145 replies to this topic

[Cybele]

Regarding the meta-analysis based on Chinese data, I would like to point out what seems to be a major flaw of the study. The article points out that over 80% of the studies did not report the child's gender or parental education level and that, furthermore, only 7% reported household income. So basically, the authors of the metanalysis paper did not include these variables in their model, leading to the possibility of serious confounding because, of course, SES is pretty strongly related to where you live and your level of exposure to environmental toxins, as well as to lower IQ scores.

Second is the obvious fact that the authors repeatedly mention on the first few pages that they're studying the effects of exposure to levels of fluoride higher than what is seen in public drinking water supplies.

http://www.ncbi.nlm....ehp.1104912.pdf

Edited by Cybele, 16 November 2012 - 03:59 AM.

[Diablo Blanco]

Chrlzs, on 16 November 2012 - 12:25 AM, said:

A few simple questions for you.

1. How MUCH fluoride was used in the rat poison?
2. Was Warfarin the main replacement for fluoride?
3. Have you ever been prescribed Warfarin?  (I have)
and
4. Do you understand the point of those questions?

Do you really think that things that *can* kill should never be ingested?  I'd suggest that you now avoid ingesting anything, because EVERY thing you ingest can be lethal if taken in the wrong quantities.  In the simplistic world that you wish to present, devoid of any thought, then *surely* this means nothing is safe.

The fact that this sort of scare-mongering garbage is cherry picked and presented as 'reasoning', tells you much about the mindset involved.  Says a lot, indeed..

1) enough to kill a rat? If not maybe the flouride was there so the rat could die without any cavities.
2) Honestly, I don't know nor do I care.
3) No, I have never been prescribed Warfarin. Have you ever been prescribed the ingestion of flouride?
4) Yes I understand, your comparing apples to oranges.

Do you really think that INGESTION of flouride helps your teeth? The rest of your comment is just as asinine as neognosis' comment @ post #111.

Who said I was scaremongering? I've only stated the fact that flouride WAS used in rat poison and that I no longer consume water that contains it. If you don't mind flouride in your water then by all means drink up. It's not for me.

If the state is so occupied with the fear of its citizens having decayed teeth, why not put helpful minerals in the water that have shown to prevent tooth decay, instead of poison?.

[Cybele]

Hazrus, on 16 November 2012 - 05:04 PM, said:

If the state is so occupied with the fear of its citizens having decayed teeth, why not put helpful minerals in the water that have shown to prevent tooth decay, instead of poison?.

I see you skipped right past my post on the last page.

[Diablo Blanco]

Cybele, on 16 November 2012 - 02:48 AM, said:

No.





oxygen toxicity: http://en.wikipedia....Oxygen_toxicity



I think most of Europe no longer fluoridates their public drinking water supplies, as most people can get sufficient levels through toothpaste and dental checkups. However, in the U.S. water fluoridation is implemented as a public health measure due to greater socio-economic disparities. The very poor are less likely to use toothpaste or to be able to go to the dentist.

Water fluoridation is especially beneficial for communities of low socioeconomic status (18). These communities have a disproportionate burden of dental caries and have less access than higher income communities to dental-care services and other sources of fluoride. Water fluoridation may help reduce such dental health disparities.

http://www.cdc.gov/m...ml/mm4841a1.htm

Yes I did because it is bullsh!t. Everyones water supply is flouridated because poor people cannot afford toothpaste or dental care? Even affluent communities water supply has flouride in it. Your post is garbage. Sorry

[Diablo Blanco]

On a tube of colgate childrens toothpaste the label states:
Sodium Flouride 0.24% (0.15% flouride ion)
WARNINGS
if more than used for brushing is accidentally swallowed, get medical help or contact Poison Control right away.

Adult toothpaste is similar in Flouride content and warning.

Now i'm only asking this because I do NOT know;
I consume about a gallon of distilled water every day, if I consumed that much flouridated tap water, how much flouride would I be taking into my body?

I would honestly like to know the answer.

Apologies ahead of time if this question has been asked before.

