Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
regeneratia

Fluoridegate

188 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Br Cornelius

Well, there's all sorts of minerals in tap water already, depending on what water source you're drinking from.

There are even some with Fluoride - which they have to take out.

Br Cornelius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
regeneratia

I've looked at the research, both for and against with a medical schools resources to obtaining that research as well. We don't have much choice, nutrition and public health gets covered in your first set of case-clinical reasoning groups and teeth development, cavities etc (I know right? I was mean, what did I sign up for I don't want to be a dentist!) get covered extensively in histology and cell biology, micro-anatomy and gross anatomy.

I meant a couple parts of your story, for instance here you say;

That what was happening to your child?

Then you say;

How? And what do you mean by he could reduce levels without "calling attention"?

Then later you say;

What do you mean by bottom levels? Virtually all water has trace fluoride in it, making "pure" H2O is neigh impossible (well not necessarily, its just insanely ridiculous and insanely expensive and drinking "pure" H2O wouldn't be that good for you anyway).

Then you said;

Which makes it sound as if he is adding fluoride, why does he need to buy it if he is trying to remove it?

See what I mean? Could you clarify those points?

I don't know of you really did any research on it or not. Nothing that you have written indicates that you have.

I remain in my stance and acknowledge that you have your own opinion on this.

For all those who like to do their own objective research on it, there is a massive amount of information on this. And they do not agree with copacetic.

Lower perimeters of the recommended ... oh who cares?! You are not changing what I think. I like my ability to assess situations and they are unchallenged by no one but myself, as I take in more information and adjust to the knowledge base I get outside this site.

Reminding you all that, according to the CDC, you are not to use tap water in baby formula.

And my opinion, a solid opinion on this, that you would be wise to eliminate fluoridated tap water from your oral consumption routine.

I am only here to put my two cents out there.

"Stellar Icon

Posted Yesterday, 11:15 PM

I mean, I also find it slightly fishy that the government seems to purposely fluoridate our water "for our benifit"... yet avoids purposely adding vitamins to it, or anything else "medicinal".

"

Yes, I am pretty sure our own government is lacking in ultimate altruism at almost all levels of government.

The teeth are the easiest body parts to replace. You cannot say that about a liver or kidney.

I think there should be more concern about what the oral consumption of fluoride does to the body's soft tissue, the liver that has to process it, and the kidneys that have to filter it. The liver does over 110 functions that we know of in the body. Unless there is some strange act of some strange god, you only get one liver. Respect it!! Demand respect for it!!

Edited by regeneratia

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
regeneratia

Yes, public health wise it is an easy and practical fix for a whole nation. Much as its easy for doctors to tell pregnant women to take folic acid rather than test all pregnant women for mutations in genes like dihydrofolate reductase.

Are there a small percentage of people it may not be beneficial too? Yes, possibly just as there is a small percentage of women that folate vitamins have adverse affects on.

In any sufficiently large and varied population, there are always going to be data-outliers which don't benefit from certain public health choices. The trick is to find a means to identify them early before harm could be done.

The evidence for safer, more available and more cost effective ways to ensure fluoride is adequately used to prevent dental caries is essentially non-existent. At current, in terms of public health, fluoridated water is the most effective.

I would ask you what evidence there is for the fluoridation of teeth, but I don't like to give my evidence either, citing that it isn't worth the time it take to provide it since there is no real assurance that anyone will look at it.

So I say, be careful with "evidence indicates" phrases.

Edited by regeneratia

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DieChecker

After reading about this in several threads, I've come to my own opinion that water should not be floridated. If children need floride to strengthen their teeth, they should have it perscribed by their doctor or dentist.

That said, floridated water is like anything else. It depends on the quanitity taken in. Taking just a single adult iron pill can make a young child die. Does that mean outlawing iron pills. No, it means we need to be responsible in how it is delivered. Some people do drink 10 liters of water a day, and so could have issues with floride. Floridating by the tap water is not a measured system, any individual can take any amount.

I'm not anti-floride. I am just against this unmeasured system of delivery.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
regeneratia

Xiang Q, Liang Y, Chen B, 2010 Serum Fluoride Level and Children's Intelligence Quotient in Two Villages in China. Environ Health Perspect doi:10.1289/ehp.1003171

http://www.environmentalhealthnews.org/newscience/2007/2007-0705wangetal.html

http://www.cdc.gov/fluoridation/safety/infant_formula.htm

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/databriefs/db53.htm

http://www.fluoridealert.org/dental-fluorosis.htm

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

http://www2.fluoridealert.org/Alert/China/Fluoride-in-Water-Linked-to-Lower-IQ-in-Children

(this is naturally occurring fluoride)

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

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

"FLUORIDE & the KIDNEYS (Click for more detail)

The kidneys play a vital role in preventing the build-up of excessive fluoride in the body. Among healthy individuals, the kidneys excrete approximately 50% of the daily fluoride intake. However, among individuals with kidney disease, the kidneys' ability to excrete becomes markedly impaired, resulting in a build-up of fluoride within the body.

