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

Copasetic

Neurotoxicity of sodium fluoride in rats

Fluoride (F) is known to affect mineralizing tissues, but effects upon the developing brain have not been previously considered. This study in Sprague-Dawley rats compares behavior, body weight, plasma and brain F levels after sodium fluoride (NaF) exposures during late gestation, at weaning or in adults. For prenatal exposures, dams received injections (SC) of 0.13 mg/kg NaF or saline on gestational days 14-18 or 17-19. Weanlings received drinking water containing 0, 75, 100, or 125 ppm F for 6 or 20 weeks, and 3 month-old adults received water containing 100 ppm F for 6 weeks. Behavior was tested in a computer pattern recognition system that classified acts in a novel environment and quantified act initiations, total times and time structures. Fluoride exposures caused sex- and dose-specific behavioral deficits with a common pattern. Males were most sensitive to prenatal day 17-19 exposure, whereas females were more sensitive to weanling and adult exposures. After fluoride ingestion, the severity of the effect on behavior increased directly with plasma F levels and F concentrations in specific brain regions. Such association is important considering that plasma levels in this rat model (0.059 to 0.640 ppm F) are similar to those reported in humans exposed to high levels of fluoride.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7760776

...thus fluoride does cross the Blood Brain Barrier

This is the problem, that I keep pointing out mind you, of trying to argue science you don't understand.

This is a toxicology report. Anything in a high enough dose is toxic, INCLUDING WATER.

They are using 75 PPM and up that stands for 'parts per million' or in other words, 75 mg per L.

Like I pointed out, fluoridated water is .2 mg/L, well below any toxic amount.

This is no different than saying "look at this test where they fed people 20 L of water and they died, that must mean water is toxic!). I've never stated anything contradictory to this Fish, you need to actually read people's posts you are attempting to arguing with.

This is biology 101 stuff. Dose and exposure time matter when looking into toxicity, the world of "toxins" isn't black and white. Why do you think all those people walking around with Botox injections are alive still and not dead? Botox has the lowest LD50 known and yet people everyday inject botulinum toxin in themselves......

You really need to learn the basics of biology to dissect the subject.

Will you please answer the questions I've asked in the previous posts. Thanks.

Edited by Copasetic

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Little Fish

there are 4 pertinent issues that you have missed.

1. The study shows that the Fluoride passes through the blood brain barrier.

2. Rats absorb much less fluoride from their digestive tract into their blood than humans, hence the last line from the paper "Such association is important considering that plasma levels in this rat model (0.059 to 0.640 ppm F) are similar to those reported in humans exposed to high levels of fluoride".

"high levels" is not that helpful, so what does 0.059 to 0.640 ppm F in blood plasma translate to F ppm in drinking water for humans?

it says here: "The mean plasma level in 127 subjects with 5.03 mg fluoride/litre in their drinking-water was 106 ± 76 (SD) µg/litre"

http://www.greenfacts.org/en/fluoride/fluorides-3/03-fluoride-exposure.htm

so blood plasma (drinking 5.03ppm F water) of 106 ± 76 µg/litre = 0.106 ± 0.076 ppm = 0.03 to 0.182 ppm

so the rats plasma levels of 0.059 to 0.640 ppm F overlap the human plasma levels of 0.03 to 0.182 ppm F when humans drink 5.03 ppm F in their water.

In english, this study replicates the Flouride levels in human blood plasma when humans drink high levels of Fluoride around 5 ppm F water.

3. The study shows an effect on behaviour showing that Fluoride is a drug.

4. The study does contradict what you said because you said in post#32 that the BBB protected against Fluoride, see (1) above.

http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=198633&st=30&p=3740242entry3740242

the rat study also contradicts your assertion in post#33 that Fluoride is not a drug.

you also stated "Like I pointed out, fluoridated water is .2 mg/L, well below any toxic amount.". To give you every chance of being correct I will assume you mean milligram rather than µg, .2 mg/L = 0.2ppm - Water fluoridation is 0.7 - 1.2 ppm F, not 0.2ppm F :

http://cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5727a1.htm

..and this does not include the Fluoride load you get from toothpaste (1000-1500 ppm), mouthwash (920 ppm), dental floss, food, corporate beverages, dental treatments and other sources.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Copasetic

there are 4 pertinent issues that you have missed.

