Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 6
Coffey

Flouride/Water Fluoridation

146 posts in this topic

why are you asking questions, then "not going to bother" to find the answers when shown where to look

Oh, the irony.

I think you are just playing a silly game

Ditto.

there are many peer reviewed journal published studies that provide a compelling case for not fluoridating

Right, so let's cut to the chase. It's YOUR claim - so you tell us which one is your absolute favorite. The one that best indicates the dangers, and is properly peer reviewed. I'm eager to see what you have found (and how you found it..) :P

And then we'll discuss it in detail - that's surely what you would want, so the truth will come out, right?

if you genuinely want to find answers, then you can find talks by Paul Connett on youtube who will explain what these studies mean.

Funny, I thought this was a discussion forum? Bring the argument here, in your own words and show how you understand it.

Youtube is the last refuge of the ignorant and is more often used for disinformation than genuine research. There is a REASON for PEER REVIEW...

BTW - JGirl, I think Neo's point was that because of a whole pile of factors including ones like increased dental health (some of which is attributable to fluoridation), we are all living longer and healthier lives. There is no question that dental disease and loss of teeth resulted in higher mortality rates in historical times. So rather than ebil gubments and scientists trying to reduce our lifespans, I think it's fair to say that generally they do the reverse, ie fluroidation is NOT a plan to shorten our lifespans / control our minds...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BTW - JGirl, I think Neo's point was that because of a whole pile of factors including ones like increased dental health (some of which is attributable to fluoridation), we are all living longer and healthier lives. There is no question that dental disease and loss of teeth resulted in higher mortality rates in historical times. So rather than ebil gubments and scientists trying to reduce our lifespans, I think it's fair to say that generally they do the reverse, ie fluroidation is NOT a plan to shorten our lifespans / control our minds...

i appreciate your trying to clarify his point, but i don't think he did mean all that.

i think he was on a roll and got carried away, and in any case i would have liked to hear from him how he explains that comment.

Edited by JGirl

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It obviously depends on which study you actually believe;

http://www.mbschacht...nd_fluorida.htm

Again as regards childrens IQ, I suppose it depends on who you believe as to whether the effects are relevant to USA/UK exposure rates;

http://www.prnewswir...-169629156.html

Br Cornelius

They are very interesting articles, and indeed peer reviewed, but I am not sure all the specifics managed to get across in the media, which they rarely seem to do. I found this interesting article which opens up the claim a little to have a closer look at it.

Before we even get into the science, a quick reading of the press release itself raises some red flags. Here’s the first paragraph:

“Harvard University researchers’ review of fluoride/brain studies concludes “our results support the possibility of adverse effects of fluoride exposures on children’s neurodevelopment.” It was published online July 20 in
Environmental Health Perspectives,
a US National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences’ journal
, reports the NYS Coalition Opposed to Fluoridation, Inc. (NYSCOF).”

There are some signs of credible research here. The study was done at Harvard, and it was published in a peer-reviewed journal. There is even a link to the full-text article [1]. However, the quote from the paper is a little less dramatic than the headline – their results “support the possibility…” of said scary effect.

But the real issue comes in that last line. The results of this study are not being reported by the study authors or Harvard but by NYSCOF – an anti-fluoride advocacy group. They wrote the press release – it says so at the bottom of the page. In other words, the press release contains NYSCOF’s analysis, opinions, and yes, spin, on this study. This is never a good sign – at least not if you are looking for accurate information.

The press release goes on to quote the president of NYSCOF and to state that low doses of fluoride are harmful to babies. If you forgot to put on your media-savvy cap before reading the piece, you’d walk away thinking that water fluoridation is poisoning our babies, so says Harvard researchers in a “Federal Gov’t Journal!”

So the press release is suspect, to say the least. Let’s lose the spin and take a look at the science.

Anna Choi, the lead author of the study, is a research scientist at Harvard’s School of Public Health. Her previous work has focused on toxicity of mercury and organochlorine contaminants. Other study authors included two from China Medical University.

