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

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

no, but you can't grow weed for free either. light, water, nutrients... I mean unless you have some pasture out in the middle of nowhere and you don't mind shwag outdoor dirt weed. Otherwise maintaining proper PH levels, nutrients and other variables that determine the quality of the plant isn't free.

The only real interesting, non-obvious food she lists is canned soup - and her main complaint is with sodium. While sodium (or nitrates, which she mentions later) may be problems for some people, they're hardly the dietary concern most people should be focusing on (which is, for most people, macro-nutrient balance). That being the case, I'd say that soup is probably a better choice (again, for most people) than the likely lunchtime replacements: bagels, most sandwiches, or rice, pasta, or potato dishes.

If someone is worried about sodium, get a low sodium soup (of which there are plenty) - at least with a soup you're getting some nutritional variety. I'd also differ with her on fried catfish. Sure it's not perfect, but again it's at least some nutritional variety and has some balance in macro-nutrients (most people could use more protein/less carbs).

oh I 100% agree with you. I do wonder what is appropriate though, exercise is not bad for kids, but heavy lifting? And what macro-nutrient ratio is appropriate for kids? 30% protein, 40% carbs, 30% fat? I'd like to feed my boys the ideal menu. This kid is probably "clean eating" as well in a high protein low fat diet that is probably as not-appropriate for children just like the resistance training he is in. Plus, maybe the core-work on his abs is fine even for kids, but anything "heavy" involving long limbs and involving his growth plates may be a serious mistake!

There's actually a few small intermediary steps, to my understanding, in Rychan's otherwise neat explanation:
- Plants with more color and/or small pockets of mass that will catch rain water and accumulate sugary liquid from the plants glands or pollent are selected because they attract more insects for pollination. (Significant because it describes the creation of what will become a trapping ground later.
- Plants are selected for larger and larger liquid-holding pockets, which eventually evolve into phytotelmata.
- Insects fall into the phytotelmata, and local bacteria and parasites digest the insects, leaving basic nutrients that the plant can then absorb. (This bridges the evolutionary gap of the plant evolving the ability to trap insects at the same time as evolving the ability to digest the insect, a la blind watchmaker.)
- The plant develops small mutations (downwards-growing hairs, slippery sides) that lead to insects becoming trapped at a greater percentage. Some pitcher plants' evolutionary journeys end here.
- The intercellular methods of absorption of the digested insect nutrients are developed and eventually the plant evolves the ability to break the dead insect down into its basic amino acids through the production of proteases and phosphotases. (I haven't come across one definite mechanism for the evolution of the ability to create these enzymes, although viral transduction/transmission seems to me to be a pretty good possibility.)
- The modern day pitcher plant is born.

Carnivorous plants are a fascinating topic of biomechanics and evolutionary mechanisms. Some neat papers and links to check out:
http://www.botany.org/Carnivorous_Plants/
http://www.skepticfiles.org/evolut/meatplnt.htm
http://www.botanical.com/botanical/mgmh/p/pitche42.html

Cameron, K.M., Wurdack, K.J., and Jobson, R.W. 2002. Molecular evidence for the common origin of snap-traps among carnivorous plants. American Journal of Botany 89:1503--1509.
Evolution of the Genetic Architecture Underlying Fitness in the Pitcher- Plant Mosquito, Wyeomyia smithii
Peter Armbruster, William E. Bradshaw, Christina M. Holzapfel
Evolution, Vol. 51, No. 2 (Apr., 1997), pp. 451-458
http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0014-3820(197506)29%3A2%3C296%3AEAEOTP%3E2.0.CO%3B2-9

I don't think it's an evolutionists nightmare. The intermediate steps all make sense. A plant which was more likely to have insect corpses anywhere in the vicinity is more likely to get nutrients. It doesn't need to do anything special to digest them. Just the insects rotting and being attacked by bacteria nearby is a win.

Over time plants which had leaf structures which sometimes trapped the insects internally or plants which created enzymes which aided the digestion were selected for.