It is well recognized that individuals with kidney disease have a heightened susceptibility to the cumulative toxic effects of fluoride.

Of particular concern is the potential for fluoride, when accumulated in the skeletal system, to cause, or exacerbate, renal osteodystrophy - a bone disease commonly found among people with advanced kidney disease.

In addition, fluoride has been definitively shown to poison kidney function at high doses over short-term exposures in both animals and humans. The impact of low doses of fluoride, given over long periods of time, has been inadequately studied. A recent animal study, conducted by scientists at the US Environmental Protection Agency (Varner 1998), reported that exposure to just 1 ppm fluoride caused kidney damage in rats if they drank the water for an extended period of time, while a new study from China found an increased rate of kidney disease among humans consuming more than 2 ppm (Liu 2005). Hence, the adverse effects to kidney function that fluoride causes at high doses over short periods of time, may also be replicated with small doses if consumed over long periods of time."

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

http://www.fluoridealert.org/health/brain/index.html

"Fluoride's ability to damage the brain represents one of the most active areas of research on fluoride toxicity today.

Concern about fluoride's impact on the brain has been fueled by 18 human studies (from China, Mexico, India, and Iran) reporting IQ deficits among children exposed to excess fluoride, by 4 human studies indicating that fluoride can enter, and damage, the fetal brain; and by a growing number of animal studies finding damage to brain tissue (at levels as low as 1 ppm) and impairment of learning and memory among fluoride-treated groups.

According to the US National Research Council, "it is apparent that fluorides have the ability to interfere with the functions of the brain." "

-----------

"FLUORIDE & TOOTH DECAY (Caries) (Click for more detail)

According to the current consensus view of the dental research community, fluoride's primary - if not sole - benefit to teeth comes from TOPICAL application to the exterior surface of teeth, not from ingestion.

Perhaps not surprisingly, therefore, tooth decay rates have declined at similar rates in all western countries in the latter half of the 20th century - irrespective of whether the country fluoridates its water or not. Today, tooth decay rates throughout continental western Europe are as low as the tooth decay rates in the United States - despite a profound disparity in water fluoridation prevalence in the two regions.

Within countries that fluoridate their water, recent large-scale surveys of dental health - utilizing modern scientific methods not employed in the early surveys from the 1930s-1950s - have found little difference in tooth decay, including "baby bottle tooth decay", between fluoridated and unfluoridated communities."

Edited by regeneratia

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Copasetic

I don't know of you really did any research on it or not. Nothing that you have written indicates that you have.

Some literature you should read;

1. A century of water fluoridation in Jacksonville, Florida evidence of safety and effectiveness. J Public Health Dent. 1984;44(3):129.

2. ADA. Community water fluoridation: 60 years of fighting tooth decay. J Okla Dent Assoc. 2005;97(1):19.

3. Allukian M,Jr. Massachusetts fluoridation update 2006. J Mass Dent Soc. 2006;55(1):16-22.

4. Anderson WA, Pratt I, Ryan MR, Flynn A. A probabilistic estimation of fluoride intake by infants up to the age of 4 months from infant formula reconstituted with tap water in the fluoridated regions of Ireland. Caries Res. 2004;38(5):421-429.

5. Barros BS, Tomita NE. Epidemiologic aspects of dental fluorosis in Brazil: research in the period 1993-2006]. Cien Saude Colet. 2010;15(1):289-300.

6. Collier DR. Fluorine: an essential element for good dental health. J Public Health Dent. 1980;40(3):296-300.

7. Demos LL, Kazda H, Cicuttini FM, Sinclair MI, Fairley CK. Water fluoridation, osteoporosis, fractures--recent developments. Aust Dent J. 2001;46(2):80-7; quiz 143.

8. Easley MW. The new antifluoridationists: who are they and how do they operate? J Public Health Dent. 1985;45(3):133-141.

9. Karsenty E, Sgan-Cohen H, Vered Y, Leventhal A. Optimal fluoride level in drinking water and public health]. Harefuah. 2003;142(11):754-8, 806.

10. Levy SM. Review of fluoride exposures and ingestion. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol. 1994;22(3):173-180.

11. Marinho VC, Higgins JP, Sheiham A, Logan S. Fluoride toothpastes for preventing dental caries in children and adolescents. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2003;(1)(1):CD002278.

12. McDonagh MS, Whiting PF, Wilson PM, et al. Systematic review of water fluoridation. BMJ. 2000;321(7265):855-859.

13. Milgrom P, Zero DT, Tanzer JM. An examination of the advances in science and technology of prevention of tooth decay in young children since the Surgeon General's Report on Oral Health. Acad Pediatr. 2009;9(6):404-409.

14. Parnell C, Whelton H, O'Mullane D. Water fluoridation. Eur Arch Paediatr Dent. 2009;10(3):141-148.

15. Pratt E,Jr, Rawson RD, Rubin M. Fluoridation at fifty: what have we learned? J Law Med Ethics. 2002;30(3 Suppl):117-121.