The study is actually a meta-analysis of 27 previously published studies looking for correlations between children’s intelligence and fluoride exposure. These were cross-sectional studies measuring children’s IQ at one point in time and comparing scores between low versus high fluoride areas. The meta-analysis used statistical methods to summarize the average difference in children’s IQ associated with fluoride exposure.

Both the National Research Council (NRC) [2] and the WHO [3] have recently reviewed the relationship between fluoride exposure and intelligence. What makes this current review different is that it includes many studies from rural China, which were not evaluated in the previous analyses. All but two of the included studies were conducted in China, with the remaining two being from Iran.

Why are there so many studies on fluoride in China? There are not municipal artificial fluoridation programs in China as there are in the U.S. Instead, it turns out that China has large veins of naturally occurring fluoride in the water table such that some areas have very high levels of fluoride while their neighbors do not. According to the paper,

“Chinese researchers took advantage of this fact and published their findings, though mainly in Chinese journals, and according to the standards of science at the time. This research dates back to the 1980s, but has not been widely cited at least in part because of limited access to Chinese journals.”

Additional fluoride exposure in China comes from coal-burning and consumption of brick tea, and it is such a concern that there are active efforts to defluoridate drinking water [3].

LINK

I have to echo Neo, I have been drinking fluoridated water for the most of my life, and no side effects. I started life in New South Wales, where fluoridation is mandatory, and moved to Queensland where the practise was not in place until a few short years ago. I do know that the people I communicate with from NSW generally have much better teeth, and all that I have kept in contact with have high stress jobs that require a higher level of intelligence. Personally, the claims do not ring true from a personal experience. I applauded fluoridation of Queensland drinking water. From personal experience, I have only ever witnessed benefits. I have heard many claims of people having been damaged in Government "projects" but I have not ever heard a claim of someone saying that Fluoridated water affected their lives. One wonders if those that feel this is used as a mind control agent could not use a little fluoride in their drinking water! It certainly is not going to be doing damage in that instance. As mentioned it has been in drinking water in many places for up to 50 years. If the paper is valid in the proposed conclusions, as highlighted by the Anti Fluoridation board, surely some examples are up for some major Government compensation? As such, I feel the claim is being reported inaccurately by a party that has an agenda.

Edited by psyche101

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Youtube is the last refuge of the ignorant and is more often used for disinformation than genuine research. There is a REASON for PEER REVIEW...

One of the most sensible lines I have read today. :tu:

I hope you do not mind, I took the liberty of adding this to my signature :tu:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But as I said, use google it brings up all the information regarding fluoride and fertility as Little Fish has proven:

All that proves is that a lot of people copied an article and posted it on their blogs. Google search can bring up a result for anything - EXAMPLE

What does the above link prove?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

how is this statement a fact? please cite sources that show that drinking flouridated water will cause most to live longer than any other group of human being in the history of our species.

that is a ridiculous claim.

Why is it ridiculous? A decent set of chompers goes a long way in the digestion stakes.

Puns intended :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One of the most sensible lines I have read today. :tu:

I hope you do not mind, I took the liberty of adding this to my signature :tu:

Mind? I'm now proudly walking around in my "I said something that is now in Psyche's signature" t-shirt.. :w00t: :nw:

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, the irony.

Ditto.

Right, so let's cut to the chase. It's YOUR claim - so you tell us which one is your absolute favorite. The one that best indicates the dangers, and is properly peer reviewed. I'm eager to see what you have found (and how you found it..) :P

And then we'll discuss it in detail - that's surely what you would want, so the truth will come out, right?

Funny, I thought this was a discussion forum? Bring the argument here, in your own words and show how you understand it.

Youtube is the last refuge of the ignorant and is more often used for disinformation than genuine research. There is a REASON for PEER REVIEW...

