Just use Beats to filter your water...
What did they actually write?
Some places have too much fluoride naturally. Other countries can do what they want, as can any government. I don't see fluoridation as a big conspiracy. You are free to do so.So do you think the countries than ban fluoridation have it wrong?
I didn't even mention conspiracy. That's your tactic whenever someone disagrees with you. If you know anything about fluoride, please share it. It's why I started the thread.
Much of the fluoride that is added to the water is untreated byproduct of the fertilization industry. Studies have been shown that silicoflouride contain arsenic, lead, and other contaminates.
Do you have any useful information? Or is your intent to just turn this into another one of your rhetorical arguments?
Ridiculous. I mean they could. But finding the right adapters would be the rub.
So you don't have anything the cancer people actually wrote about fluoride after definitively characterizing what they wrote?
Good talk.
That and the fact I did not dieded is good enough for me.The general consensus among the reviews done to date is that there is no strong evidence of a link between water fluoridation and cancer.
So you popped in here to really add nothing. Once again.
1. Fluorosis
Fluorosis is, perhaps, the least shocking but also the most ironic danger. Dental fluorosis is the condition of mottled teeth (appearing as small, white or brown spots on the teeth) that was first defined by Dr. McKay. The CDC reports that dental fluorosis rates have been rising in the last 30-40 years, likely due to the increase in fluoride sources. (28)
Fluorosis is the only widely acknowledged issue from fluoride exposure—at least according to all governmental bodies. (29) It is thought to impact less than a quarter of people worldwide and typically doesn’t stay on permanent adult teeth, but many adults find that their permanent teeth also show signs of fluorosis.
In countries with very high levels of calcium fluoride in the water, people can develop a severe form of this condition called crippling skeletal fluorosis, which causes bone to become rigid and brittle. (30)
So why do I consider even mild fluorosis to be a major problem?
These discolorations are not just a cosmetic issue. They are indicative of excessive fluoride ingestion, a dangerous practice that is connected to many more severe problems. Plus, areas affected by fluorosis are more prone to developing cavities—and this can happen in areas of the mouth that are difficult to access, clean, and maintain.
2. Cancer
The research in this area is somewhat inconsistent; however, it seems that fluoride ingestion may impact cancer incidence and/or death from cancer. (31, 32, 33, 34) Additionally, a bone cancer called osteosarcoma may happen more often in fluoridated communities, but there are conflicting results. (35, 36, 37, 38)
This, at least, should convince you of why I encourage making a decision based on the lesser of two evils. Is the hope of preventing one or two cavities enough to risk a higher chance of cancer?
3. Brain/Central Nervous System Damage
Concerns about the impact of fluoride on the brain began in the 1990s in the infamous Mullenix study, which found that both prenatal and postnatal exposure to the chemical led to deficits in cognition and/or attention. (39) Various human studies, including some conducted by Harvard scientists, suggest that significant fluoridated water exposure is associated with up to a 7-point drop in IQ scores. (40, 41, 42, 43)
Because it might cause you to absorb more aluminum—which likely plays a role in brain degradation—fluoride could be one possible reason instances of Alzheimer’s disease continue to increase. (44, 45, 46, 47)
We also know that fluoride may affect circadian rhythms and sleep, as well as a number of neurotransmitter levels. (13, 14) These impacts have not been studied but could have incredibly far-reaching effects for not only brain health, but overall health.
4. Various Disease Risks
Fluoride might increase risk for a number of diseases and health conditions in addition to those listed above. Those with studied correlations include:
Association of silicofluoride treated water with elevated blood lead.
Masters RD1, Coplan MJ, Hone BT, s JE.
Author information
Abstract
Previous epidemiological studies have associated silicofluoride-treated community water with enhanced child blood lead parameters. Chronic, low-level dosage of silicofluoride (SiF) has never been adequately tested for health effects in humans. We report here on a statistical study of 151,225 venous blood lead (VBL) tests taken from children ages 0-6 inclusive, living in 105 communities of populations from 15,000 to 75,000. The tests are part of a sample collected by the New York State Department of Children's Health, mostly from 1994-1998. Community fluoridation status was determined from the CDC 1992 Fluoridation Census. Covariates were assigned to each community using the 1990 U.S. Census. Blood lead measures were divided into groups based on race and age. Logistic regressions were carried out for each race/age group, as well as above and below the median of 7 covariates to test the relationship between known risk factors for lead uptake, exposure to SiF-treated water, and VBL >10 microg/dL.
RESULTS:
For every age/race group, there was a consistently significant association of SiF treated community water and elevated blood lead. Logistic regressions above and below the median value of seven covariates show an effect of silicofluoride on blood lead independent of those covariates. The highest likelihood of children having VBL> 10 microg/dL occurs when they are both exposed to SiF treated water and likely to be subject to another risk factor known to be associated with high blood lead (e.g., old housing). Results are consistent with prior analyses of surveys of children's blood lead in Massachusetts and NHANES III. These data contradict the null hypothesis that there is no difference between the toxic effects of SiF and sodium fluoride, pointing to the need for chemical studies and comprehensive animal testing of water treated with commercial grade silicofluorides.
