tentram
Ex-Bluelighter
- Joined
- Aug 21, 2012
- Messages
- 7,035
You can shut your whore mouth right now
flattery will get you anywhere you want, babay!
Fluoride Discussion
- Thread starter puffpuffpass
- Start date
flattery will get you anywhere you want, babay!
Busty St Claire wrote:
"You don't have to look too far to debunk most anti fluoride crusaders."
LOL, then please debunk the Harvard articles I posted earlier in this thread.
I went to the trouble of carefully reading every post in this thread and I am sad to report that;
not even one single effective argument was made which was able to debunk the truly horrific toxicological profile of tap water that contains 1mg/L of sodium fluoride.
So if not even one single good reason was put forward to help us not to worry about water fluoridation (to the level of 1mg/L or higher) then what exactly are all these fluoride-defenders doing.
Riddle me this, Why do so many people defend fluoride as if it meant something to them personally? like water fluoridation is a close friend of the family's that's just going through a rough patch ATM and simply needs a little help to get back on it's feet...why?
"You don't have to look too far to debunk most anti fluoride crusaders."
LOL, then please debunk the Harvard articles I posted earlier in this thread.
I went to the trouble of carefully reading every post in this thread and I am sad to report that;
not even one single effective argument was made which was able to debunk the truly horrific toxicological profile of tap water that contains 1mg/L of sodium fluoride.
So if not even one single good reason was put forward to help us not to worry about water fluoridation (to the level of 1mg/L or higher) then what exactly are all these fluoride-defenders doing.
Riddle me this, Why do so many people defend fluoride as if it meant something to them personally? like water fluoridation is a close friend of the family's that's just going through a rough patch ATM and simply needs a little help to get back on it's feet...why?
Last edited:
JessFR
Bluelight Crew
- Joined
- Oct 22, 2012
- Messages
- 14,706
Man, I'm against water fluoridation too, I don't like medicating the population "for their own good", there's a lack of clear evidence I have seen that water fluoridation provides benefits to people already using fluoridated toothpaste, and we do know that excessive fluoride exposure causes dental fluorosis which while pretty harmless, is still not nice to put people at risk at against their will. But the facts are that there's been a lot of research in it and there's no real evidence, at least that I have seen, that water fluoridation at low levels poses any health risk. Water itself is dangerous for your health if you drink too much of it at once.
As for the study, by all means read it for yourself. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3491930/
It's really more about fluoride contamination in the water at levels we all know and accept may be harmful, but it's not about intentional fluoridation at a controlled level.
Last edited:
rickolasnice
Bluelighter
- Joined
- Apr 19, 2007
- Messages
- 6,810
^ Yeah..
The article is on the dangers of high levels of flouride..
2-4mg/l
Did you read the thread i posted?
I'm pretty sure it'll answer all your questions.
And I'm not defending water flouridation.. I'm against it.. but there is no evidence to suggest the amount of flouride found in tap water is harmful in anyway.. and quite a lot of evidence to suggest it prevents tooth decay.
The article is on the dangers of high levels of flouride..
2-4mg/l
Did you read the thread i posted?
I'm pretty sure it'll answer all your questions.
And I'm not defending water flouridation.. I'm against it.. but there is no evidence to suggest the amount of flouride found in tap water is harmful in anyway.. and quite a lot of evidence to suggest it prevents tooth decay.
Last edited:
Harvard Study Finds Fluoride Lowers IQ - Published in Federal Gov't Journal
* Reuters is not responsible for the content in this press release.
Tue Jul 24, 2012 8:45am EDT
Harvard Study Finds Fluoride Lowers IQ - Published in Federal Gov't Journal
PR Newswire
NEW YORK, July 24, 2012
NEW YORK, July 24, 2012 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- Harvard University researchers' review of fluoride/brain studies concludes "our results support the possibility of adverse effects of fluoride exposures on children's neurodevelopment." It was published online July 20 in Environmental Health Perspectives, a US National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences' journal (1), reports the NYS Coalition Opposed to Fluoridation, Inc. (NYSCOF)
"The children in high fluoride areas had significantly lower IQ than those who lived in low fluoride areas," write Choi et al.
Further, the EPA says fluoride is a chemical "with substantial evidence of developmental neurotoxicity."
Fluoride (fluosilicic acid) is added to US water supplies at approximately 1 part per million attempting to reduce tooth decay.
Water was the only fluoride source in the studies reviewed and was based on high water fluoride levels. However, they point out research by Ding (2011) suggested that low water fluoride levels had significant negative associations with children's intelligence.
Choi et al. write, "Although fluoride may cause neurotoxicity in animal models and acute fluoride poisoning causes neurotoxicity in adults, very little is known of its effects on children's neurodevelopment. They recommend more brain/fluoride research on children and at individual-level doses.