BTW - JGirl, I think Neo's point was that because of a whole pile of factors including ones like increased dental health (some of which is attributable to fluoridation), we are all living longer and healthier lives. There is no question that dental disease and loss of teeth resulted in higher mortality rates in historical times. So rather than ebil gubments and scientists trying to reduce our lifespans, I think it's fair to say that generally they do the reverse, ie fluroidation is NOT a plan to shorten our lifespans / control our minds...

http://www.hsph.harv...djean-choi.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, the irony.

Ditto.

Right, so let's cut to the chase. It's YOUR claim - so you tell us which one is your absolute favorite. The one that best indicates the dangers, and is properly peer reviewed. I'm eager to see what you have found (and how you found it..) :P

And then we'll discuss it in detail - that's surely what you would want, so the truth will come out, right?

Funny, I thought this was a discussion forum? Bring the argument here, in your own words and show how you understand it.

Youtube is the last refuge of the ignorant and is more often used for disinformation than genuine research. There is a REASON for PEER REVIEW...

BTW - JGirl, I think Neo's point was that because of a whole pile of factors including ones like increased dental health (some of which is attributable to fluoridation), we are all living longer and healthier lives. There is no question that dental disease and loss of teeth resulted in higher mortality rates in historical times. So rather than ebil gubments and scientists trying to reduce our lifespans, I think it's fair to say that generally they do the reverse, ie fluroidation is NOT a plan to shorten our lifespans / control our minds...

http://www.hsph.harv...djean-choi.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for that, LF. Now let's examine what it says, shall we? And compare it to what YOU said.. The emphasis is mine, but I don't think that substantially changes the quotes - if anyone thinks I have misquoted or left out context, please state where.. I'll keep it short - just the initial summary:

For years health experts have been unable to agree on whether fluoride in the drinking water may be toxic to the developing human brain.

Extremely high levels of fluoride are known to cause neurotoxicity in adults...

Extremely high levels of water are not just toxic, they are fatal.. just sayin'.

negative impacts on memory and learning have been reported in rodent studies, but little is known about the substance’s impact on children’s neurodevelopment. In a meta-analysis, researchers from Harvard School of Public Health (HSPH) and China Medical University in Shenyang for the first time combined 27 studies and found strong indications that fluoride may adversely affect cognitive development in children. Based on the findings, the authors say that this risk should not be ignored, and that more research on fluoride’s impact on the developing brain is warranted.

Now, LittleFish, you do know what a meta-analysis is? Good. And you do know what the word "MAY" means?

though many of the studies on children in China differed in many ways or were incomplete, the authors consider the data compilation and joint analysis an important first step in evaluating the potential risk.

You do know why they gave the provisos about the meta-analysed studies being 'different' and 'incomplete'.. and what 'first step' and 'potential' mean?

And may I ask, LittleFish, whether you noticed that the children studied lived in regions where they were exposed to 'naturally' high levels of flouride, yet nothing was said about what other chemicals and environmental factors were tested for, and by what mechanism, if any, fluoride was identified as the definite cause of the IQ variation?

May I also ask why you linked to an article ABOUT the studies, giving opinions and interpretations (hint - that stuff ISN'T peer review..)? Why didn't you link to the studies themselves? Have you examined the study and the studies it is based on? Don't you think the original information is worth looking at? You do know what 'peer-reviewed' is? - surely you must know that an article about a published paper is not a peer review?

From the conclusion (abstract) of the actual study:

The results support the possibility of an adverse effect of high fluoride exposure on children’s neurodevelopment. Future research should include detailed individual-level information on prenatal exposure, neurobehavioral performance, and covariates for adjustment.

Do you know what the "covariates for adjustment" bit is about? It's VERY important, but we'll leave that for now...

Now, let's compare that to what you said, LittleFish:

sperm counts? why have they been dropping since fluoridation? and why are men getting more effeminate?

I'm sorry, LF, I didn't see that in your link or in the study itself - can you point it out? Your other link just stated:

Fluoride could effect hormone levels of each layer of the hypothalamus-hypophysis-testis axis
and did NOT in any way state that sperm counts had been dropping since fluoridation.
there are however studies relating to the animal kingdom, fish turning female etc.

