video be placed in the science channel ? Oh I know, cause rembar only acknowledges those scientists and studies which fall in line with what he wants to believe.

that is not science and shame on rembar for being an arrogant close minded prick

Lol, Rembar can speak in third person, Rembar thinks Qruel should decide whether he thinks the government should be listened to on terms of scientific research or not before he uses the government's opinion as evidence in an argument. Rembar also thinks Qruel should stop trying to put words into Rembar's mouth about what Rembar thinks about water fluoridation, and instead concentrate on the fact that Rembar thinks Qruel needs to actually read and analyze the scientific papers that Rembar has cited before Qruel starts talking about being closeminded without any sense of irony.

Message repeats:

As I have said several times, respond to my large-scale comment and prove you have a scientific analytical ability worth a damn, something you have failed to prove multiple times in the past. In particular, make sure to counter the papers and metastudies that I cited and negate their findings and/or conclusions as I have asked you repeatedly, a request you have repeatedly ignored and tried to hurry over by copy-pasting shit everywhere. I am unimpressed by your Google-fu, and scientific truth is not swayed by democratic vote. Long story short, as long as people want to bawww about how I run my channel, I will laugh from my ivory tower and hold the Science channel to scientifically-acceptable standards with an iron fucking fist.

Message will repeat as necessary. I'll be waiting.

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

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

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

rembar goes so far as to call it a conspiracy and equates it with intelligent design (if he hasn't re-edited his posts again) Even when I present him numerous scientific studies he does not acknowledge them, apparently because they do not coincide with his opinions.

I should not have to prove anything other than there is REAL scientific work being done by hundreds of real scientists (not just some crazy conspiracy theorist).

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

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

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

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

I'm proud, I'm arrogant, and I'm also right. You have no scientific credentials nor any scientific reasoning nor critical thinking skills, which is why I don't take you seriously on this topic. I get paid for work on this, you don't. Guess how much I care about your opinion of me and my scientific thinking?

Message repeats:

As I have said several times, respond to my large-scale comment and prove you have a scientific analytical ability worth a damn, something you have failed to prove multiple times in the past. In particular, make sure to counter the papers and metastudies that I cited and negate their findings and/or conclusions as I have asked you repeatedly, a request you have repeatedly ignored and tried to hurry over by copy-pasting shit everywhere. I am unimpressed by your Google-fu, and scientific truth is not swayed by democratic vote. Long story short, as long as people want to bawww about how I run my channel, I will laugh from my ivory tower and hold the Science channel to scientifically-acceptable standards with an iron fucking fist.

Message will repeat as necessary. I'll be waiting.

Not saying I doubt it, but I'm curious rembar, what scientific credentials do you have? What's your area of expertise?

*books

Adding video to channels (Books) - requested by qruel.

redacted

*dead

This video has been declared non-functional; embed code must be fixed within 2 days or it will be sent to the dead pool - declared dead by eric3579.

Awarding eric3579 with one Power Point for fixing this video's dead embed code.

*findthumb *length=28:40

The thumbnail image for this video has been updated - findthumb requested by eric3579.


The duration of this video has been updated from unknown to 28:40 - length declared by eric3579.