Scientific Study Finds Fluoride Horror Stories Factual
Industrial by-product consumed by millions of Americans lowers IQ, causes cancer

Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet
Tuesday, January 15, 2008


The establishment media will have to find a new tactic with which to ridicule those who oppose the fluoridation of water after a major new Scientific American report concluded that "Scientific attitudes toward fluoridation may be starting to shift" as new evidence emerges of the poison's link to disorders affecting teeth, bones, the brain and the thyroid gland, as well as lowering IQ.

"Today almost 60 percent of the U.S. population drinks fluoridated water, including residents of 46 of the nation’s 50 largest cities," reports Scientific American's Dan Fagin.

Fagin is an award-wining environmental reporter and Director of New York University's Science, Health and Environmental Reporting Program.

"Outside the U.S., fluoridation has spread to Canada, the U.K., Australia, New Zealand and a few other countries. Critics of the practice have generally been dismissed as gadflies or zealots by mainstream researchers and public health agencies in those countries as well as the U.S. (In other nations, however, water fluoridation is rare and controversial.)"

Article continues:
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/janua...ride_horror.htm

For intelligent people, that article does more harm to the idea that flouride in water sources is bad for people, especially with the ending "Click here to find out if your water supply is poisoned with deadly fluoride."

We already know that flouride in HIGH doses causes problems.

There is very little evidence that flouride in the doses that are put into public drinking supplies cause any problems.

I'm open to hearing more and learning more, but not from people with an agenda who clearly sensationalize for their own reasons.

Fagin is an award-wining environmental reporter and Director of New York University's Science, Health and Environmental Reporting Program.
What reason would he have to lie?

There is very little evidence that flouride in the doses that are put into public drinking supplies cause any problems?!!!
What planet are you living on? What more proof do you need?
information is information , truth is truth, if from a verifiable source.
Fluoride is a deadly poison, and it is being added to the drinking water of the majority of Americans.

Agreed. I live in a city that puts fluoride in it's water supply, and I can't count how many times I've died from drinking it.

It's getting tiresome.

oh, tee hee hee. How hilarious . When you get brain cancer in 15 years time, or your hips start to fall apart, you'll be laughing.

Fluoride is used in pesticides, so yes, it is a deadly poison.

I'm not saying he's lying. But the article is sensationalistic, biased, and highly exaggerative.



Earth. I have been drinking flouridated water for 34 years, and I've not developed any problems. There are studies that show that low doeses of flouride are not harmfull. The overwhelming experience of the population drinking flouridated water for years and years would seem to support these studies.




there was no proof in that article. I'm very open to any studies showing harmfull effects of flouride in the same doses that we are likely to get from public water.

I don't need irrelevant information such as where flouride comes from or what it does in large doses.

Your logic is faulty.
It is only deadly in certain doses.
Simply being present in a pesticide
does not mean it is harmfull when diluted with water in the doses we get from public drinking water



We might get cancer, but it might not be from flouride.

My hips probably will start to fall apart, but it will be from years and years of athletics, most not likely from drinking the water.

What do you mean "For intelligent people" ? Just because this particular article is from a source that you have deemed untrustworthy doesn't make it any less credible than something from JAMA. In fact, I believe you have to question any theory coming from mainstream "acceptable" sources. After all, JAMA used to have glossy ads upholding the health benefits of smoking cigarettes! Now their pages are full of ads and articles written by doctors on the amazing benefits of prescription drugs for all sorts of questionable syndromes and conditions.

Anyhow, I would think that "intelligent" people would have the brains to check multiple sources before concluding that something is a tinfoil hat conspiracy. I realize that sounded bad, and I wasn't implying that you are this way. I'm just saying that if someone, anyone... is truly intelligent they will cover all possible sources.

Here is an excerpt from Dan Fagin's article

Researchers are intensifying their scrutiny of fluoride, which is added to most public water systems in the U.S. Some recent studies suggest that overconsumption of fluoride can raise the risks of disorders affecting teeth, bones, the brain and the thyroid gland.

• A 2006 report by a committee of the National Research Council recommended that the federal government lower its current limit for fluoride in drinking water because of health risks to both children and adults

Page 75: Most fluoridated water contains much less fluoride than the EPA limit, but the situation is worrisome because there is so much uncertainty over how much additional fluoride we ingest from food, beverages and dental products. What is more, the NRC panel noted that fluoride may also trigger more serious health problems, including bone cancer and damage to the brain and thyroid gland. Although these effects are still unproved, the panel argued that they deserve further study.