10 Facts about Fluoride
Fluoride Action Network | December 2006


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1) 97% of western Europe has chosen fluoride-free water. This includes: Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Iceland, Italy, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Northern Ireland, Norway, Scotland, Sweden, and Switzerland. (While some European countries add fluoride to salt, the majority do not.) Thus, rather than mandating fluoride treatment for the whole population, western Europe allows individuals the right to choose, or refuse, fluoride.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

2) Fluoride is the only chemical added to drinking water for the purpose of medication (to prevent tooth decay). All other treatment chemicals are added to treat the water (to improve the water's quality and safety - which fluoride does not do). This is one of the reasons why most of Europe has rejected fluoridation. For instance:

In Germany, "The argumentation of the Federal Ministry of Health against a general permission of fluoridation of drinking water is the problematic nature of compulsion medication."

In Belgium, it is "the fundamental position of the drinking water sector that it is not its task to deliver medicinal treatment to people. This is the sole responsibility of health services."

In Luxembourg, "In our views, drinking water isn't the suitable way for medicinal treatment and that people needing an addition of fluoride can decide by their own to use the most appropriate way."


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

3) Contrary to previous belief, fluoride has minimal benefit when swallowed. When water fluoridation began in the 1940s and '50s, dentists believed that fluoride needed to be swallowed in order to be most effective. This belief, however, has now been discredited by an extensive body of modern research (1).

According to the Centers for Disease Control, fluoride's "predominant effect is posteruptive and topical" (2). In other words, any benefits that accrue from the use of fluoride, come from the direct application of fluoride to the outside of teeth (after they have erupted into the mouth) and not from ingestion. There is no need, therefore, to expose all other tissues to fluoride by swallowing it.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

4) Fluoridated water is no longer recommended for babies. In November of 2006, the American Dental Association (ADA) advised that parents should avoid giving babies fluoridated water (3). Other dental researchers have made similar recommendations over the past decade (4).

Babies exposed to fluoride are at high risk of developing dental fluorosis - a permanent tooth defect caused by fluoride damaging the cells which form the teeth (5). Other tissues in the body may also be affected by early-life exposures to fluoride. According to a recent review published in the medical journal The Lancet, fluoride may damage the developing brain, causing learning deficits and other problems (6).


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

5)There are better ways of delivering fluoride than adding it to water. By adding fluoride to everyone's tap water, many infants and other at-risk populations will be put in harm's way. This is not only wrong, it is unnecessary. As western Europe has demonstrated, there are many equally effective and less-intrusive ways of delivering fluoride to people who actually want it. For example:

A) Topical fluoride products such as toothpaste and mouthrinses (which come with explicit instructions not to swallow) are readily available at all grocery stores and pharmacies. Thus, for those individuals who wish to use fluoride, it is very easy to find and very inexpensive to buy.

B) If there is concern that some people in the community cannot afford to purchase fluoride toothpaste (a family-size tube of toothpaste costs as little as $2 to $3), the money saved by not fluoridating the water can be spent subsidizing topical fluoride products (or non-fluoride alternatives) for those families in need.

C) The vast majority of fluoride added to water supplies is wasted, since over 99% of tap water is not actually consumed by a human being. It is used instead to wash cars, water the lawn, wash dishes, flush toilets, etc.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

6) Ingestion of fluoride has little benefit, but many risks. Whereas fluoride's benefits come from topical contact with teeth, its risks to health (which involve many more tissues than the teeth) result from being swallowed.

Adverse effects from fluoride ingestion have been associated with doses atttainable by people living in fluoridated areas. For example:

a) Risk to the brain. According to the National Research Council (NRC), fluoride can damage the brain. Animal studies conducted in the 1990s by EPA scientists found dementia-like effects at the same concentration (1 ppm) used to fluoridate water, while human studies have found adverse effects on IQ at levels as low as 0.9 ppm among children with nutrient deficiencies, and 1.8 ppm among children with adequate nutrient intake. (7-10)

b) Risk to the thyroid gland. According to the NRC, fluoride is an “endocrine disrupter.” Most notably, the NRC has warned that doses of fluoride (0.01-0.03 mg/kg/day) achievable by drinking fluoridated water, may reduce the function of the thyroid among individuals with low-iodine intake. Reduction of thyroid activity can lead to loss of mental acuity, depression and weight gain (11)