1. The study shows that the Fluoride passes through the blood brain barrier.

Yes, in excessively high amounts.....

2. Rats absorb much less fluoride from their digestive tract into their blood than humans, hence the last line from the paper "Such association is important considering that plasma levels in this rat model (0.059 to 0.640 ppm F) are similar to those reported in humans exposed to high levels of fluoride".

Since you seem to mess up rather less complex biology, I'm going to need a source for this claim.

"high levels" is not that helpful, so what does 0.059 to 0.640 ppm F in blood plasma translate to F ppm in drinking water for humans?

it says here: "The mean plasma level in 127 subjects with 5.03 mg fluoride/litre in their drinking-water was 106 ± 76 (SD) µg/litre"

Yes? I am not sure what your point is. 106 µg is well below a dangerous level. This is saying that individuals who drank fluoridated water that was 5.03 mg/l, which is well below what levels are in the US. And even then (at half the TUL for ingestion) the levels were still not at toxic levels.

so blood plasma (drinking 5.03ppm F water) of 106 ± 76 µg/litre = 0.106 ± 0.076 ppm = 0.03 to 0.182 ppm

Not sure what you're trying to do here with the math. In the study you link, the subjects drank water with a fluoride level of 5.03 mg/L. That is (basically) the same as saying 5.03 ppm. PPM means part per million.

The prefix "milli" is a millionth, ergo in pure water 1 L= 1 KG. Because the density of pure water at STP is 1 Kg/L. So, mg/Kg=mg/L=ppm.

so the rats plasma levels of 0.059 to 0.640 ppm F overlap the human plasma levels of 0.03 to 0.182 ppm F when humans drink 5.03 ppm F in their water.

In english, this study replicates the Flouride levels in human blood plasma when humans drink high levels of Fluoride around 5 ppm F water.

Incorrect. You can't simply say "here two numbers overlap" so it is the same. Biology unfortunately, doesn't work like that. I see now what you wanted to do with the math, but again, it doesn't work like that. Can you provide a source for the "4 times claim"? Authoritative source please, just the citation is necessary, I can look it up.

4. The study does contradict what you said because you said in post#32 that the BBB protected against Fluoride, see (1) above.

http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=198633&st=30&p=3740242entry3740242

You can get ampicillin to cross the blood brain barrier under discrete circumstances. Does that mean it does normally or in everyone?

the rat study also contradicts your assertion in post#33 that Fluoride is not a drug.

The definition of drug I was using, was an activated pharmacological substance used in a medical intervention. If you want to broaden the definition of "drug" to include any substances which causes an affect on anatomy, then okay F can be a drug. Just so were clear, by that definition water (H2O) is also a drug....

you also stated "Like I pointed out, fluoridated water is .2 mg/L, well below any toxic amount.". To give you every chance of being correct I will assume you mean milligram rather than µg, .2 mg/L = 0.2ppm - Water fluoridation is 0.7 - 1.2 ppm F, not 0.2ppm F :

I said "milligram", that's what "mg" means.....

The CDC recommends water fluoridation be .7 mg/L or .7 ppm. You can look back at the actual levels of water fluoridation by state and county being used (note, actual use is not recommended use) and see many at a level around ~.2 mg/L

Edit: By the way, that .7 mg/L is the new recommendation. So prior to that the recommendation was .5 mg/L I believe.

..and this does not include the Fluoride load you get from toothpaste (1000-1500 ppm), mouthwash (920 ppm), dental floss, food, corporate beverages, dental treatments and other sources.

Why are you ingesting toothpaste and mouthwash?

Let's assume for a moment, you do in fact eat your toothpaste....(I know right?)

Looking at my tube of crest, whitening with scope it is .15% w/v F. Since you should be using a pea size dot of tooth paste, that is about 1x10-7 m3 or roughly .1 ml or 0.0001 L.

"weight-volume" percent is standardized to 100 ml. So in 100 ml of toothpaste, .15 g are F.

To figure out the grams in our pea sized toothpaste, we can just use the ratio .15g/100ml=Xg/.1ml

Solving for x, we see that we (eating the toothpaste mind you) get .15 mg.

Supposing we are anal and brush our teeth 4 times a day, we get .6 mg.