"It's senseless to keep subjecting our children to this ongoing fluoridation experiment to satisfy the political agenda of special-interest groups," says attorney Paul Beeber, NYSCOF President. "Even if fluoridation reduced cavities, is tooth health more important than brain health? It's time to put politics aside and stop artificial fluoridation everywhere," says Beeber.
After reviewing fluoride toxicological data, the NRC reported in 2006, "It's apparent that fluorides have the ability to interfere with the functions of the brain."
Choi's team writes, "Fluoride readily crosses the placenta. Fluoride exposure to the developing brain, which is much more susceptible to injury caused by toxicants than is the mature brain, may possibly lead to damage of a permanent nature."
Fluoride accumulates in the body. Even low doses are harmful to babies, the thyroid, kidney patients and heavy water-drinkers. There are even doubts about fluoridation's effectiveness (2). New York City Legislation is pending to stop fluoridation. Many communities have already stopped.
Infant formula when mixed with fluoridated water delivers 100-200 times more fluoride than breastmilk. (3)
More information on fluoride's impact on the brain is here.
Contact: Paul Beeber, JD, 516-433-8882 [email protected]
http://www.fluoridation.webs.com
http://www.FluorideAction.Net
SOURCE NYS Coalition Opposed to Fluoridation, Inc.
* Reuters is not responsible for the content in this press release.
Tue Jul 24, 2012 8:45am EDT
Harvard Study Finds Fluoride Lowers IQ - Published in Federal Gov't Journal
PR Newswire
NEW YORK, July 24, 2012
NEW YORK, July 24, 2012 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- Harvard University researchers' review of fluoride/brain studies concludes "our results support the possibility of adverse effects of fluoride exposures on children's neurodevelopment." It was published online July 20 in Environmental Health Perspectives, a US National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences' journal (1), reports the NYS Coalition Opposed to Fluoridation, Inc. (NYSCOF)
"The children in high fluoride areas had significantly lower IQ than those who lived in low fluoride areas," write Choi et al.
Further, the EPA says fluoride is a chemical "with substantial evidence of developmental neurotoxicity."
Fluoride (fluosilicic acid) is added to US water supplies at approximately 1 part per million attempting to reduce tooth decay.
Water was the only fluoride source in the studies reviewed and was based on high water fluoride levels. However, they point out research by Ding (2011) suggested that low water fluoride levels had significant negative associations with children's intelligence.
Choi et al. write, "Although fluoride may cause neurotoxicity in animal models and acute fluoride poisoning causes neurotoxicity in adults, very little is known of its effects on children's neurodevelopment. They recommend more brain/fluoride research on children and at individual-level doses.
"It's senseless to keep subjecting our children to this ongoing fluoridation experiment to satisfy the political agenda of special-interest groups," says attorney Paul Beeber, NYSCOF President. "Even if fluoridation reduced cavities, is tooth health more important than brain health? It's time to put politics aside and stop artificial fluoridation everywhere," says Beeber.
After reviewing fluoride toxicological data, the NRC reported in 2006, "It's apparent that fluorides have the ability to interfere with the functions of the brain."
Choi's team writes, "Fluoride readily crosses the placenta. Fluoride exposure to the developing brain, which is much more susceptible to injury caused by toxicants than is the mature brain, may possibly lead to damage of a permanent nature."
Fluoride accumulates in the body. Even low doses are harmful to babies, the thyroid, kidney patients and heavy water-drinkers. There are even doubts about fluoridation's effectiveness (2). New York City Legislation is pending to stop fluoridation. Many communities have already stopped.
Infant formula when mixed with fluoridated water delivers 100-200 times more fluoride than breastmilk. (3)
More information on fluoride's impact on the brain is here.
Contact: Paul Beeber, JD, 516-433-8882 [email protected]
http://www.fluoridation.webs.com
http://www.FluorideAction.Net
SOURCE NYS Coalition Opposed to Fluoridation, Inc.
footscrazy
Bluelight Crew
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2008
- Messages
- 4,476
Sonny Jim said:
That's probably an important point.
As I've said before, I don't agree with medicalising the population without their consent, but I also don't think that flouride is overly dangerous. If it was so bad, negative effects would have been reported. Of course some people are sensitive to flouride, I don't disagree with that. Flouride of course is biologically active in people, that's why it's added to water! It seems clear though, that for the majority of people, there's no negative effects from flouride. Of course, that shouldn't give anyone the green light to add it to the water supply. I agree with the big deal being made about the government adding a chemical to the water for our own good, I just don't agree that flouride is as horrible as some people make out.