c) Risk to bones. According to the NRC, fluoride can diminish bone strength and increase the risk for bone fracture. While the NRC was unable to determine what level of fluoride is safe for bones, it noted that the best available information suggests that fracture risk may be increased at levels as low 1.5 ppm, which is only slightly higher than the concentration (0.7-1.2 ppm) added to water for fluoridation. (12)

d) Risk for bone cancer. Animal and human studies – including a recent study from a team of Harvard scientists – have found a connection between fluoride and a serious form of bone cancer (osteosarcoma) in males under the age of 20. The connection between fluoride and osteosarcoma has been described by the National Toxicology Program as "biologically plausible." Up to half of adolescents who develop osteosarcoma die within a few years of diagnosis. (13-16)

e) Risk to kidney patients. People with kidney disease have a heightened susceptibility to fluoride toxicity. The heightened risk stems from an impaired ability to excrete fluoride from the body. As a result, toxic levels of fluoride can accumulate in the bones, intensify the toxicity of aluminum build-up, and cause or exacerbate a painful bone disease known as renal osteodystrophy. (17-19)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

7) The industrial chemicals used to fluoridate water may present unique health risks not found with naturally-occurring fluoride complexes . The chemicals - fluorosilicic acid, sodium silicofluoride, and sodium fluoride - used to fluoridate drinking water are industrial waste products from the phosphate fertilizer industry. Of these chemicals, fluorosilicic acid (FSA) is the most widely used. FSA is a corrosive acid which has been linked to higher blood lead levels in children. A recent study from the University of North Carolina found that FSA can - in combination with chlorinated compounds - leach lead from brass joints in water pipes, while a recent study from the University of Maryland suggests that the effect of fluoridation chemicals on blood lead levels may be greatest in houses built prior to 1946. Lead is a neurotoxin that can cause learning disabilities and behavioral problems in children. (20-23)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Water fluoridation’s benefits to teeth have been exaggerated. Even proponents of water fluoridation admit that it is not as effective as it was once claimed to be. While proponents still believe in its effectiveness, a growing number of studies strongly question this assessment. (24-46) According to a systematic review published by the Ontario Ministry of Health and Long Term Care, "The magnitude of [fluoridation's] effect is not large in absolute terms, is often not statistically significant and may not be of clinical significance." (36)

a) No difference exists in tooth decay between fluoridated & unfluoridated countries. While water fluoridation is often credited with causing the reduction in tooth decay that has occurred in the US over the past 50 years, the same reductions in tooth decay have occurred in all western countries, most of which have never added fluoride to their water. The vast majority of western Europe has rejected water fluoridation. Yet, according to comprehensive data from the World Health Organization, their tooth decay rates are just as low, and, in fact, often lower than the tooth decay rates in the US. (25, 35, 44)

b) Cavities do not increase when fluoridation stops. In contrast to earlier findings, five studies published since 2000 have reported no increase in tooth decay in communities which have ended fluoridation. (37-41)

c) Fluoridation does not prevent oral health crises in low-income areas. While some allege that fluoridation is especially effective for low-income communities, there is very little evidence to support this claim. According to a recent systematic review from the British government, "The evidence about [fluoridation] reducing inequalities in dental health was of poor quality, contradictory and unreliable." (45) In the United States, severe dental crises are occurring in low-income areas irrespective of whether the community has fluoride added to its water supply. (46) In addition, several studies have confirmed that the incidence of severe tooth decay in children (“baby bottle tooth decay”) is not significantly different in fluoridated vs unfluoridated areas. (27,32,42) Thus, despite some emotionally-based claims to the contrary, water fluoridation does not prevent the oral health problems related to poverty and lack of dental-care access.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