Now, my scope doesn't have any fluoride in it. In fact, you need to get fluoridated mouth rinse to do so. So lets use ACT fluoride rinse which is 0.009% m/v of the fluoride. You should be using 1 fluid ounce or roughly 30 ml. Supposing you drink your mouthwash as well (bad boy, what did your teachers tell you?) and using our nifty ratio;

.0009g/100ml=Xg/30ml

We get .27 mg. Suppose you follow the directions from ACT and do this twice a day (mind you, you're <that's a general you, as in the person drinking the mouth rinse> not that bright and actually drink the mouthwash as well). We add another .54 mg of F.

We're up to an astounding 1.14 mg of F a day.

Let's be generous for your argument and suppose that you eat an additional 1 mg of F per day in your food (this isn't realistic, but I'm trying to help you out). That brings us to 2.14 mg per day.

And let's (again being generous for you) say that your local water is fluoridated to 1.2 ppm (1.2 mg/L). And for some reason, you drink 4 L of water per day. That adds an additional 4.8 mg of F.

So eating your toothpaste (you shouldn't), drinking your fluoridated mouthwash (you shouldn't be doing this either, its not paste!), eating food which has been magically fluoridated (its not) and drinking 4 L of water per day (if you drink this much in a temperate climate, see your doctor) you get a whopping 6.94 mg of F per day. Well below the very conservative TUL (and remember this number isn't realistic, because you shouldn't be eating toothpaste and drinking mouthwash).

Edit: I left out dental floss, if you are consuming your dental floss--Well, then a do-over on preschool should be recommended.

I suppose the best evidence is empirical in nature. Since a "large", 0.59% of the population is afflicted with moderate and severe fluorosis (those are combined) then obviously a lot of people aren't getting too much fluoride. Like I said, if you want to mount a crusade against a substance, do it for sodium. I'll be right there with you. 31.3% of Americans suffer from hypertension that's about every 1 in 3 people....

--Fish, please answer the questions I asked you.

Edited by Copasetic

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DieChecker

Everything I have read says that most American floridated water has 1 ppm or less.

Funny example with the toothpaste, but True.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Little Fish

<snip snide remark> I'm going to need a source for this claim.

the source is the paper itself.

2. Rats absorb much less fluoride from their digestive tract into their blood than humans, hence the last line from the paper "Such association is important considering that plasma levels in this rat model (0.059 to 0.640 ppm F) are similar to those reported in humans exposed to high levels of fluoride". the rats ingesting 75-125 ppm produce blood plasma levels of 0.059 - 0.640 ppm, this range is similar to blood plasma levels in humans drinking only 5ppm. Another point to consider is that black people are genetically more affected by Fluoride than white people, so arguing it is not a perfect overlap of ranges is not relevant if we are considering the health of everyone.

Yes? I am not sure what your point is. 106 µg is well below a dangerous level. This is saying that individuals who drank fluoridated water that was 5.03 mg/l, which is well below what levels are in the US. And even then (at half the TUL for ingestion) the levels were still not at toxic levels.

5.03 mg/L = 5.03ppm, rats drinking 75-125 ppm F is substantially equivalent to humans drinking 5 ppm F.

this is what i said: "high levels" is not that helpful, so what does 0.059 to 0.640 ppm F in blood plasma translate to F ppm in drinking water for humans?

it says here: "The mean plasma level in 127 subjects with 5.03 mg fluoride/litre in their drinking-water was 106 ± 76 (SD) µg/litre"

106 µg F blood plasma level = 0.106 ppm F blood plasma level

people drinking 5ppm gave Fluoride levels in their blood in the range 0.106 ± 76 ppm

which is within the range that rats got in their blood from drinking 75-125 ppm - 0.059-0.640 ppm. the rats had impaired brain function with that level of blood Fluoride.

Not sure what you're trying to do here with the math. In the study you link, the subjects drank water with a fluoride level of 5.03 mg/L. That is (basically) the same as saying 5.03 ppm. PPM means part per million.
Yes, that is what i said, you are not disagreeing with me.

so blood plasma (drinking 5.03ppm F water) of 106 ± 76 µg/litre = 0.106 ± 0.076 ppm = 0.03 to 0.182 ppm

people drinking 5ppm gave 106 ± 76 µg/litre Fluoride in the blood.