Edited for spelling error.

Edited by Hazrus, 16 November 2012 - 06:10 PM.

[Cybele]

Hazrus, on 16 November 2012 - 06:01 PM, said:

Yes I did because it is bullsh!t. Everyones water supply is flouridated because poor people cannot afford toothpaste or dental care? Even affluent communities water supply has flouride in it. Your post is garbage. Sorry

I gave you a link to a credible source. What you choose to believe with regard to governmental motivations for fluoridating water supplies is your own business, I suppose. However, if you want to be taken seriously in this discussion, you might do well to give rational, well-thought out responses rather than resorting to ad-hominem attacks and the sort of casual dismissal seen above.

Public health measures are often administered to the population at large. Though low-income individuals may benefit the most from fluoridated water supplies due to their relatively limited access to dental care, fluoridation provides preventative benefits for the affluent as well. There's no reason to restrict access to a preventative measure that has been proven safe and effective for all, if it is cost-effective.

There's great irony in you calling Neognosis' post "asinine" when you, in fact, misinterpreted what he had to say. I attempted to correct your misunderstanding by pointing out that even things that are beneficial at a low dose can become dangerous past a certain threshold of concentration or amount (i.e.- too high). I believe Neognosis was not implying that fluoride is essential to our survival, but rather that even good things, such as oxygen, can be harmful at a sufficient dose.

Hazrus, on 16 November 2012 - 06:09 PM, said:

On a tube of colgate childrens toothpaste the label states:
Sodium Flouride 0.24% (0.15% flouride ion)
WARNINGS
if more than used for brushing is accidentally swallowed, get medical help or contact Poison Control right away.

Adult toothpaste is similar in Flouride content and warning.

I believe this is a precautionary measure taken not because swallowing toothpaste is particularly harmful, but because it is not specifically registered for human consumption as a food, and because fluoride is considered a drug. In other words, I think this is a legal requirement based on politics

But the Food and Drug Administration wants to be on the safe side -- too safe, some say. The agency required the new warning on all fluoride pastes manufactured after April 1997 after concluding that manufacturers were either ignoring its voluntary guidelines or interpreting them too broadly. The change is only now catching most consumers' attention as stores sell out old inventories.

No ambulances will be necessary. The F.D.A. ordained the advisory not because some new study suggested more serious side effects, but because it believes that any product that contains a substance classified as a drug should be labeled with a recommendation to seek professional help in cases of excess ingestion.

http://www.nytimes.c...sk-the-fda.html

The ADA warning labels were required to help reduce the risk of mild fluorosis, which is a cosmetic defect noticeable as very light spots on permanent teeth and develops only while the teeth are still forming. Fluorosis only occurs when more than the optimal daily amount of fluoride is ingested.

http://www.ada.org/1761.aspx

Edited by Cybele, 16 November 2012 - 06:52 PM.

[Diablo Blanco]

Cybele, on 16 November 2012 - 06:44 PM, said:

I gave you a link to a credible source. What you choose to believe with regard to governmental motivations for fluoridating water supplies is your own business, I suppose. However, if you want to be taken seriously in this discussion, you might do well to give rational, well-thought out responses rather than resorting to ad-hominem attacks and the sort of casual dismissal seen above.

Public health measures are often administered to the population at large. Though low-income individuals may benefit the most from fluoridated water supplies due to their relatively limited access to dental care, fluoridation provides preventative benefits for the affluent as well. There's no reason to restrict access to a preventative measure that has been proven safe and effective for all, if it is cost-effective.

There's great irony in you calling Neognosis' post "asinine" when you, in fact, misinterpreted what he had to say. I attempted to correct your misunderstanding by pointing out that even things that are beneficial at a low dose can become dangerous past a certain threshold of concentration or amount (i.e.- too high). I believe Neognosis was not implying that fluoride is essential to our survival, but rather that even good things, such as oxygen, can be harmful at a sufficient dose.