Page 75: TOO MUCH OF A GOOD THING: Fluoride is in many foods, beverages and dental products. The ubiquity of the cavity-fighting chemical can result in overconsumption, particularly among young children.

Page 78: Scientific attitudes toward fluoridation may be starting to shift in the country where the practice began.

Page 79: But enamel fluorosis, except in the severest cases, has no health impact beyond lowered self-esteem: the tooth marks are unattractive and do not go away (although there are masking treatments). The much more important question is whether fluoride’s effects extend beyond altering the biochemistry of tooth enamel formation. Says longtime fluoride researcher Pamela DenBesten of the University of California, San Francisco, School of Dentistry: “We certainly can see that fluoride impacts the way proteins interact with mineralized tissue, so what effect is it having elsewhere at the cellular level? Fluoride is very powerful, and it needs to be treated respectfully.”

Page 80: Clashes over the possible neurological effects of fluoride have been just as intense. Phyllis Mullenix, then at the Forsyth Institute in Boston, set off a firestorm in the early 1990s when she reported that experiments on lab rats showed that sodium fluoride can accumulate in brain tissue and affect animal behavior. Prenatal exposures, she reported, correlated with hyperactivity in young rats, especially males, whereas exposures after birth had the opposite effect, turning female rats into what Mullenix later described as “couch potatoes.” Although her research was eventually published in Neurotoxicology and Teratology, it was attacked by other scientists who said that her methodology was flawed and that she had used unrealistically high dosages. Since then, however, a series of epidemiological studies in China have associated high fluoride exposures with lower IQ, and research has also suggested a possible mechanism: the formation of aluminum fluoride complexes—small inorganic molecules that mimic the structure of phosphates and thus influence enzyme activity in the brain. There is also some evidence that the silicofluorides used in water fluoridation may enhance the uptake of lead into the brain.

Page 80: The NRC committee concluded that fluoride can subtly alter endocrine function, especially in the thyroid—the gland that produces hormones regulating growth and metabolism. Although researchers do not know how fluoride consumption can influence the thyroid, the effects appear to be strongly influenced by diet and genetics. Says John Doull, professor emeritus of pharmacology and toxicology at the University of Kansas Medical Center, who chaired the NRC committee: “The thyroid changes do worry me. There are some things there that need to be explored.”

Page 80-81: “What the committee found is that we’ve gone with the status quo regarding fluoride for many years—for too long, really—and now we need to take a fresh look,” Doull says. “In the scientific community, people tend to think this is settled. I mean, when the U.S. surgeon general comes out and says this is one of the 10 greatest achievements of the 20th century, that’s a hard hurdle to get over. But when we looked at the studies that have been done, we found that many of these questions are unsettled and we have much less information than we should, considering how long this [fluoridation] has been going on. I think that’s why fluoridation is still being challenged so many years after it began. In the face of ignorance, controversy is rampant.”

Page 81: Opponents of fluoridation, meanwhile, have been emboldened by the NRC report. “What the committee did was very, very important, because it’s the first time a truly balanced panel has looked at this and raised important questions,” says Paul Connett, a chemistry professor at St. Lawrence University and the executive director of the Fluoride Action Network, one of the most active antifluoridation groups world-wide. “I absolutely believe it’s a scientific turning point because now everything’s on the table. Fluoride is the most consumed drug in the U.S., and it’s time we talked about it.”

Page 80: A FLUORIDE DIET
The optimal range for daily intake of fluoride—the level that maximizes protection against tooth decay but minimizes other risks— is generally considered to be 0.05 to 0.07 milligram for each kilogram of body weight. Consuming foods and beverages with large amounts of fluoride can put a diet above this range. Below are typical trace levels of fluoride, measured in parts per million (ppm), found in foods and drinks tested at the University of Iowa College of Dentistry.

3.73 ppm Brewed black tea

2.34 ppm Raisins

2.02 ppm White wine

1.09 ppm Apple- flavored juice drink

0.91 ppm Brewed coffee

0.71 ppm Tap water (U.S.-wide average)

0.61 ppm Chicken soup broth

0.60 ppm Diet Coke (U.S.-wide average)

0.48 ppm Hot dog

0.46 ppm Grapefruit juice

0.45 ppm Beer

0.45 ppm Baked russet potatoes

0.35 ppm Cheddar cheese

0.33 ppm Flour tortillas

0.32 ppm Creamed corn (baby food)

0.23 ppm Chocolate ice cream

0.13 ppm Brewed chamomile tea

0.03 ppm Milk (2%)

Intelligent people realize that it doesn't matter that flouride is a byproduct of manufacturing, or that it is toxic in high doses. There are at least 5 logical fallacies in that article that intelligent people with even the most elementary understanding of logic know are misleading and sensationalistic.