16. Spencer AJ, Slade GD, Davies M. Water fluoridation in Australia. Community Dent Health. 1996;13 Suppl 2:27-37.

17. Tomori T, Koga H, Maki Y, Takaesu Y. Fluoride analysis of foods for infants and estimation of daily fluoride intake. Bull Tokyo Dent Coll. 2004;45(1):19-32.

18. Yeung CA. A systematic review of the efficacy and safety of fluoridation. Evid Based Dent. 2008;9(2):39-43.

I remain in my stance and acknowledge that you have your own opinion on this.

I don't have an opinion, I only acknowledge what the evidence shows; That water fluoridation is a safe and efficient way to alleviate dental carriers.

For all those who like to do their own objective research on it, there is a massive amount of information on this. And they do not agree with copacetic.

Certainly, you can find people to disagree about anything. Literally anything. The anit-vax crowd did, no?

I'd forewarn both you and anyone else looking to do "objective" research on the subject to actually do objective research. Which is not GoogleBing'in the web for whatever pages come up first, even those that look "scientific"--I'd point you to both the NIH, PubMed's database and the IOM if you want to do real, objective research. There is no replacement for primary scientific literature.

Lower perimeters of the recommended ... oh who cares?! You are not changing what I think. I like my ability to assess situations and they are unchallenged by no one but myself, as I take in more information and adjust to the knowledge base I get outside this site.

? Not really sure what you're on about here....

Reminding you all that, according to the CDC, you are not to use tap water in baby formula.

Yes, both the CDC and NIH recommend this, as well as the American Academy of Pediatrics and it has little to do with fluoride content and mostly everything to do with lead.

The teeth are the easiest body parts to replace. You cannot say that about a liver or kidney.

I think there should be more concern about what the oral consumption of fluoride does to the body's soft tissue, the liver that has to process it, and the kidneys that have to filter it. The liver does over 110 functions that we know of in the body. Unless there is some strange act of some strange god, you only get one liver. Respect it!! Demand respect for it!!

These are comments born of ignorance of human biology. The liver doesn't handle minerals or ions, detoxification by the liver is done on organic compounds (ie; not fluoride). The kidneys excrete excess F via a TM potential.

Your kidney's work on about 15% of their potential, that is to say; of your glomerular filtration rate (GFR henceforth). There is, as explained above abundant excess-Not that F damages your kidneys anyway, as it is not actively secreted and is freely filtered it is a rather harmless substance for the body to excrete.

If you want to start a crusade against an element you should be boycotting sodium (Na) and its excessive use in our foods, which turns out to be much, much more dangerous for people--Both in terms of kidney function (Ie; its effects on the renin-angiotensinogen-aldosterone system) and hypertension......

Edited by Copasetic

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Copasetic

"Fluoridealert.org" is probably about a reliable website for fluoride information as "whale.to" is for autism and vaccine information....Take a look at those studies above and learn your way around PubMed.

http://www2.fluoridealert.org/Alert/China/Fluoride-in-Water-Linked-to-Lower-IQ-in-Children

(this is naturally occurring fluoride)

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

There is not such thing as "naturally" or "unnaturally" occurring Fluoride. This has the ring of an emotionally charged "natural health" movement.

We don't "manufacture" fluoride, its an element--Just like sodium is.

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

"FLUORIDE & the KIDNEYS (Click for more detail)

The kidneys play a vital role in preventing the build-up of excessive fluoride in the body. Among healthy individuals, the kidneys excrete approximately 50% of the daily fluoride intake. However, among individuals with kidney disease, the kidneys' ability to excrete becomes markedly impaired, resulting in a build-up of fluoride within the body.

It is well recognized that individuals with kidney disease have a heightened susceptibility to the cumulative toxic effects of fluoride.

Of particular concern is the potential for fluoride, when accumulated in the skeletal system, to cause, or exacerbate, renal osteodystrophy - a bone disease commonly found among people with advanced kidney disease.

In addition, fluoride has been definitively shown to poison kidney function at high doses over short-term exposures in both animals and humans. The impact of low doses of fluoride, given over long periods of time, has been inadequately studied. A recent animal study, conducted by scientists at the US Environmental Protection Agency (Varner 1998), reported that exposure to just 1 ppm fluoride caused kidney damage in rats if they drank the water for an extended period of time, while a new study from China found an increased rate of kidney disease among humans consuming more than 2 ppm (Liu 2005). Hence, the adverse effects to kidney function that fluoride causes at high doses over short periods of time, may also be replicated with small doses if consumed over long periods of time."

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

http://www.fluoridealert.org/health/brain/index.html

As I expounded on above, we use only about 10% of our kidney function (this is why you can actually donate one of your kidneys). People with renal disease are normally well beyond the sphere of 10% and because fluoride is a freely filtered, not actively reabsorbed and not actively secreted (read; secreted is not the same thing as EXcreted) then it would obviously build up when GFR has been compromised.

