Skeptic Project

This is not so much a CT question, but a health one.

Although ALCOA, the Asbestos defenders(?) might have had a hand in fluoridation, I'm not saying there is an ongoing CT to keep fluoridating water.

However, as I've recently written in the below, it seems there are real concerns over the safety of fluoridation at 4 mg / liter.

This is not just my conclusion, though, the US National Research Council says the same thing.

"In 2006, a 12-person committee of the US National Research Council (NRC) reviewed the health risks associated with fluoride consumption[12] and unanimously concluded that the maximum contaminant level of 4 mg/L should be lowered. The EPA has yet to act on the NRC's recommendation.[13][14] The limit was previously 1.4 – 2.4 mg/L, but it was raised to 4 mg/L in 1985.[15]"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fluoride_poisoning#Chronic_toxicity</p>

Here was my post about this

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=6090811#post6090811

And this was the content, to be discussed further here:

Ok, so I did some quick searches of the full text of this meta-analysis study which concludes mostly against evidence of fluoridation health risks.

http://www.york.ac.uk/inst/crd/fluores.htm</p>

The meta-analysis seems to have not covered many of the hazards papers that have been put forth in the link below. For example, I found no mention of the word "immune", at all.

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php...&amp;postcount=186

I looked up many of the other terms, paper names, and authors of the fluoridation hazards studies and nothing came up. The only thing that did come up was mention of 2 studies on Thyroid Cancer (not other issues with Thyroid) and the Lian/Zhang/Wu study of the effect on children's intelligence.

I stopped looking about 2/3 down the list of hazard research papers, concluding, thus far, that these papers were either not evaluated, or otherwise not mentioned specifically in the meta-analysis linked above.

I also checked Appendix A, B, and the 12 parts of Appendix C of the meta-analysis.

Not a single mention of the word "immune", which was in the title of at least one extant fluoride hazards study.

Please check my work on this if you have the time.

So, this meta-analysis is lacking in terms of refuting the specific fluoridation hazards studies mentioned, some of which come from mainstream and/or respected groups such as the American Medical Association.

If the best refutation of these hazard studies is a meta-analysis that does not even cover the studies, then, this, together with the unanimous 12-vote from the US National Research Council (NRC) in 2006 to lower the current 4mg / liter fluoridation limit for health risks, makes me lean towards the conclusion that the safety of current limits is not demonstrated with sufficient confidence. It seems there is now a burden of proof to refute the hazard claims.

Lots of things are also in nature, doesn't mean its all beneficial for long term health etc past reproduction age, does it?

1) Oh, maybe it is worth the risks after all :)
2) Good counter example. I haven't seen studies on it, though I bet you have. If you have some good links and don't mind pasting...

CDC report: But then, if I drink 2 times the water, am I not at risk? Does the extra water help flush it out so well so that *only* concentration and not total content matters?

Fluoride builds up in bones, right? In that case, does it not matter for how long, and how much, water you drink? What is the natural depletion rate from the bones?

All About Fluoridation
A few fringe activists claim that fluoridation of water carries more danger than benefit.

http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4058

Oh, right, burden of proof. There are those studies I posted.

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4304878&postcount=186

Someone replied to you Geo:
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=6091259&postcount=556

These anti-flouride people just use the same tactics of quote-mining that truthers, Creationists, Global Warming deniers and other conspiracy theorists use.

And I still have no explanation for any motivation to intentionally poison the population. Experts the world over would have to be in on a conspiracy.

I think that the CT has been around since the 1950's bu the JBS.

Captain Ferseus: Some of the stuff in the link might be bunk, especially the beginning part you mentioned.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=4318912#

But what about the part starting as follows. Is it ALL bunk?

"References on the scientific case... against fluoride

Fluoride exposure disrupts the synthesis of collagen and leads to the breakdown of collagen in bone, tendon, muscle, skin, cartilage, lungs, kidney and trachea.

A. K. Susheela and Mohan Jha, "Effects of Fluoride on Cortical and Cancellous Bone Composition", IRCS Medical Sciences: Library Compendium, Vol 9, No.11, pp 1021-1022 (1981)

"Fluorides are general protoplasmic poisons, with the capacity to modify the metabolism of cells by inhibiting certain enzymes. Sources of fluoride intoxication include drinking water containing 1 ppm or more of fluorine."