There may be something to the idea that flouride is harmfull, even in the doses we are getting. But the bias and sensationalism of the article diminsishes its point for those of us who understand rhetorical logic.




I agree with that.

and the exercpts from this Dan Fagin guy's article are sensible and non-senstationalistic. Quite the opposite from the article posted in the OP. The exerpts from the article in the most recent post only raise questions and call for more study. The ridiculous article in the OP already makes conclusions and exaggerations that the scientific peer reviewed article does not.

In the post I quoted you on, you implied that it's dangerous for intelligent people to be exposed to such an article. I was just questioning your reasoning in that because I believe that intelligent people, if they are truly intelligent, won't dismiss something just because of the source. As we can see, thunkerdrone has proven this fantastically.

European nations do not fluoridate their water. They know that fluoride is crap.

If that's what you got from what I said, then I was not clear.

What I mean is that intelligent people will read that article and see all the exaggerations and logical fallacies and dismiss it. If you want to be taken seriously, you have to be accurate and not exaggerate claims or jump to conclusions only partially supported by data.

The source has nothing to do with why I dismissed the article. Statements such as the following are the reason I dismiss it:



Right off it starts out with a heavy bias and a need to counter the ridicule that the article will surely cause. This is a red flag right off.



For legal reasons, they have to be accurate, so they have to say "may" "link" "shift." but saying that ideas may be starting to shift is not exciting enough, so the bias of "the poison's link" has to be put it to keep the article controversial and exciting. Another red flag.



this is an outright exaggeration, bordering on a lie. My city has used floridated water for as long as I can remember, and so did the city I grew up in. Yet, we were not a high cancer area, my friends and I all grew up healthy and are in our mid 30's with no significant health problems. So what horror stories are they talking about? None are named. By now, I've nearly dismissed the article entirely.



Here's another half truth. We already KNOW this. Nobody has disputed this. But there little to no evidence that this is true in the doses that are in public water supplies. The article conveniently leaves this out though, and implies through omission that they are talking about these tiny doses in the public drinking supply. Dishonest and yellow journalism.



China is a notoriously poluted country and I doubt they have the same standards for floridation that we do here. On top of that, with all the pollutants in china's water and atmosphere, it would be extremely difficult to pin low IQ on flouride alone. And the study cited, no doubt, does not do that, although it probably says there is a possible link. But the article implies that the link is certain and that it is in low doses. Neither of which are true.



HIGH DOSES.

Drinking high dose of milk will make you puke. Does that mean that a glass is harmfull?

I'll stop, but there is a fallacy or misleading exaggeratin in nearly every paragraph.

The best are the closers. Every single "FACT about flouride" is misleading and fallacious to the argument.

Let's take a look at just the first two:



Many substances we take for medication are also poison. Flouride is only poisonous in high doses. They keep forgetting that. It is irrelevena that it is a wast by-product of fertilizer and aluminum. So are watar and oxygen and carbon dioxide (which is also a poison)



Again, irrelevant. Being an ingredient in Prozac and Sarin do not make flouride the active ingredient, nor do they indicate toxicity in small doses. (although the article put this fact in for pure shock value and to keep you from relaizing the logical fallacy of the statement itself. It is an appeal to emotion, clearly.) Again, there are many ingredients in Sarin nerve gas and Prozac that are not harmfull. And we already are relatively certain that Flouride is only harmful in certain doses or combinations.

The king of all, though, is the one about the Nazi prison camps. If the Nazi's used it (no matter the dosage was extremely high), then it must be bad even in tiny doses, right?

Come on, intelligent people see the fallacies here and the article weakens any serious studies about flouride simply by it's alarmist and sensationalist tone.

Nearly everything in the world is deadly if you have too much. Does that mean we should never eat or drink or breathe?

Even the title of this thread is misleading. Researchers found that there might be a link worth investigating further between flouride and certain problems. yet, the thread title says: "Scientific study: fluoride horror stories, study finds dangers of fluoride true."

Is it any wonder we dont' take it seriously?

Let's just say for the sake of argument that moderated fluoride in drinking water is safe for human consumption(?)...

Does the body release these chemicals over years of continuous consumption, or does it kinda just sit around for years on end playing dice with our minds & bodies along with all the other unnatural chemicals placed in our water 'along with most of foods we consume as well' slowly brewing and creating some kind of chemical cocktail? ...''phew dats a long question'' lol!

On top of all that how does it effect the younger generation...our children? ... Last i heard their immune system wasn't as strong as us adults?


Just curious.