Toxins Explain High Lead Levels in Flint and DetroitRoger D. Masters*Nelson A. Rockefeller Professor of Government Emeritus, Dartmouth College, USA*Corresponding Author: Roger D. Masters, Nelson A. Rockefeller Professor of Government Emeritus, Dartmouth College, USA.Citation: Roger D. Masters. “Toxins Explain High Lead Levels in Flint and Detroit”. EC Pharmacology and Toxicology 2.4 (2016): 187-192.Received: October 20, 2016; Published: November 24, 2016Although behavioral problems in Flint and Detroit, Michigan are once again attracting media coverage, scientific studies suggest a cause of high blood lead (esp. for many Black children) that hasn’t been explained to the American public. Since Ben Franklin, it’s been known that lead can lower intelligence; in recent years, scientists like Herbert Needleman of the University of Pittsburgh have extended these findings to include substance abuse and violent crime. Sources of lead include not only old houses with lead paint, but industrial pollution and lead or copper water pipes linked by lead solder.What’s new are recent studies showing that absorption of lead from these sources is greatly increased by two untested chemicals - flu-orosilicic acid (H2SiF6) and sodium silicofluoride (Na2SiF6)- now used for over 90% of U.S. water fluoridation. One of these environmental factors is present in public water supplies of Flint, Michigan.Since 1967 (except for a brief period in 2014-2015), Flint has shared water supplies with Detroit, where water is treated with fluorosi-licic acid. Scientific studies of all U.S. counties over 500,000 population found that water treated with a silicofluoride increases children’s blood lead, with higher levels for Blacks than for Whites (with Hispanics intermediate). This effect of exposure to silicofluorides is also greater for 3 to 5-year-old children than for those 5 to 17 (Figure 1 & 2). And, national studies show areas with silicofluoride treated water have higher rates of learning deficits and substance abuse as well as more violent crime (Figure 3 & 4). In short, the traits most strongly associated with anti-Black racism are aggravated by poisoning America’s water systems --but the harmful effects are serious and very costly for all American
Sure are a lot of "mights" in there, tubby.
Toxic metals like lead, manganese, copper and cadmium damage neurons and deregulate neurotransmitters like serotonin and dopamine (which are essential to normal impulse control and learning). Earlier studies show that — controlling for socio‐economic and demographic factors — environmental pollution with lead is a highly significant risk factor in predicting higher rates of crime, attention deficit disorder or hyperactivity, and learning disabilities. Exposure and uptake of lead has been associated with industrial pollution, leaded paint and plumbing systems in old housing, lead residues in soil, dietary habits (such as shortages of calcium and iron), and demographic factors (such as poverty, stress, and minority ethnicity). We report here on an additional “risk co‐factor” making lead and other toxic metals in the environment more dangerous to local residents: the use of silicofluorides as agents in water treatment. The two chemicals in question — fluosilicic acid and sodium silicofluoride — are toxins that, despite claims to the contrary, do not dissociate completely and change water chemistry when used under normal water treatment practices. As a result, water treatment with siliconfluorides apparently functions to increase the cellular uptake of lead. Data from lead screening of over 280,000 children in Massachusetts indicates that silicofluoride usage is associated with significant increases in average lead in children's blood as well as percentage of children with blood lead in excess of 10μg/dL. Consistent with the hypothesized role of silicofluorides as enhancing uptake of lead whatever the source of exposure, children are especially at risk for higher blood lead in those communities with more old housing or lead in excess of 15 ppb in first draw water samples where silicofluorides are also in use. Preliminary findings from county‐level data in Georgia confirm that silicofluoride usage is associated with higher levels of lead in children's blood. In both Massachusetts and Georgia, moreover, behaviors associated with lead nurotoxicity are more frequent in communities using silicofluorides than in comparable localities that do not use these chemicals. Because there has been insufficient animal or human testing of silicofluoride treated water, further study of the effect of silicofluorides is needed to clarify the extent to which these chemicals are risk co‐factors for lead uptake and the hazardous effects it produces.
Sure are. Seems like enough to merit more studies and not unilaterally deciding to put this in people's water.
Kind of a nothingburger topic after 60 years tbh.
Sorry about your thread. It's difficult to take you seriously.
LOL..."nothingburger" when several developed countries have decided to stop the practice.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3956646/
he only demonstrated positive impact of fluoride on human health is its contribution to prevention of dental caries (infection of teeth enamel).
While early studies of water fluoridation suggested substantial benefits in terms of reduced levels of dental caries, these results have always been contested. Early support was based on an assumed systemic role of fluoride in reducing decay [3, 4]. However, later studies have shown that the differences in fluoride concentration in surface enamel between permanent teeth from areas with no fluoride or low levels and fluoridated areas were minimal and support the fact that effect of fluoride is almost exclusively posteruptive and topical rather than systemic challenging claims made for water fluoridation's efficacy [23–25].