Journal of the American Medical Association, September 18, 1943

Fluoride stimulates granule formation and oxygen consumption in white blood cells, but inhibits these processes when the white blood cell is challenged by a foreign agent in the blood.

Robert A. Clark, "Neutrophil Iodination Reaction Induced by Fluoride: Implications for Degranulation and Metabolic Activation," Blood, Vol 57, pp. 913-921 (1981)

Fluoride depletes the energy reserves and the ability of white blood cells to properly destroy foreign agents by the process of phagocytosis. As little as 0.2-ppm fluoride stimulates superoxide production in resting white blood cells, virtually abolishing phagocytosis. Even micro-molar amounts of fluoride, below 1 ppm, may seriously depress the ability of white blood cells to destroy pathogenic agents.

"Immune Status of Children in Chemically Contaminated Environments", Zdravookhranenie, Issue 3, pp 6-9 (1987)

Fluoride confuses the immune system and causes it to attack the body's own tissues, and increases the tumour growth rate in cancer prone individuals.

Alfred Taylor and Nell C. Taylor, "Effect of Sodium Fluoride on Tumour Growth", Proceedings of the Society for Experimental Biology and Medicine, Vol 119,p 252(1965); Sheila Gibson, "Effects of Fluoride on Immune System Function", Complementary Medical Research, Vol 6, pp 111-113 (1992)

Fluoride inhibits antibody formation in the blood.

S. K. Jain and A.K. Susheela, "Effect of Sodium Fluoride on Antibody Formation in Rabbits", Environmental Research, Vol. 44, pp 117-125 (1987)

Fluoride depresses Thyroid activity.

Viktor Gorlitzer Von Mundy, "Influence of Fluorine and Iodine on the Metabolism, Particularly on the Thyroid Gland," Muenchener Medicische Wochenschrift, Vol 105, pp 182-186 (1963); "Effect of Fluorine on Thyroid Iodine Metabolism and Hyperthyroidism", Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism, Vol. 18, pp 1102-1110 (1958)

Fluorides have a disruptive effect on various tissues in the body.

Vilber A.O. Bello and Hillel J. Gitelman, "High Fluoride Exposure in Hemodialysis Patients", American Journal of Kidney Diseases, Vol. 15, pp 320-324 (1990)

Fluoride promotes development of bone cancer.

S.E. Hrudley et al., "Drinking Water Fluoridation and Osteosarcoma" Canadian Journal of Public Health, Vol 81, pp 415-416 (1990); Irwin Herskowitz and Isabel Norton, "Increased Incidence of Melanotic Tumours Following Treatment with Sodium Fluoride", Genetics Vol 48, pp 307-310 (1963)

Fluorides cause premature aging of the human body.

Nicholas Leone, "Medical Aspects of Excessive Fluoride in a Water Supply", Public Health Reports, Vol 69, pp 925-936 (1954); "The Village Where People are Old Before their Time", Stern Magazine, Vol 30, pp 107-108,111-112 (1978)

Fluoride ingestion from mouth rinses and dentifrices in children is extremely hazardous to biological development, life span and general health.

Yngve Ericsson and Britta Forsman, "Fluoride retained from mouth rinses and dentifrices in preschool children", Caries Research, Vol.3, pp 290-299 (1969); W.L. Augenstein, et al., "Fluoride ingestion in children: a review of 87 cases", Paediatrics, Vol 88, pp 907-912, (1991); George Waldbott, "Mass Intoxication from Over-Fluoridation in Drinking Water", Clinical Toxicology, Vol 18, No 5, pp 531-541 (1981)

Fluorides diminish the intelligence capability of the human brain.

Fluoride, Vol 26, No.4, pp 189-192, 1995, "Effect of Fluoride Exposure on Intelligence In Children". Presented to the 20th Conference of the International Society for Fluoride Research, Beijing, China, September 5-9, 1994

Fluoride studies in rats can be indicative of a potential for motor disruption, intelligence deficits and learning disabilities in humans. Humans are exposed to plasma levels of fluoride as high as those in rat studies. Fluoride involves interruption of normal brain development. Fluoride affects the hippocampus in the brain, which integrates inputs from the environment, memory, and motivational stimuli, to produce behavioural decisions and modify memory. Experience with other developmental neurotoxicants prompts expectations that changes in behavioural functions will be comparable across species, especially humans and rats.