1 µg/litre = 0.001 mg/L

106 µg/litre = 0.106 mg/L = 0.106 ppm

0.106 ± 0.076 ppm = 0.03 to 0.182 ppm - which is in the range of blood fluoride that the rats had after drinking 75-125ppm which produced imparied brain function in the rats.

Incorrect. You can't simply say "here two numbers overlap" so it is the same. Biology unfortunately, doesn't work like that. I see now what you wanted to do with the math, but again, it doesn't work like that.

you are handwaving again.

it is not incorrect for the reasons described above. rats at similar blood Flouride levels showed impaired mental ability. similar to people drinking 5ppm.

You can get ampicillin to cross the blood brain barrier under discrete circumstances. Does that mean it does normally or in everyone?
obfuscation and analogies aside. the study showed that flouride crossed the BBB. you have also overlooked the fact that parts of the brain have no BBB protection. the argument that the BBB protects against fluoride does not hold water.
The definition of drug I was using, was an activated pharmacological substance used in a medical intervention. If you want to broaden the definition of "drug" to include any substances which causes an affect on anatomy, then okay F can be a drug. Just so were clear, by that definition water (H2O) is also a drug....
Fluoride is used in medical intervention. the purpose of fluoridating water (as we are told) is to prevent carries. that is a medical intervention, and the fact that Fluoride impairs mental ability means it is a drug by anyone's defintion.
The CDC recommends water fluoridation be .7 mg/L or .7 ppm. You can look back at the actual levels of water fluoridation by state and county being used (note, actual use is not recommended use) and see many at a level around ~.2 mg/L

Edit: By the way, that .7 mg/L is the new recommendation. So prior to that the recommendation was .5 mg/L I believe.

the new upper limit has been lowered, not raised, because the arguments against water fluoridation are becoming accepted by the medical and governing establishment.

"The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) have announced new recommendations regarding water fluoridation, the primary change being from a recommended range of 0.7-1.2 mg/L fluoride in drinking water (0.7-1.2 ppm) to 0.7 mg/L (0.7 ppm)."

http://fluoridealert.org/thiessen.jan.7.2011.html

"voted unanimously in favour of the proposal to increase the level of fluoride in the local water supply from 0.08 parts per million to 1ppm"

UK: 1.0 ppm

http://www.southcentral.nhs.uk/about-us/the-board/fluoridation/

Australia: 1.0 ppm

http://www.nhmrc.gov.au/_files_nhmrc/file/media/media/rel07/Fluoride_Flyer.pdf

Ireland: 1.0ppm

"The amount of fluoride added to drinking water is controlled by law to be in the range 0.8 to 1.0 ppm fluoride."

http://www.nofluoride.com/voice_critique.cfm

your assertion that water fluoridation is 0.2 ppm is incorrect.

Why are you ingesting toothpaste and mouthwash?
children will swallow. and even if you do not swallow you should know what 'sublingual' means.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sublingual_administration

The gums and mouth readily absorb into the blood. at 1500ppm Fuoride in toothpaste (2,142 times the maximum allowed in fluoridated water), this is a signficant dose of fluoride.

you rub sugar on the gums of patients with critically low blood sugar because it is readily absorbed into the blood.

Edited by Little Fish

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Little Fish

eating food which has been magically fluoridated (its not)

Food processed with fluoridated water will yield high levels of fluoride in the food. The water evaporates off leaving behind the fluoride. depends on the quantity of water used as to how much is left in the food, but dry foods reconstituted with fluoridated water will always be higher than the level in water.

"Food processing often concentrates fluoride, and foods processed with fluoridated water typically have higher fluoride concentrations than foods processed with non-fluoridated water... A study that found marked differences between cereaals processed in fluoridated and non-fluoridated areas showed that cereals processed in a fluoridated area had fluoride concentrations ranging from 3.8 ppm to 6.3 ppm"

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12699229

"Instant tea, one of the most popular drinks in the United States, may be a source of harmful levels of fluoride... The researchers found that some regular strength preparations contain as much as 6.5 parts per million (ppm) of fluoride, well over the 4 ppm maximum allowed in drinking water by the Environmental Protection Agency"

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/19277.php

"During manufacturing, infant dry cereals are processed in a slurry and placed in a revolving drying drum. The water from the slurry evaporates, and the fluoride from the water remains in the cereal. Thus, the fluoride concentration of the water used during processing can substantially affect the final fluoride concentration...Fluoride concentrations ranged from 0.01 to 8.38 micrograms of fluoride per gram"

8.38 micrograms/g = 8.38 ppm

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9231600

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Copasetic

the source is the paper itself.