Again, no sign of any of that in your link. Could you point that out as well? That would be a peer-reviewed study showing the causal link of those alleged effects and fluoride. Not a vague 'Google-it-yourself' handwave that leads to tinfoil-hat websites aimed squarely at the terminally gullible.

I'm noticing a trend. LF seems to be criticising others for misintrepreting and misleading and making stuff up. And yet ...

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
please cite sources that show that drinking flouridated water will cause most to live longer than any other group of human being in the history of our species.

that is a ridiculous claim.

It is also not a claim I made. I claim no cause and effect.

The fact is that today, we live longer than at any other time in our species' entire history.

And most of us also have some exposure to fluoride.

Therefore, fluoride, in the doses that most of us receive, CANNOT be the horrible poison that the extremists claim it is. OTHERWISE, we would not be living longer than we ever have in all our recorded and unrecorded history.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All that proves is that a lot of people copied an article and posted it on their blogs. Google search can bring up a result for anything - EXAMPLE

What does the above link prove?

I don't see any scientific articles on what you googled.... If you google what I wrote you can find scientific articles. So it's not the same at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is also not a claim I made. I claim no cause and effect.

The fact is that today, we live longer than at any other time in our species' entire history.

And most of us also have some exposure to fluoride.

Therefore, fluoride, in the doses that most of us receive, CANNOT be the horrible poison that the extremists claim it is. OTHERWISE, we would not be living longer than we ever have in all our recorded and unrecorded history.

i believe you did make that claim. this is from your post:

"And most of us who drink fluoridated water will also live longer than any other group of human beings in the history of our species. These are just facts, not my opinion"

this statement clearly is trying to tie a longer life with drinking flouridated water, which is nonsense. overall we are living longer, but that is due to many many different factors.

and for the record, i never said it was a horrible poison. i just don't think it's necessary and my objection only goes as far as my refusal to blindly accept something i don't feel is necessary.

if you want to go to war over flouride, have at it, but it would serve you to know who you're actually fighting with.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is also not a claim I made. I claim no cause and effect.

The fact is that today, we live longer than at any other time in our species' entire history.

And most of us also have some exposure to fluoride.

Therefore, fluoride, in the doses that most of us receive, CANNOT be the horrible poison that the extremists claim it is. OTHERWISE, we would not be living longer than we ever have in all our recorded and unrecorded history.

So I wonder how much longer someone would live in our time if they never touched fluoride once in their life....

As JGirl said, we live longer due to many different factors...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't see any scientific articles on what you googled.... If you google what I wrote you can find scientific articles. So it's not the same at all.

You did not leave the links. I responded to this post:

But as I said, use google it brings up all the information regarding fluoride and fertility as Little Fish has proven:

The link I followed from Little Fish was just a google page, and it did not even bring up results. Just Google. At least I did all the typing for you!

In that post you also said:

use google it brings up all the information

And no, it did not. It brought up the same information on like 100 blogs and sites. And all that copying and pasting copped a fair dose of Chinese Whispers. As you can see, even Harvard Results are not being presented by Harvard, but by the Anti Fluoridation movement. I really do not see any balance there.

Feel free to post any scientific articles, I would be interested to know how legitimate they are. In fact what I really want to know is what problem do people have with others trying to help them? Like the parents that do not allow child vaccinations, this is a nightmare, and if one does not want to run with the majority of the surrounding community, one should really bugger off. Like I said, I have seen two states, one with, and one without, and these horror stories are something I have not witnessed in a life time. As such, I find them very hard to believe at face value. I want absolute proof, and if absolute proof cannot be forthcoming, I think the anti foundation movement should face criminal charges for attempting to affect the well being of millions. In my opinion, there is not enough accountability in the media.

These half-cocked alarmist outbursts are a red flag in themselves.