If you have end-stage renal disease though, F is the least of your worries (really). Increased sodium in our diets mean we need to excrete on average, around 250 miliequivilents per day. If you don't you are unable to rid the body of excess water and you develop (sound terrifying drum roll please) renal-vascular hypertension, something as likely to kill you as the kidney disease.

Not only can you not excrete sodium, but the body on a typical Western diet must deal with excess potassium (K) as well. Since both K and Na are vital to neural function, and most importantly extra-cellular K levels--The buildup of K wrecks resting membrane potentials and compromises cell and neural activity.

So, if you are one of those lucky people with kidney disease, Fluoride would be the least of my concerns (likewise you'll note after talking to your Nephrologist, that is a professional kidney doctor, that it will be the least of his concerns as well).

"Fluoride's ability to damage the brain represents one of the most active areas of research on fluoride toxicity today.

Concern about fluoride's impact on the brain has been fueled by 18 human studies (from China, Mexico, India, and Iran) reporting IQ deficits among children exposed to excess fluoride, by 4 human studies indicating that fluoride can enter, and damage, the fetal brain; and by a growing number of animal studies finding damage to brain tissue (at levels as low as 1 ppm) and impairment of learning and memory among fluoride-treated groups.

According to the US National Research Council, "it is apparent that fluorides have the ability to interfere with the functions of the brain." "

-----------

"FLUORIDE & TOOTH DECAY (Caries) (Click for more detail)

According to the current consensus view of the dental research community, fluoride's primary - if not sole - benefit to teeth comes from TOPICAL application to the exterior surface of teeth, not from ingestion.

Perhaps not surprisingly, therefore, tooth decay rates have declined at similar rates in all western countries in the latter half of the 20th century - irrespective of whether the country fluoridates its water or not. Today, tooth decay rates throughout continental western Europe are as low as the tooth decay rates in the United States - despite a profound disparity in water fluoridation prevalence in the two regions.

Within countries that fluoridate their water, recent large-scale surveys of dental health - utilizing modern scientific methods not employed in the early surveys from the 1930s-1950s - have found little difference in tooth decay, including "baby bottle tooth decay", between fluoridated and unfluoridated communities."

The brain is an area that takes up very, very little fluoride from the plasma. What's the reason? Because evolution saw fit to fashion you with a blood-brain barrier. That barrier is neigh-impermeable to charged substances (for reasons of basic chemistry and membrane biology, I can explain if you'd like). Substances which can cross the blood-brain barrier are small, lipophilic substances--Like first generation antihistimines.

I have no doubt that if you inject fluoride into the brain, beyond the barrier, you'll have toxicology issues--But that raises an even more important question--Why were you injecting fluoride into your brain to begin with?

The brain isn't capable to "importing" any ol' thing it wants. It can only import non-lipophilic or even large lipophilic ones via special transporters on cells located in special regions which contain a special type of diaphragm bound fenstrated capillary. Outside of that, the bouncer kicks the charged ions (anions and cations) out at the door (including things the brain needs like sodium, which requires specialized transporters to enter).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Copasetic

I see. I thought that was what you were suggesting... that since Sodium is dangerous but Salt is not, Fluoride (element) is dangerous but NaF is not. I think, when people are referring to "Fluorinated water" they are referring to the compound in water, and they believe that is dangerous... I dont think anyone here is basing their opinions on the element being dangerous.

No people here are basing their opinions off of forgetting chemistry, which is why I used the example I did. Nor are people using the term "fluoride" correctly how you use it in a chemistry class. The "growing" anti-fluoride movement incorrectly uses the term to describe anything which contains elemental F and "latches" onto the danger that substance may pose.

You can see an example further up on page one when sulfly-fluorides, used in pesticides (something very different chemically) are used to "tout" the danger of fluorides.

By that same logic, the best (and conveniently) most dangerous pesticides contain carbon-Ergo carbon must be dangerous and we should strive to eliminate it from our diet. Carbon is also so toxic its known to be found in tumors in the brain, can cross the blood brain barrier on a whim and is in the foods you eat.

See how silly and disingenuous that is?

People believe stuff like that, because they didn't pay attention in high school chemistry class.

And as I pointed out, I don't necessarily trust the officials to tell me what is safe and what is not. They can say its safe all they want, but I've learnt in the past 23 years of my life that these "experts" in all areas are not as incorruptible and not all as competant and error-free as I'd like them to be.

There is little I can do to change your mind about "trust", as that is a subjective emotional appeal. My advice, being you are student of the sciences, is use all that money you've dumped into school and education to scientifically research the subject. PubMed, IOM, Cochrane, EBSCOhost, etc--I'm sure you're familiar with navigating these databases.

I don't live in the US.

My mistake, I bet that where ever you do live, if your water is fluoridated, you can find out how much is added and compare that to the very conservative tolerable-upper-limits established via research.