Neurotoxicology and Teratology, Vol 17, No, 2, p 176, "Neurotoxicity of Sodium F luoride", Muellenix, Denbesten, Schunior, Kernan, 1995

Fluorides accumulate in the brain over time to reach neurologically harmful levels.

Neurotoxicology and Teratology, Vol 17, No, 2, p 176, "Neurotoxicity of Sodium Fluoride", Muellenix, Denbesten, Schunior, Kernan, 1995

"Drinking water containing as little as 1.2 ppm fluoride will cause developmental disturbances. We cannot run the risk of producing such serious systemic disturbances. The potentialities for harm outweigh those for good."

Journal of the American Dental Association, Editorial, October 1, 1944

The contents of a family-size tube of fluoridated toothpaste is enough to kill a 12.5 kilo child.

In 1991, the Akron (Ohio) Regional Poison Centre reported, "… death has been reported following ingestion of 16 mg/kg of fluoride. Only 1/10 of an ounce of fluoride could kill a 50 kilo adult. According to the Centre, "fluoride toothpaste contains up to 1 mg/gram of fluoride." Even Proctor and Gamble, the makers of Crest, acknowledge that a family-sized tube "theoretically contains enough fluoride to kill a small child." (National Pure Water Association, UK)

"Fluorides have been used to modify behaviour and mood of human beings. It is a little known fact that fluoride compounds were added to the drinking water of prisoners to keep them docile and inhibit questioning of authority, both in Nazi prison camps in World War II and in the Soviet gulags in Siberia."

National Pure Water Association, UK

Fluorides are medically categorized as protoplasmic poisons, which is why they are used to kill rodents.

The Journal of the American Medical Association on September 18, 1943, states, "… fluorides are general protoplasmic poisons, changing the permeability of the cell membrane by inhibiting certain enzymes. The exact mechanisms of such actions are obscure."

Fluoride consumption by human beings increases the general cancer death rate.

In 1975 Dr John Yiamouyiannis published a preliminary survey, which shows that people in fluoridated areas have a higher cancer death rate than those in non-fluoridated areas. The National Cancer Institute attempts to refute the studies. Later in 1975, Yiamouyiannis joins with Dr. Dean Burk, chief chemist of the National Cancer Institute (1939-1974) in performing other studies which are then included in the Congressional Record (USA) by Congressman Delaney, who was the original author of the Delaney Amendment, which prohibited the addition of cancer-causing substances to food used for human consumption.

Both reports confirmed the existence of a link between fluoridation and cancer. (Note: Obviously Dr. Burk felt free to agree with scientific truth only after his tenure at NCI ended, since his job depended on towing the party line)

Fluorides have little or no effect on decay prevention in humans.

In 1990 Dr John Colquhoun is forced into early requirement in New Zealand after he conducts a study on 60,000 school children and finds no difference in tooth decay between fluoridated and non-fluoridated areas. He additionally finds that a substantial number of children in fluoridated areas suffered from dental fluorosis. He makes the study public. There is no scientific data that shows that fluoride mouth rinses and tablets are safe for human use.

A 1989 study by Hildebolt, on 6,000 school children contradicts any alleged benefit from the use of sodium fluorides.

In 1990 a study by Dr John Yiamouyiannis on 39,000 school children contradicts any alleged benefits from the use of sodium fluorides.

In 1992 Michael Perrone, a legislative assistant in New Jersey, contacts the FDA requesting all information regarding the safety and effectiveness of fluoride tablets and drops. After 6 months of stalling, the FDA admitted they had no data to show that fluoride tablets or drops were either safe or effective. They informed Perrone that they will "probably have to pull the tablets and drops off the market."