2. Rats absorb much less fluoride from their digestive tract into their blood than humans, hence the last line from the paper "Such association is important considering that plasma levels in this rat model (0.059 to 0.640 ppm F) are similar to those reported in humans exposed to high levels of fluoride". the rats ingesting 75-125 ppm produce blood plasma levels of 0.059 - 0.640 ppm, this range is similar to blood plasma levels in humans drinking only 5ppm. Another point to consider is that black people are genetically more affected by Fluoride than white people, so arguing it is not a perfect overlap of ranges is not relevant if we are considering the health of everyone.

5.03 mg/L = 5.03ppm, rats drinking 75-125 ppm F is substantially equivalent to humans drinking 5 ppm F.

this is what i said: "high levels" is not that helpful, so what does 0.059 to 0.640 ppm F in blood plasma translate to F ppm in drinking water for humans?

it says here: "The mean plasma level in 127 subjects with 5.03 mg fluoride/litre in their drinking-water was 106 ± 76 (SD) µg/litre"

106 µg F blood plasma level = 0.106 ppm F blood plasma level

people drinking 5ppm gave Fluoride levels in their blood in the range 0.106 ± 76 ppm

which is within the range that rats got in their blood from drinking 75-125 ppm - 0.059-0.640 ppm. the rats had impaired brain function with that level of blood Fluoride.

Yes, that is what i said, you are not disagreeing with me.

so blood plasma (drinking 5.03ppm F water) of 106 ± 76 µg/litre = 0.106 ± 0.076 ppm = 0.03 to 0.182 ppm

people drinking 5ppm gave 106 ± 76 µg/litre Fluoride in the blood.

1 µg/litre = 0.001 mg/L

106 µg/litre = 0.106 mg/L = 0.106 ppm

0.106 ± 0.076 ppm = 0.03 to 0.182 ppm - which is in the range of blood fluoride that the rats had after drinking 75-125ppm which produced imparied brain function in the rats.

you are handwaving again.

it is not incorrect for the reasons described above. rats at similar blood Flouride levels showed impaired mental ability. similar to people drinking 5ppm.

obfuscation and analogies aside. the study showed that flouride crossed the BBB. you have also overlooked the fact that parts of the brain have no BBB protection. the argument that the BBB protects against fluoride does not hold water.

Fluoride is used in medical intervention. the purpose of fluoridating water (as we are told) is to prevent carries. that is a medical intervention, and the fact that Fluoride impairs mental ability means it is a drug by anyone's defintion.

the new upper limit has been lowered, not raised, because the arguments against water fluoridation are becoming accepted by the medical and governing establishment.

"The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) have announced new recommendations regarding water fluoridation, the primary change being from a recommended range of 0.7-1.2 mg/L fluoride in drinking water (0.7-1.2 ppm) to 0.7 mg/L (0.7 ppm)."

http://fluoridealert.org/thiessen.jan.7.2011.html

"voted unanimously in favour of the proposal to increase the level of fluoride in the local water supply from 0.08 parts per million to 1ppm"

UK: 1.0 ppm

http://www.southcentral.nhs.uk/about-us/the-board/fluoridation/

Australia: 1.0 ppm

http://www.nhmrc.gov.au/_files_nhmrc/file/media/media/rel07/Fluoride_Flyer.pdf

Ireland: 1.0ppm

"The amount of fluoride added to drinking water is controlled by law to be in the range 0.8 to 1.0 ppm fluoride."

http://www.nofluoride.com/voice_critique.cfm

your assertion that water fluoridation is 0.2 ppm is incorrect.

children will swallow. and even if you do not swallow you should know what 'sublingual' means.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sublingual_administration

The gums and mouth readily absorb into the blood. at 1500ppm Fuoride in toothpaste (2,142 times the maximum allowed in fluoridated water), this is a signficant dose of fluoride.

you rub sugar on the gums of patients with critically low blood sugar because it is readily absorbed into the blood.