I believe this is a precautionary measure taken not because swallowing toothpaste is particularly harmful, but because it is not specifically registered for human consumption as a food, and because fluoride is considered a drug. In other words, I think this is a legal requirement based on politics

But the Food and Drug Administration wants to be on the safe side -- too safe, some say. The agency required the new warning on all fluoride pastes manufactured after April 1997 after concluding that manufacturers were either ignoring its voluntary guidelines or interpreting them too broadly. The change is only now catching most consumers' attention as stores sell out old inventories.

No ambulances will be necessary. The F.D.A. ordained the advisory not because some new study suggested more serious side effects, but because it believes that any product that contains a substance classified as a drug should be labeled with a recommendation to seek professional help in cases of excess ingestion.

http://www.nytimes.c...sk-the-fda.html

The ADA warning labels were required to help reduce the risk of mild fluorosis, which is a cosmetic defect noticeable as very light spots on permanent teeth and develops only while the teeth are still forming. Fluorosis only occurs when more than the optimal daily amount of fluoride is ingested.

http://www.ada.org/1761.aspx

and I see you opted not to answer my question as to how much flouride is in a gallon if tap water...

[darkmoonlady]

Hazrus, on 15 November 2012 - 05:02 PM, said:

Fluoride was a common ingredient in rat poison.Since the 1800s, fluoride has been a key component in rat poison and insecticides. When mixed into grain or other food, rats will readily consume the poison and die. This method was deemed to be preferable to other poisonous compounds because it was less hazardous to the humans and livestock that might accidentally ingest it. The use of fluoride in rat poison has declined over the years, replaced by blood-thinning compounds that were deemed to be safer and more effective. http://www.ehow.com/...rat-poison.html

I think I will stick to drinking distilled water and visiting the dentist on a regular basis instead of drinking tap water with flouride in it which was once used to kill rats.

By the way, don't medical researchers still use rats and mice for testing drugs effects on humans?

Coumadin is in rat poison too (main ingredient actually) and I took it for two years after a bout with pulmonary embolisms...just because something is harmful to rats in a certain amount doesn't mean it's harmful to humans in a very different amount...

[Little Fish]

darkmoonlady, on 16 November 2012 - 07:57 PM, said:

just because something is harmful to rats in a certain amount doesn't mean it's harmful to humans in a very different amount.

the human gut is more susceptible to absorb fluoride than a rat's gut - rats have to ingest much higher concentrations of fluoride in order to get the same blood levels of fluoride as humans. so where you see experiments on rats fed high levels of fluoride remember that humans don't have to ingest as much as rats to get the same blood levels (which is the important metric), I don;t recall the exact amount but i think rats need to be fed an order of magnitude more than humans to produce the same blood levels.

Edited by Little Fish, 16 November 2012 - 08:36 PM.

[Little Fish]

Hazrus, on 16 November 2012 - 07:06 PM, said:

how much flouride is in a gallon if tap water.

with fluoridation at 1ppm
a US gallon will contain 3.8 mg of fluoride
a UK gallon will contain 4.5 mg of fluoride

your dose will of course go up with expose to other sources of fluoride, dental gel for instance contains 15,000 ppm

[Cybele]

Hazrus, on 16 November 2012 - 07:06 PM, said:

and I see you opted not to answer my question as to how much flouride is in a gallon if tap water...

It was in the link I posted to the meta-analysis of Chinese studies: "fluoride concentrations in community water are usually no higher than 1mg/L, even when fluoride is added to water supplies as a public health measure"

http://www.ncbi.nlm....ehp.1104912.pdf

Edited by Cybele, 16 November 2012 - 09:36 PM.

[darkmoonlady]

Little Fish, on 16 November 2012 - 08:35 PM, said:

the human gut is more susceptible to absorb fluoride than a rat's gut - rats have to ingest much higher concentrations of fluoride in order to get the same blood levels of fluoride as humans. so where you see experiments on rats fed high levels of fluoride remember that humans don't have to ingest as much as rats to get the same blood levels (which is the important metric), I don;t recall the exact amount but i think rats need to be fed an order of magnitude more than humans to produce the same blood levels.