While this whole "a little bit is ok" business may suit you, I see that this "little bit" has the potential to cause some damage to my body. Chances are it doesnt cause anything significant, perhaps, but I'd just rather not be force medicated.

If you are healthy individual, no it doesn't. Biologically, its simply not possible. See the discussion on the kidneys above.

Personally, I believe in medication when it is required. I am against today's "drugs are the answer to everything" mentality. I, personally, believe that all these pills and chemicals in todays society that we deem 'safe' may indeed have side effects that we do not realize, no matter how much some corporation/department says its safe. Do I have hard evidence of this? No. There have been cases when certain pills/chemicals were once though safe and then turned out to be dangerous though, and as such, I want to make the decisions as to whether to pollute my body with something someone tells me is "safe" or not.

Fluoride isn't a drug. It is a micronutrient and is required for life (your life). I don't think "drugs are the answer to everything" and despite this common sentiment amongst population at large, I've yet to meet anyone in medicine (and I've already met a lot of people) peddling this philosophy.

Though, I have meet numerous "naturopaths", who recommend their "patients" forgo things like chemotherapies for things like house-hold herbs. I even got to meet a "reformed" naturopath who's very same advice cost his "patient" their life and the forfit of his medical license!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
regeneratia

I don't trust the ADA, not one itoa. So all research from them is ... um... inconsequential to me.

We know they are involved taking money from corporations. They are NOT an authority on anything, IMHO, because they can be bought.

I don't know why the ADA thinks we should consider teeth, the easiest body part to replace, THE MOST IMPORTANT (caps for emphasis only) body part. Personally, I prefer the brain, the liver, the kidneys and so on.

You go ahead and play around with your kidneys. I choose not to. I will sacrifice the teeth before I will sacrifice the kidneys.

Actually, research is coming out that says that the Western diet is substantially low in K+, given that the mainstream diet consists of produce that comes from land that turns over a crop every 90 days!! Which, of course, would seriously deplete it of nutrients.

Oh yes, you reminded me that it is recommended NOT to drink fluoridated tap water if you have kidney disease.

Yeppers, I knew you could not discuss without insulting. You are dismissed.

Edited by regeneratia

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
regeneratia

"Fluoridealert.org" is probably about a reliable website for fluoride information as "whale.to" is for autism and vaccine information....Take a look at those studies above and learn your way around PubMed.

There is not such thing as "naturally" or "unnaturally" occurring Fluoride. This has the ring of an emotionally charged "natural health" movement.

We don't "manufacture" fluoride, its an element--Just like sodium is.

As I expounded on above, we use only about 10% of our kidney function (this is why you can actually donate one of your kidneys). People with renal disease are normally well beyond the sphere of 10% and because fluoride is a freely filtered, not actively reabsorbed and not actively secreted (read; secreted is not the same thing as EXcreted) then it would obviously build up when GFR has been compromised.

If you have end-stage renal disease though, F is the least of your worries (really). Increased sodium in our diets mean we need to excrete on average, around 250 miliequivilents per day. If you don't you are unable to rid the body of excess water and you develop (sound terrifying drum roll please) renal-vascular hypertension, something as likely to kill you as the kidney disease.

Not only can you not excrete sodium, but the body on a typical Western diet must deal with excess potassium (K) as well. Since both K and Na are vital to neural function, and most importantly extra-cellular K levels--The buildup of K wrecks resting membrane potentials and compromises cell and neural activity.

So, if you are one of those lucky people with kidney disease, Fluoride would be the least of my concerns (likewise you'll note after talking to your Nephrologist, that is a professional kidney doctor, that it will be the least of his concerns as well).

The brain is an area that takes up very, very little fluoride from the plasma. What's the reason? Because evolution saw fit to fashion you with a blood-brain barrier. That barrier is neigh-impermeable to charged substances (for reasons of basic chemistry and membrane biology, I can explain if you'd like). Substances which can cross the blood-brain barrier are small, lipophilic substances--Like first generation antihistimines.

I have no doubt that if you inject fluoride into the brain, beyond the barrier, you'll have toxicology issues--But that raises an even more important question--Why were you injecting fluoride into your brain to begin with?

The brain isn't capable to "importing" any ol' thing it wants. It can only import non-lipophilic or even large lipophilic ones via special transporters on cells located in special regions which contain a special type of diaphragm bound fenstrated capillary. Outside of that, the bouncer kicks the charged ions (anions and cations) out at the door (including things the brain needs like sodium, which requires specialized transporters to enter).

My o my, you have some serious biases.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Copasetic

I don't trust the ADA, not one itoa. So all research from them is ... um... inconsequential to me.

We know they are involved taking money from corporations. They are NOT an authority on anything, IMHO, because they can be bought.

You are referring to the American dental association? That could be a new one, lol, don't think I've heard many dentist conspiracy theories.

By the way, the majority of those studies referenced above had nothing to do with the ADA.