Fish, I have no problem addressing all this and look forward to it, but please answer these questions before we go on. So that we can move forward rather than jump around. Also while you're answering these questions, can you take a brief foray into "sublingunal" . Here's the questions again;

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?

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?

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?

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?

I asked you on the other topic Fish, but I think your explanation would be good on this topic as well. I asked you above but you did not answer. Can you please explain who "in the medical establishment" is behind the conspiracy and what "corporate" connections they have? Thanks, I think that would give any objective reader a little better understanding of where you are coming from and where you interests in this topic lay.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Little Fish

those questions are an irrelevant smokescreen diverging away from pertinent facts. as a scientist you should converge on an issue, not diverge.

Edited by Little Fish

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Copasetic

those questions are an irrelevant smokescreen diverging away from pertinent facts. as a scientist you should converge on an issue, not diverge.

Actually they are relevant to discussing the BBB and what can and can't get across and how those influence crossing. Likewise, it is relevant for any reader following along to understand where you are coming from. As with the other topic, if you don't believe there is a conspiracy then simply say so, if you do--Please elaborate. Likewise, it would be informative for you to explain "sublingunal".

Here's the questions again in case you forgot already;

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?

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?

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?

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?

I asked you on the other topic Fish, but I think your explanation would be good on this topic as well. I asked you above but you did not answer. Can you please explain who "in the medical establishment" is behind the conspiracy and what "corporate" connections they have? Thanks, I think that would give any objective reader a little better understanding of where you are coming from and where you interests in this topic lay.

Edit: This is what we like to do in science, that is discuss variables in meticulous detail (we like to do it in medicine too!), especially when discussing a system with so many variables (as those questions above only highlight a small portion of the variables involving the BBB).

Edited by Copasetic

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Copasetic

It would probably be most beneficial to the discussion Fish, if you just divided each question up in its own quote. Thanks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DieChecker

5.03 mg/L = 5.03ppm, rats drinking 75-125 ppm F is substantially equivalent to humans drinking 5 ppm F.

this is what i said: "high levels" is not that helpful, so what does 0.059 to 0.640 ppm F in blood plasma translate to F ppm in drinking water for humans?

it says here: "The mean plasma level in 127 subjects with 5.03 mg fluoride/litre in their drinking-water was 106 ± 76 (SD) µg/litre"

106 µg F blood plasma level = 0.106 ppm F blood plasma level

people drinking 5ppm gave Fluoride levels in their blood in the range 0.106 ± 76 ppm

which is within the range that rats got in their blood from drinking 75-125 ppm - 0.059-0.640 ppm. the rats had impaired brain function with that level of blood Fluoride.

It has been said over and over again that there is clearly dangerous levels of floridated water. 5 ppm is probably where that danger is very real. That is 5 times the regular ppm of floridated water, right? So if one iron pill is fine, Or one vicodin (A painkiller), do you expect that taking 5 would have no long term problems? Proably there would be immediate problems. Small children can die from taking just one iron pill.

Perhaps you would rather there be some kind of warning attached to floridated water? Maybe every tap faucet should have a warning on it to not drink more then 10 glasses of water per day.

Also, can you link to where it says that you can absorb the floridation out of the water through your skin? That would be interesting reading to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Little Fish

It has been said over and over again that there is clearly dangerous levels of floridated water. 5 ppm is probably where that danger is very real. That is 5 times the regular ppm of floridated water, right?

The original reason for showing the study was to show that Fluoride crosses the BBB and to show its effect on mental ability.

The American Dental Association and the EPA says that 4 ppm is safe for everyone including pregnant women, safety levels should be orders of magnitude lower than non safe levels, 4 is too close to 5.

you have to take into account the other sources as i mentioned before, for instance Fluoride treatment at the dentist contains 15,000 ppm (yep, 15 thousand)

Fluoride leaches lead and other toxic metals which is why lead levels are higher in fluoridated areas. it leaches aluminium from canned foods, a lot of canned food contains fluoridated water.

Little mentioned is that Fluoride is synergystic with Aluminium which means that their combined effect is greater than the effect of the sum of the two, severe brain changes have been detected at 0.5 ppm Aluminium-Fluoride.

Fluoride has a greater effect on black people than white people.