Edited by psyche101

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So I wonder how much longer someone would live in our time if they never touched fluoride once in their life....

As JGirl said, we live longer due to many different factors...

That would depend in the surrounding conditions wouldn't it? But there is no doubt whatsoever that fluoridating the water is beneficial to your teeth. Would a person with good teeth live longer than one with bad teeth?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mind? I'm now proudly walking around in my "I said something that is now in Psyche's signature" t-shirt.. :w00t::nw:

:lol::tu:

It will be easy to spot you at Treetops on a Friday Afternoon then!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That would depend in the surrounding conditions wouldn't it? But there is no doubt whatsoever that fluoridating the water is beneficial to your teeth. Would a person with good teeth live longer than one with bad teeth?

If you believe that periodontal disease can cause CVD. There definitely appears to be an association, at least.

http://www.stanford.edu/group/usvh/stanford/misc/Periodontal%205.pdf

http://jada.ada.org/content/137/suppl_2/14S.full

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you believe that periodontal disease can cause CVD. There definitely appears to be an association, at least.

http://www.stanford....riodontal 5.pdf

http://jada.ada.org/...uppl_2/14S.full

And here I was looking at basic food consumption! It looks like it could be quite concerning, but it makes sense, infections do spread throughout the body.

Great links. Thanks for that. :tu:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
i believe you did make that claim. this is from your post:

"And most of us who drink fluoridated water will also live longer than any other group of human beings in the history of our species. These are just facts, not my opinion"

this statement clearly is trying to tie a longer life with drinking flouridated water,

I wrote the sentence poorly, but I did not imply a cause and effect.

The entire post is about living longer while at the same time, ingesting fluoride.

I don't think there a cause and effect relationship, other than fewer oral infections that travel to the heart and other organs.

What I am relatively SURE of, is that given the long lifespan that we have, fluoride is obviously NOT the poison that the extremists tell us it is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wrote the sentence poorly, but I did not imply a cause and effect.

The entire post is about living longer while at the same time, ingesting fluoride.

I don't think there a cause and effect relationship, other than fewer oral infections that travel to the heart and other organs.

What I am relatively SURE of, is that given the long lifespan that we have, fluoride is obviously NOT the poison that the extremists tell us it is.

fair enough, and thank you for clarifying your mistake.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On a daily basis the average person is exposed to probably thousands of tiny amounts of terrible things, radiation, pesticides, carcinogens, pollution, natural and human made toxic substances, viruses and bacteria. Given all that we are exposed to on a daily basis and the cumulative effect throughout our lives, comparatively exposure to fluoride in our water and toothpaste probably doesn't make much difference.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On a daily basis the average person is exposed to probably thousands of tiny amounts of terrible things, radiation, pesticides, carcinogens, pollution, natural and human made toxic substances, viruses and bacteria. Given all that we are exposed to on a daily basis and the cumulative effect throughout our lives, comparatively exposure to fluoride in our water and toothpaste probably doesn't make much difference.

the difference is that fluoridation can be stopped just by figuratively turning a tap off. it costs nothing to do, in fact there would be a financial benefit for most people in stopping it. the science is prima facie that it causes a reduction in IQ in children. even if you are not a child and only care about yourself, those children will be the ones that support you and run things in the future. Edited by Little Fish

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
in fact there would be a financial benefit for most people in stopping it.

Except for all the higher dental insurance premiums.

the science is prima facie that it causes a reduction in IQ in children.

IN what doses?

Yea, that's what I thought.

Let's see your peer reviewed studies, please.

Edited by Neognosis

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On a daily basis the average person is exposed to probably thousands of tiny amounts of terrible things, radiation, pesticides, carcinogens, pollution, natural and human made toxic substances, viruses and bacteria. Given all that we are exposed to on a daily basis and the cumulative effect throughout our lives, comparatively exposure to fluoride in our water and toothpaste probably doesn't make much difference.

The dose makes the poison. So many people choose to ignore this fact.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 6

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.