Currently, about 41% of children in the United States, where water has been fluoridated at an average level of 1 ppm, have varying degrees of dental fluorosis—levels of over 50% in some fluoridated areas [60]. The National Research Council's report on the health effects of ingested fluoride in the United States, found that “… the prevalence of dental fluorosis in optimally fluoridated areas (both natural and added) in recent years ranged from 8% to 51%, compared with 3% to 26% in non-fluoridated areas.” [49, page 37] This implies that while nonwater sources of fluoride are likely to be consumed at the same level in fluoridated and nonfluoridated areas, and while the use of dental supplements is higher in nonfluoridated areas, fluorosis is significantly higher in areas where water is fluoridated. While the only uncontroversial clinical complication of (severe) dental fluorosis is adverse psychological impact on well-being, self-esteem, and negative community perception of affected individuals' oral health [61], established clinical complications of skeletal fluorosis include arthritis, radiculomyelopathy, quadriparesis, and pathological bone fractures [62, 63].
Fluoride is a known enzyme disruptor. For example, fluoride's anticaries effect is derived in part from its ability to derange the enzymes of cariogenic bacteria [20, 21]. Fluoride can interfere by attaching itself to metal ions located at an enzyme's active site or by forming competing hydrogen bonds at the active site which is not exclusively just on the teeth [64]. There are 66 enzymes which are affected by fluoride ingestion, including P450 oxidases, as well the enzyme which facilitates the formation of flexible enamel [65]. A recent study of the effects of inorganic fluoride compounds on human cellular functions revealed that fluoride can interact with a wide range of enzyme-mediated cellular processes and genes modulated by fluoride including those related to the stress response, metabolic enzymes, the cell cycle, cell-cell communications, and signal transduction [66]. Due to high negativity of fluoride, it interacts actively with positively charged ions such as calcium and magnesium. In industrial settings, hydrofluoric acid poisoning is usually treated with intravenous calcium gluconate as such poisoning is associated with acute hypocalcaemia [67]. As with calcium, magnesium plays important roles in optimal bone and teeth formation. By competing with magnesium and calcium in teeth and bones, fluoride deranges the delicate bone formation and bone resorption processes. Such derangements, and consequent intensity of fluoride's adverse effects on bone and teeth, are amplified in malnutrition, calcium deficiency, and magnesium deficiency [68, 69]. Chronic fluoride ingestion is commonly associated with hyperkalaemia and consequent ventricular fibrillation [70].
Studies also found that Pavlov is an idiot.
There have also been a number of studies that link fluoride and cancer. More than 50 population-based studies which have examined the potential link between water fluoride levels and cancer have been reported in the medical literature. Most of these studies have not found a strong link between chronic fluoride ingestion and cancer. In a major review of the topic published in 1987, the International Agency for Research on Cancer labelled fluorides as “… non-classifiable as to their ability to cause cancer in humans” and that the studies reviewed “… have shown no consistent tendency for people living in areas with high concentrations of fluoride in the water to have higher cancer rates than those living in areas with low concentrations” [71]. However, they concluded that the evidence was inadequate to draw conclusions one way or another and that the evidence linking fluorides with cancer was deemed “inadequate” [71]. The York, NRC and SCHER reviews came to similar conclusions [28, 30, 49] However, population-based-studies strongly suggest that chronic fluoride ingestion is a possible cause of uterine cancer and bladder cancer; there may be a link with osteosarcoma—highlighted as an area where there is evidence of problems requiring further research [30, 72–74].
Last edited by SpursforSix; 02-18-2019 at 06:01 PM.
Which ones stopped?
German, Finland, Hungary. Many more have just simply banned it.
Do you not know how to look up?
And do you have any other thoughts than "That and the fact I did not dieded is good enough for me."?
Ah, Germany puts it in their salt and flat out tablets they recommend for consumption.
Finland has naturally fluoridated water.
Hungary? Who has ever cared about Hungary? But sure -- Hungary!
I would've expected a lot more than nothing in the past sixty years of the practice were it so dangerous tbh.And do you have any other thoughts than "That and the fact I did not dieded is good enough for me."?
You don't seem to understand the difference between naturally occurring fluoride and silicoflourides.
I do. I also know how to spell it.
I would've expected a lot more than nothing in the past sixty years of using silicofluorides were it so dangerous tbh. I've lived in placed with and without it. I'm just not worried about it. Tell me why I should be in your own words without walls of text.
ah...reverting to spellcheck smack
I'll just leave you with the walls of text. They explain it better than I would. And it's probably all spelled correctly.
My guess is that you're too lazy to read any of it anyway.
You're certainly too lazy to discuss your concerns about your own thread topic.
I'll just leave you with your walls of text no one will read.
I did discuss them on the first page. And then provided studies and articles that show the basis for my concern.
You’ve done nothing.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