Can fluoridated water cause cancer?

A possible relationship between fluoridated water and cancer risk has been debated for years. The debate resurfaced in 1990 when a study by the National Toxicology Program, part of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, showed an increased number ofosteosarcomas (bone tumors) in male rats given water high in fluoride for 2 years (4). However, other studies in humans and in animals have not shown an association between fluoridated water and cancer (5–7).
In a February 1991 Public Health Service (PHS) report, the agency said it found no evidence of an association between fluoride and cancer in humans. The report, based on a review of more than 50 human epidemiological (population) studies produced over the past 40 years, concluded that optimal fluoridation of drinking water “does not pose a detectable cancer risk to humans” as evidenced by extensive human epidemiological data reported to date (5).
In one of the studies reviewed for the PHS report, scientists at NCI evaluated the relationship between the fluoridation of drinking water and the number of deaths due to cancer in the United States during a 36-year period, and the relationship between water fluoridation and number of new cases of cancer during a 15-year period. After examining more than 2.2 million cancer death records and 125,000 cancer case records in counties using fluoridated water, the researchers found no indication of increased cancer risk associated with fluoridated drinking water (6).
In 1993, the Subcommittee on Health Effects of Ingested Fluoride of the National Research Council, part of the National Academy of Sciences, conducted an extensive literature review concerning the association between fluoridated drinking water and increased cancer risk. The review included data from more than 50 human epidemiological studies and six animal studies. The Subcommittee concluded that none of the data demonstrated an association between fluoridated drinking water and cancer (6). A 1999 report by the CDC supported these findings. The CDC report concluded that studies to date have produced “no credible evidence” of an association between fluoridated drinking water and an increased risk for cancer (2). Subsequent interview studies of patients with osteosarcoma and their parents produced conflicting results, but with none showing clear evidence of a causal relationship between fluoride intake and risk of this tumor.
Recently, researchers examined the possible relationship between fluoride exposure and osteosarcoma in a new way: they measured fluoride concentration in samples of normal bone that were adjacent to a person’s tumor. Because fluoride naturally accumulates in bone, this method provides a more accurate measure of cumulative fluoride exposure than relying on the memory of study participants or municipal water treatment records. The analysis showed no difference in bone fluoride levels between people with osteosarcoma and people in a control group who had other malignant bone tumors (7).

Source: http://www.cancer.go...uoridated-water

[Little Fish]

Cybele, on 16 November 2012 - 03:57 AM, said:

Regarding the meta-analysis based on Chinese data, I would like to point out what seems to be a major flaw of the study. The article points out that over 80% of the studies did not report the child's gender or parental education level and that, furthermore, only 7% reported household income. So basically, the authors of the metanalysis paper did not include these variables in their model, leading to the possibility of serious confounding because, of course, SES is pretty strongly related to where you live and your level of exposure to environmental toxins, as well as to lower IQ scores.

Second is the obvious fact that the authors repeatedly mention on the first few pages that they're studying the effects of exposure to levels of fluoride higher than what is seen in public drinking water supplies.

http://www.ncbi.nlm....ehp.1104912.pdf

what you state is mentioned in the study and taken into account in the conclusion, it's not appropriate to condemn the study as containing "a major flaw".

[Cybele]

Little Fish, on 16 November 2012 - 10:37 PM, said:

what you state is mentioned in the study and taken into account in the conclusion, it's not appropriate to condemn the study as containing "a major flaw".

It certainly is a serious limitation in their data, even if they acknowledge this in the conclusion and use appropriate statistical testing based on this data. In light of this, it is not appropriate to use results from such a study to argue for causation, nor is it a good idea to do so on the basis of cross-sectional data, which this meta-analysis involved.

[Lava_Lady]

Wasn't there a case where a husband coupled his wife by forcing her to ingest large amounts of tooth paste?  Las Vegas, I think...  oh wait, that was an episode of CSI.  Never mind!  Hehe  

Edited by Lava_Lady, 17 November 2012 - 06:44 AM.