My apologies, I assume that like me, people know how to read a reference. Let's explain it for you though;

Ex; 1. A century of water fluoridation in Jacksonville, Florida evidence of safety and effectiveness. J Public Health Dent. 1984;44(3):129.

That bit there in red, is the name of the journal where the reference was published. The "J" in this case stands for the word "journal" so you can see that was published in the "Journal for public health dentistry".

Which if you pointed your browser over to their website you'd see that it is a journal published on behalf of the "American Association for Public Health Dentistry", not the ADA.

I don't know why the ADA thinks we should consider teeth, the easiest body part to replace, THE MOST IMPORTANT (caps for emphasis only) body part. Personally, I prefer the brain, the liver, the kidneys and so on.

This would be called a "strawman" type of argument. Its an emotional appeal, not a rational one.

I don't know about you but I prefer to replace no parts of my body! Including my teeth.

You go ahead and play around with your kidneys. I choose not to. I will sacrifice the teeth before I will sacrifice the kidneys.

Again, this is a emotional appeal Reg. Not a rational one. No one, not even that "evil" ADA is asking you to "sacrifice" your teeth. Though If you want too, I know many dentists who will gladly appreciate your business and the business of your insurance company for your new teeth!

Likewise, no one is asking you "play around with the kidney". As I patiently explained to you above, the kidney has no problem with the clearance of F. Certainly in people with renal disease there would be a problem. But also as I pointed out, if you have end stage renal disease, such that your GFR is compromised, I think you probably should have more pressing concerns than F toxicity--I mean assuming you want to survive that renal disease long enough for a kidney transplant.

Actually, research is coming out that says that the Western diet is substantially low in K+, given that the mainstream diet consists of produce that comes from land that turns over a crop every 90 days!! Which, of course, would seriously deplete it of nutrients.

I'm sorry Regen, that simply isn't true. Western diets are high in potassium because we eat so much protein from animal sources--Which are high in K.

I'm not making this stuff up as I go along or simply arguing on something "I heard about some research about crops"--This is things I have learned as a medical student with the resources of a medical school (a big one too no doubt!).

Oh yes, you reminded me that it is recommended NOT to drink fluoridated tap water if you have kidney disease.

Yes, its recommended you don't do a lot of things when have kidney disease....Not sure what that has to do with anything. Your not even supposed to drink lots of water when you have kidney disease! By your logic that would entail then that water is clearly dangerous and potentially harmful?

I hope you can see the sillyness of this line of thinking. You are comparing people's limitations in a disease state, that is to say people who's underlying anatomy is pathological, to people who are healthy and attempting to apply those limitations. Obviously Regen, that doesn't work. That is why you don't walk into your doctors office and he says "My God Regen, why did you come in here eating that Hershey bar, jesus that could kill you, don't you know that if you're diabetic it can send your blood-glucose to dangerously high levels!".

Obviously, he doesn't say that if you are not a diabetic because the pathology of diabetes and its limitations don't apply to people without that pathology. Understand that?

Yeppers, I knew you could not discuss without insulting. You are dismissed.

Ahh, the famous UM trump card. Played already. "You don't agree with me so you are insulting, closed-minded, a pun for the "man", a corporate plant, etc etc etc". What will you do for an encore if you play this so early?!!!

In reality Regen, I didn't insult you. I disagreed with some of the things you posted (and asked you to clarify a story, which you haven't done yet) and explained why I did so. You first "dismissed" me as "not really having researched this topic" even after I explained to you I am a medical student and have thoroughly researched this topic; both from a public health stand point and from the actual biology we're discussing here (kidneys, liver, tooth development etc). When that didn't work you moved onto the "well then you are insulting so I'll dismiss you on that ground", all the while asking people to "objectively research" the topic. Since I provided many scientific references and I can only assume you have yet to look at any of them, then your "objective research" has really turned from "research" to "research it like I did and agree with me".....

Edited by Copasetic

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Copasetic

My o my, you have some serious biases.

Ahh yes, because obviously anyone that doesn't hop right onto your bandwagon must have "serious biases". I can't help but think this whole line of reasoning, fear mongering and line of thinking sounds familiar.

From somewhere...Just can't seem to place it.....My oh me, sometimes I would loose my head if it wasn't attached :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Copasetic

Wait, wait can I predict the next one?

Really Copasetic, you are out to get our children and make them sick so that it can inflate your soon to be overpaid doctor salary! :w00t:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
regeneratia

Wait, wait can I predict the next one?

Really Copasetic, you are out to get our children and make them sick so that it can inflate your soon to be overpaid doctor salary! :w00t:

Ridicule is the last resort in a discussion.

People like you are not in my life. I have done well to purge them pretty efficiently. Most of the people I surround myself with are objective. You are not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Copasetic

Ridicule is the last resort in a discussion.

People like you are not in my life. I have done well to purge them pretty efficiently. Most of the people I surround myself with are objective. You are not.