9) Fluoridation poses added burden and risk to low-income communities. Rather than being particularly beneficial to low-income communities, fluoridation is particularly burdensome and harmful. For example:

a) Low-income families are least able to avoid fluoridated water. Due to the high costs of buying bottled water or expensive water filters, low-income households will be least able to avoid fluoride once it's added to the water. As a result, low-income families will be least capable of following ADA’s recommendation that infants should not receive fluoridated water. This may explain why African American children have been found to suffer the highest rates of disfiguring dental fluorosis in the US. (47)

b) Low-income families at greater risk of fluoride toxicity. In addition, it is now well established that individuals with inadequate nutrient intake have a significantly increased susceptibility to fluoride’s toxic effects. (48-51) Since nutrient deficiencies are most common in income communities, and since diseases known to increase susceptibility to fluoride are most prevalent in low-income areas (e.g. end-stage renal failure), it is likely that low-income communities will be at greatest risk from suffering adverse effects associated with fluoride exposure. According to Dr. Kathleen Thiessen, a member of the National Research Council's review of fluoride toxicity: “I would expect low-income communities to be more vulnerable to at least some of the effects of drinking fluoridated water." (51)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

10) Due to other sources, many people are being over-exposed to fluoride . Unlike when water fluoridation first began, Americans are now receiving fluoride from many other sources* besides the water supply. As a result many people are now exceeding the recommended daily intake, putting them at elevated risk of suffering toxic effects. For example, many children ingest more fluoride from toothpaste alone than is considered “optimal” for a full day’s worth of ingestion. According to the Journal of Public Health Dentistry:

"Virtually all authors have noted that some children could ingest more fluoride from [toothpaste] alone than is recommended as a total daily fluoride ingestion." (52)

Because of the increase in fluoride exposure from all sources combined, the rate of dental fluorosis (a visible indicator of over-exposure to fluoride during childhood) has increased significantly over the past 50 years. Whereas dental fluorosis used to impact less than 10% of children in the 1940s, the latest national survey found that it now affects over 30% of children. (47, 53)

* Sources of fluoride include: fluoride dental products, fluoride pesticides, fluorinated pharmaceuticals, processed foods made with fluoridated water, and tea.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Most of points made in this trailer are probably better read in this frontline script on 'Modern Meat':

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/meat/etc/script.html

Also, I find it backwards to mostly buy and consume the muscle mass when most of the nutrient is in the organs.

WTF! What does processed meat products, like happy burgers, have to do with "it is easier for our bodies to process certain nutrients out of meat than it is out of plants"...

Do you think hotdogs are *easy* for your body to process? Do you think McBurgers are better, with seaweed, preservatives, who-knows-what-else... Do you think TacoHell is using quality meat products? Don't you think it is parts of an animal you would ever eat.. all ground up.

I think that is the point, not "don't eat meat"... And of you want to talk about our evolutionary history, it isn't meat as much as bone marrow, that got up the big brains we currently have. So, when was the last time you ate bone marrow?

while millions do survive on a vegatarian diet, it is easier for our bodies to process certain nutrients out of meat than it is out of plants. That is, however, besides the point.

This video did not come off as 'don't eat meat,' it was a review of a specific industry, that of fast food. The solution is actually quite simple: eat better than McDonalds.

Sorry choggie, just read you're post fully.

'even the tree huggers will agree, more carbon dioxide means more lush foliage!'

Where did you get your facts from? Plants photosynthesis to produce carbohydrates, which removes carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. Yet like animals they need to respire to produce ATP, which is used as energy. This process produces CO2. Ecosystems are finely balanced, more of a necessary component is not good. An example of this is eutropification. This is a process that happens when to much nutrient is introduced to fresh water systems. If you're interested this link explanes

http://www.rpi.edu/dept/chem-eng/Biotech-Environ/Environmental/Eutro/eutrop.htm

videocompost --> "we sift through internet shit to provide nutrient rich videos"

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

Well, most of our traffic is from unregistered visitors. I think VS is a little different from other forums or community blogs in that a lot of people just use us as a good source for quality videos- and that's OK.

I feel like it's a rabbit hutch - we sifters are all the rabbits finding and eating the juicy video carrots. Visitors are perhaps the snails and slugs waiting under the hutch for the nutrient rich videos that we have digested to fall upon them. It's a lovely Web ecosystem.

Must be time for bed ...

Damn, should have gone with videohutch.com, instead of the sifter metaphor.