In 1976, Dr D. W. Allman and co-workers from Indiana University School of Medicine (USA) feed animals 1 part-per-million (ppm) fluoride and found that in the presence of aluminium in a concentration as small as 20 parts per billion, (like in a toothpaste tube, using aluminium pans to boil water, or drinking beverages in aluminium cans), fluoride is able to cause an even larger increase in cyclic AMP levels.

Cyclic AMP inhibits the migration rate of white blood cells, as well as the ability of the white blood cell to destroy pathogenic organisms.

Journal of Dental Research, Vol 55, Sup B, p 523, 1976, "Effect of Inorganic Fluoride Salts on Urine and Tissue Cyclic AMP Concentration in Vivo".

"Fluoridation is the greatest case of scientific fraud of this century, if not of all time."

Robert Carlton, Ph.D., former U.S. EPA scientist on "Marketplace" Canadian Broadcast Company Nov 24, 1992

"Regarding fluoridation, the EPA should act immediately to protect the public, not just on the cancer data, but on the evidence of bone fractures, arthritis, mutagenicity and other effects"

William Marcus, Ph.D., senior EPA toxicologist, Covert Action, 1992, p 66"

But Matt, the CDC is the government, therefore anything that says the opposite of what they say is automatically true!

I'll check CDC.

But my concern is whether there is enough investigation of legitimate(?) studies demonstrating hazards.

BTW, some of the studies in that list are by AMA and the like. Not exactly fringe groups selling water filtration, but point taken.

Biased sources?

American Medical Association

Misunderstanding?

"The sources of fluorine intoxication are drinking water containing 1 part per million or more of fluorine"
http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/summary/123/3/150-a</p>

Hmm, I wonder if I'm misunderstanding what intoxication means.

Admittedly, this is an old article (1943). I'm not sure how relevant that is.

More problematically, I couldn't verify the most damning of some of the big name other quotes.

-Journal of the American Dental Association, Editorial, October 1, 1944.
http://jada.ada.org/search.dtl<br /> Too old for online search.

-"Increased Incidence of Melanotic Tumours Following Treatment with Sodium Fluoride", Genetics Vol 48, pp 307-310 (1963)
http://www.genetics.org/<br /> Didn't find any article with that title there. Correct journal?

So, the list might only be partially true, with the real quotes being the little known names, and the unverifiable quotes being from the big names. But some of the studies, eg the AMA, are real.

Yes, maybe I will, because I have some of the linked health issues, and I used to drink way more tap then the avg person afaik. That's why I'm particularly interested in this, and maybe also the supposed vaccine health risks to auto/immune, as I've traveled a lot and taken some of the out of the ordinary vaccines more times than was required (because I'd always forget to take the 2nd/3rd shot, and would have to start at 1st again, repeatedly).

Anyhow, back to Fluoride:

The US National Research Center report (2006) explains that the amount of water drunk matters:

http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=11571&page=3

Furthermore, the NRC says that 4mg / liters already causes severe enamel problems. Higher than 4mg/L would be worse, but slightly lower would probably still be bad. And "Estimates from 1992 indicate that approximately 1.4 million people in the United States had drinking water with natural fluoride concentrations of 2.0-3.9 mg/L"

It seems hardly crazy, then, to worry about this, especially if you drink as much tap, especially if you have the same linked health problems.

But don't you see? If what you're suggesting is true then it necessitates a LOT of people covering up the "truth" about fluoride.

I just see no reason for anyone to do that, not even a crazy reason like the 911 truth movement claims is the reason they have no mainstream support.

If you could provide valid reasons for being skeptical about fluoride, I would be more than happy to consider it.

This isn't about having a bias or stigmas or whatever. This is about having spent quite a bit of time reviewing material from the anti-fluoride people and just getting tired of them not having anything new. You could copy and paste endless material from anti-fluoride people but that doesn't mean its anything new or that it deserves special consideration. Repackaging an argument does not breathe new life into it, contrary to what conspiracy theorists seem to believe.

It isn't up to anyone here to go out and prove that fluoride isn't dangerous. Its up to the anti-fluoride people to prove that it is.

Water itself is a deadly poison in sufficient quantities too.

Water itself is a deadly poison in sufficient quantities too.

DIRECT ME TO YOUR SOURCE PLEASE. THANKYOU IN ADVANCE X X