The above was obviously a joke, but that isn't. And that really just proves my point (and the point of the joke). To assume that anyone who disagrees with you isn't "objective" is rather silly.

By the way, what's your qualification for judging one's objectivity anyway?

Have you an education in science or the philosophy of science? Published scientific literature? Ever been a reviewer for any kind of scientific publication? Been hired as a third party consultant for any kind of science project? Maybe taught a science class even?

If you can answer yes to any of those questions, then you might certainly be qualified to judge my objectivity. If you cannot than I think I'll stick with my peers doing that, if you don't mind. Who despite your instance seem to think I am objective (imagine that, they've even let me publish in scientific literature! ;) )

Edited by Copasetic

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Copasetic

By the way, you still didn't clarify those questions about your story. It was back here in post 21 (you can click me, I'm a link).

Also, you didn't actually address any of the literature I posted. Since you said that you want to do "objective research" and that is primary scientific literature (not gooblygok Googlebinged off the web) you should take a look at it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Copasetic

Another by the way; the FluorideAlert website you keep linking. Their stated mission;

"The Fluoride Action Network seeks to broaden public awareness about the toxicity of fluoride compounds and the health impacts of current fluoride exposures."

They are an active political group who are "anti-fluoridation", I'm sure you get lots of "objective" and "unbiased" research there :rolleyes:

Their "leader" Dr. Paul Connett is a chemist. Not an expert on dentistry, public health, epidemiology, medicine, disease etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DieChecker

"Fluoridealert.org" is probably about a reliable website for fluoride information as "whale.to" is for autism and vaccine information....Take a look at those studies above and learn your way around PubMed.

FlorideAlert is about as biased a site as you could find. Linking to them is like linking to a Creationist site to support modern living dinosaurs.

There is not such thing as "naturally" or "unnaturally" occurring Fluoride. This has the ring of an emotionally charged "natural health" movement.

I thought I read naturally occuring floridation was what causes so much floridosis in Asia. Is that not true? Is all floridation man made?

As I expounded on above, we use only about 10% of our kidney function (this is why you can actually donate one of your kidneys). People with renal disease .....

I'm glad there is someone with the resources, time and education to share this medical knowledge with us here. Otherwise it would be a back slapping self congratulating Anti-floridation party here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
H.H. Holmes

I have to agree with DieChecker here, Copasetic has convinced me, through his detailed explanation of human physiology, that fluoridated tap-water is safe to consume.

Trust me, after reading through this whole thread (only three pages, I know), I have yet seen anything of substance brought up in disagreement of his statements.

Edited by H.H. Holmes

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
WoIverine

Even if it's technically safe to consume, or whatever, I still don't want added crap in my water. Mustard and pickles are technically safe to consume, but when the monkeys at mcdonalds put them on my burger it still p***es me off when I asked for a plain sandwich to begin with. <_<

Edited by SpiderCyde

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Copasetic

I thought I read naturally occuring floridation was what causes so much floridosis in Asia. Is that not true? Is all floridation man made?

Fluorosis that was seen in Asian (really Chinese) populations in the 70's was due to poor science programs and third rate equipment.

Certainly too much Fluoride can be a bad thing, I've not argued that it couldn't be. Just like even too much water will kill you dead as a door nail. The problem in China's early fluoridation programs was using equipment which gave them poor control over the amount of fluoride put into the water and I suspect a lack of understanding of the science from the West they were trying to mimic at the time. Though that last part is my opinion, but is formed on the basis that many of China's forays into Western medicine and preventative health were met with poor clinical outcomes because they were "standing on the shoulders of giants"--So to say. And didn't really understand the science they were doing. Coupled with the time period, where there was little cross-talk about that science and a pension for cheap technology, they met with failure rather than success.

However one can look at other Asian populations, like in Singapore, where good science (in both implementation and understanding) lead the way forward and see how successful their programs like water fluoridation have been on public health.

I suppose then, the argument should really be whether the public health bodies in one's country are capable of implementing this in a safe and usable fashion. In the US, they've certainly done a good job.

The methodology they use for fluoridation produces a consistent control over the amount of fluoride in the water and keeps F consumption to levels well below the TUL per day. To reiterate what I said earlier, if you are drinking so much per day that you are nearing the 10 mg daily TUL then you really need to see your physician. Drinking that much water would probably indicate that you have other, more pressing concerns--Such as diabetes.

I'm glad there is someone with the resources, time and education to share this medical knowledge with us here. Otherwise it would be a back slapping self congratulating Anti-floridation party here.

Its my way of sticking it back to the man, *Grumbles about the cost of education they charge me* :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Little Fish

The brain isn't capable to "importing" any ol' thing it wants. It can only import non-lipophilic or even large lipophilic ones via special transporters on cells located in special regions which contain a special type of diaphragm bound fenstrated capillary. Outside of that, the bouncer kicks the charged ions (anions and cations) out at the door (including things the brain needs like sodium, which requires specialized transporters to enter).