Fluoride is for life, it is bioaccumulative. it increases in the bones, teeth and thyroid the more you are exposed to it over your lifetime.

The point is that we shoud be getting Fluoride out of our environment, not putting it in.

Perhaps you would rather there be some kind of warning attached to floridated water? Maybe every tap faucet should have a warning on it to not drink more then 10 glasses of water per day.
yes that is the irony, if the fluoride (it is hydrofluorosilic acid actually, not sodium fluoride) was dumped into a river there would be prosecutions under environmental law, but they dump it into our drinking water and it's ok.
Also, can you link to where it says that you can absorb the floridation out of the water through your skin? That would be interesting reading to me.
I think it was Cornelius that mentioned that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Little Fish

Also, can you link to where it says that you can absorb the floridation out of the water through your skin? That would be interesting reading to me.

HydroFluorsilic acid (aka Fluosilicic acid) [water fluoridation]

Potential Chronic Health Effects:

Extremely hazardous in case of skin contact (corrosive, irritant), of eye contact (irritant), of ingestion, of inhalation. Hazardous

in case of skin contact (permeator). CARCINOGENIC EFFECTS: Not available. MUTAGENIC EFFECTS: Not available.

TERATOGENIC EFFECTS: Not available. DEVELOPMENTAL TOXICITY: Not available. The substance is toxic to lungs,

mucous membranes. Repeated or prolonged exposure to the substance can produce target organs damage. Repeated

or prolonged contact with spray mist may produce chronic eye irritation and severe skin irritation. Repeated or prolonged

exposure to spray mist may produce respiratory tract irritation leading to frequent attacks of bronchial infection. Repeated or

prolonged inhalation of vapors may lead to chronic respiratory irritation.

Chronic Effects on Humans: The substance is toxic to lungs, mucous membranes.

Routes of Entry: Dermal contact. Eye contact. Inhalation. Ingestion.

http://www.sciencelab.com/msds.php?msdsId=9924083

sodium Fluoride [toothpaste]:

Potential Chronic Health Effects:

CARCINOGENIC EFFECTS: A4 (Not classifiable for human or animal.) by ACGIH, 3 (Not classifiable for human.) by IARC.

MUTAGENIC EFFECTS: Mutagenic for mammalian somatic cells. Mutagenic for bacteria and/or yeast. TERATOGENIC

EFFECTS: Not available. DEVELOPMENTAL TOXICITY: Not available. The substance may be toxic to kidneys, lungs,

the nervous system, heart, gastrointestinal tract, cardiovascular system, bones, teeth. Repeated or prolonged exposure

to the substance can produce target organs damage. Repeated exposure to a highly toxic material may produce general

deterioration of health by an accumulation in one or many human organs.

Chronic Effects on Humans:

CARCINOGENIC EFFECTS: A4 (Not classifiable for human or animal.) by ACGIH, 3 (Not classifiable for human.) by IARC.

MUTAGENIC EFFECTS: Mutagenic for mammalian somatic cells. Mutagenic for bacteria and/or yeast. May cause damage to

the following organs: kidneys, lungs, the nervous system, heart, gastrointestinal tract, cardiovascular system, bones, teeth.

Special Remarks on Chronic Effects on Humans:

May cause adverse reproductive effects (fertililty, fetoxicity), and birth defects based on animal data. May cause cancer based

on animal data. May cause genetic (mutagenic) and tumorigenic effects.

Routes of Entry: Inhalation. Ingestion.

http://www.sciencelab.com/xMSDS-Sodium_fluoride-9927595

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chronic_toxicity

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Copasetic

HydroFluorsilic acid (aka Fluosilicic acid) [water fluoridation]Snip

Little Fish, Please answer the above questions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
regeneratia

Meanwhile, despite the hot air-ed reports of some here, the city of Calgary has decided not to fluoridate their tap water. Hmmmm!

I think the scoffers here will call the entire city stupid now.

Fluoride makes people less intelligentm, causes ADHD, neurodegenerative disorders and cancer. On this board, that is the aim of Copasetic, to lead people to death via cancer, to keep them stupid, and to help them grow in their inability to concentrate, to throw out the gammas.

Edited by regeneratia

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ShadowSot

I'd like you to answer his questions, before you start insulting him.