The Blood Brain Barrier (BBB) does not protect all of the brain, there are large parts that are not protected by the BBB.

The BBB is not fully developed until late teens. a young teenager's BBB is four times more leaky than an adult's.

The BBB becomes very leaky as you age, particularly in the elderly.

everyone's body is different, this will include abnormalities, genetic differences, head injuries and such.

I have no doubt that if you inject fluoride into the brain, beyond the barrier, you'll have toxicology issues

then you will agree, given the above, that arguing whether Fluorides pass the BBB or do not pass through the BBB is a totally irrelevant argument, and indeed if you accept that Fluroride in the brain gives "toxicology issues", then given the above you should accept that there are toxicology issues with drinking Fluoride.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Copasetic

The Blood Brain Barrier (BBB) does not protect all of the brain, there are large parts that are not protected by the BBB.

The BBB is not fully developed until late teens. a young teenager's BBB is four times more leaky than an adult's.

The BBB becomes very leaky as you age, particularly in the elderly.

everyone's body is different, this will include abnormalities, genetic differences, head injuries and such.

Yes. Um of course there is variation amongst individuals--I've pointed that out in numerous topics. Along with this one. Like I pointed, there are certain people who may react poorly to a given medical intervention--That is the case with any medical intervention and the problem isn't stopping all medical interventions because of this, rather identifying those individuals early on.

then you will agree, given the above, that arguing whether Fluorides pass the BBB or do not pass through the BBB is a totally irrelevant argument, and indeed if you accept that Fluroride in the brain gives "toxicology issues", then given the above you should accept that there are toxicology issues with drinking Fluoride.

No, its not a totally "irrelevant" argument because in situations and under normal biological conditions it simply isn't an issue. Nor does your argument about special circumstance or pathological conditions mean accepting "that there are toxicology issues with drinking F".

Again, by your same logic Fish, CARBON should be outlawed from the foods we eat because it can cross the blood brain barrier (always, as is not the case with F), can be found in dangerous chemicals (many times more dangerous than those with F, are you familiar with botulinum toxin perhaps?) and is even more readily absorbed by the body than F!!!!

*snip*

Edited by Saru
Removed personal attack, please refrain from making derrogatory references to another member's mental health.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Copasetic

Actually as an after thought, could you wow us with your knowledge on the BBB? In your own words please, no spam copy paste.

The Blood Brain Barrier (BBB) does not protect all of the brain, there are large parts that are not protected by the BBB.

What areas? Where? Which parts of the brain? How does the impact of fenestrations play on movement of things across the BBB? Does fenestration or sinusoid matter? What about diaphragms? Could you discuss the ramifications of different junctional complexes on the BBB? How about protein structure for those complexes; Claudins? Occuldins?

Can you discuss briefly the function of the Choroid plexus? Its relation to the BBB? What about Circumventricular organs? How does changes in the BBB affect thees organs? Infection rates? Toxicology issues?

The BBB is not fully developed until late teens. a young teenager's BBB is four times more leaky than an adult's.

Can you run us through development of the BBB? What changes occur pre and post puberty? How effective is it in various stages of life (ie; neonates, children, preadolescences etc)?

What is the difference between a "fully developed" and "not fully developed" BBB?

What is a leaky barrier? How does the barrier change? Could you provide a citation to the "4 times more leaky" claim (any format you want is okay, though since we are talking medicine you should probably use AMA 10th edition, no abstract necessary, just the citation please).

How does the BBB become leaky? What physiological or pathophysiological changes cause leakiness? Are some areas more leaky than others? If so why? What is the impact of "leakiness" on different areas of the brain? What about junctional complexes in those areas?

The BBB becomes very leaky as you age, particularly in the elderly.

Again, citation please (no abstract necessary, I can look up your reference). Can you explain how it becomes more leaky? Why does aging impact field integrity? How does cell lineage senescence affect the barrier? What morphological changes accompany cellular senescence in the barrier? Changes to junctional complexes? Changes in protein usage?

everyone's body is different, this will include abnormalities, genetic differences, head injuries and such.

Can you discuss how variations and genetic differences affect the BBB? How about injuries? Can you discuss how genetic differences affect the zonula occludens? Can you discuss how genetic differences might impact changes in molecular weight or charge for crossing the barrier?

Can you discuss the physiology of transport maximum ( TM) for substances crossing the barrier? How about limitations to the TM? Is this a real or calculable variable? Is it a physiological variable? How might splay affect a TM in the context of the BBB?

Edited by Copasetic

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Silver Thong

Even if it's technically safe to consume, or whatever, I still don't want added crap in my water. Mustard and pickles are technically safe to consume, but when the monkeys at mcdonalds put them on my burger it still p***es me off when I asked for a plain sandwich to begin with. <_<

I did read the whole thread and still I'm on the fence. Just had to post because this was freakin funny :lol: but true. If I want more Fluoride I will buy a stronger toothpaste.

Edited by The Silver Thong

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

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.