So far from I've read backs up his position, with very little to none backing up yours.

I don't think they are stupid, but people can be misled. And certainly not the entire city, just enough to get it pushed through the city government.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
FurthurBB

FLUORIDE CAUSES ADHD IN CHILDREN.

The science is there to back it up. There is also spun and twisted science that tears down the good, solid science that backs it up.

It has been about five years since my family drank water readily from the tap.

One day, long ago, I looked at my child's teeth. They were gray. I told his pediatrician, who played it off. I told his dentist, who played it off.

I have known for a long time, longer than I have been a mother, that fluorosis puts holes in the enamel of children's teeth, totally reversing the good that is intended and creating a prime environment for cavities.

So I TOOK action myself. I am tired of relying on "authority figures" who lie to us, who neglect us, like the pediatrician and dentist, the dental industry and the CDC.

We bought a water cooler and drink reverse osmosis water (now too having instant hot water for my teas). We buy toothpaste that does not have fluoride.

My child's teeth are pure white and without cavities so far.

Empower yourself!!

Have you acted on this information for your family?

Hmmm ... my children's teeth are extremely white and none of them have had a cavity. We always drink tap water and use fluoride toothpaste. I guess tap water and fluoride toothpaste are the answer. Have you acted on this information for your family.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
danielost

As copasetic said, fluoride is a micronutrient, not a medication, so I don't see where people are getting this "forced" medication idea from. Plus, all you have to do is go to the store and buy unfluoridated water, which is always available.

we are already paying for the water coming out of the tap why should we have to go to the store and pay for more water.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Emma_Acid

Fluoride makes people less intelligentm, causes ADHD, neurodegenerative disorders and cancer. On this board, that is the aim of Copasetic, to lead people to death via cancer, to keep them stupid, and to help them grow in their inability to concentrate, to throw out the gammas.

Do you have academic evidence to back this up?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Silver Thong

My city and it's people just decided to take fluoride out of our water. 1 Year from now we will have no fluoride in public water :tu:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
regeneratia

Hmmm ... my children's teeth are extremely white and none of them have had a cavity. We always drink tap water and use fluoride toothpaste. I guess tap water and fluoride toothpaste are the answer. Have you acted on this information for your family.

Did it cross your mind that enamel depth is different from one person to the next and it pretty much dependent on genetics, among other things?

My city and it's people just decided to take fluoride out of our water. 1 Year from now we will have no fluoride in public water :tu:

YAY! When I appealed to the man who manages the fluoride in this city, he said it was a good time to talk about it because the fluoride had just doubled in price, which concerned him. So I told him all he has to do, without public knowledge, is to drop the fluoride amount in the tap water as he wished. That he had the autonomy to be able to do this without much public awareness. I told him I would be happy if he did something like that, but would never asked if he did.

Edited by regeneratia

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
regeneratia

Do you have academic evidence to back this up?

Do you do searches for yourself?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ShadowSot

Do you do searches for yourself?

Says the one making the claim.

We're not here to do your work for you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
regeneratia

Says the one making the claim.

We're not here to do your work for you.

And I am not here to do your work for you. If you want to know, you will search it. That is my thinking. I will not waste my time backing up my claims to people who will not read what I provide. If you want to know, you will search for it. I don't care if you find me credible or not. Your impressions of me just don't matter that much to me. I don't have much of a cyber ego.

The honorable, highly hallowed need-to-know is sadly absent from so many people.

Edited by regeneratia

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Copasetic

Meanwhile, despite the hot air-ed reports of some here, the city of Calgary has decided not to fluoridate their tap water. Hmmmm!

I think the scoffers here will call the entire city stupid now.

Fluoride makes people less intelligentm, causes ADHD, neurodegenerative disorders and cancer. On this board, that is the aim of Copasetic, to lead people to death via cancer, to keep them stupid, and to help them grow in their inability to concentrate, to throw out the gammas.

Yes, clearly I own a molecular biology supply company that supplies mostly people doing cancer research, am in medical school (after various other degrees in other fields), volunteer at one of the best (arguably the best) Children's hospitals in the world in the oncology department, have worked in protein and microbial pathogenesis research and spend time volunteering to furthers other's educations because I want to give people "death via cancer" and "keep them stupid".....Grow up.

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.