JessFR
Bluelight Crew
- Joined
- Oct 22, 2012
- Messages
- 14,706
The article you posted is biased by its own admission, the actual study it quotes is this http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3491930/
I see nothing in that meta-study that suggests that the CDC suggested dosage is harmful. The study largely covers chinese areas with water flouride contamination above recommended levels.
I see nothing in that meta-study that suggests that the CDC suggested dosage is harmful. The study largely covers chinese areas with water flouride contamination above recommended levels.
I'm sorry but how can you get that from the study write-up? I highlighted the part of the method you might be referring to but you have not understood it in context. I encourage http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3491930/BL members to read the whole study write-up (scroll down beyond the abstract) and find anything that makes them want to give sodium fluoride treated water to children they are responsible for.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3491930/
Methods: We searched the MEDLINE, EMBASE, Water Resources Abstracts, and TOXNET databases through 2011 for eligible studies. We also searched the China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) database, because many studies on fluoride neurotoxicity have been published in Chinese journals only. In total, we identified 27 eligible epidemiological studies with high and reference exposures, end points of IQ scores, or related cognitive function measures with means and variances for the two exposure groups. Using random-effects models, we estimated the standardized mean difference between exposed and reference groups across all studies. We conducted sensitivity analyses restricted to studies using the same outcome assessment and having drinking-water fluoride as the only exposure. We performed the Cochran test for heterogeneity between studies, Begg’s funnel plot, and Egger test to assess publication bias, and conducted meta-regressions to explore sources of variation in mean differences among the studies.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3491930/
Methods: We searched the MEDLINE, EMBASE, Water Resources Abstracts, and TOXNET databases through 2011 for eligible studies. We also searched the China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) database, because many studies on fluoride neurotoxicity have been published in Chinese journals only. In total, we identified 27 eligible epidemiological studies with high and reference exposures, end points of IQ scores, or related cognitive function measures with means and variances for the two exposure groups. Using random-effects models, we estimated the standardized mean difference between exposed and reference groups across all studies. We conducted sensitivity analyses restricted to studies using the same outcome assessment and having drinking-water fluoride as the only exposure. We performed the Cochran test for heterogeneity between studies, Begg’s funnel plot, and Egger test to assess publication bias, and conducted meta-regressions to explore sources of variation in mean differences among the studies.
Last edited:
rickolasnice
Bluelighter
- Joined
- Apr 19, 2007
- Messages
- 6,810
It's still a study on exposure to high levels?
rickolasnice wrote:
"It's still a study on exposure to high levels?"
The short answer to that is NO,
It's a meta-analysis, looking at fluorides toxicity, specifically its toxic effects on the nervous system including the very troubling negative changes to cognition, brain function and structure. The meta-analysis is analysing studies conducted all over the world on water fluoridation that are have looked specifically at the effects of fluoride on the mental cognition and the brain/CNS in general. There is a strong focus on studying the effects on children, which is a crucial point to understand about what this study has found which is that children are most vulnerable to the all the worst effects of fluoride.
Also it's important to note that this study is looking at the effects of drinking water fluoridation, i.e. the purposeful addition of fluoride to drinking water by the authorities, this is quite distinct from naturally occurring minerals of high fluoride content which might contaminate ground water/drinkin water and can lead to extremely severe fluoride poisoning in those exposed, especially long term exposure as fluoride accumulates in the body over time bringing an increasingly toxic effect as level in the body rise. So to be clear, the Harvard meta-analysis we are looking at is well aware of this distinction and has conducted the analysis accordingly, so that there is no confusion in the findings.
Of course the same toxic accumulation of fluoride in the body happens as a result of the long term ingestion of fluoridated drinking water, it's just the dosage of fluoride maintained by my local gov-water-authority has been carefully maintained at a level that will not directly induce agonising death but it will induce plenty of toxic effects which make the notion of adding fluoride to tap water for a possible dental benefit just plain wrong, no matter how you slice it.
the following is not at all directed at anyone in particular
The only reason we have fluoride added to our water by the government is that there are not enough people who are capable of their own thoughts or who even aspire to one day grow the ability to cultivate their own understanding of the things they personally get behind... well their sure isn't a medical science reason for fluoridating the water... not a good reason anyway. Yes there's a reason for why they put it in the water and it is very important but it can't be teeth because the medical science says other wise. I doubt it's an important or good thing for the vast majority of the people it is intended for but apparently that doesn't even matter because lots of them can't even be bothered to achieve their own thoughts on their own drinking water...or even their children.
Now it doesn't help that we have been force feed fluoride propaganda since young but we know, that the authorities have know for decades that fluoride is nothing but an unprovoked assault against innocent people...that's what the medical science says but for a handful of pathetic, indefensible reasons, most people are happy to accept propaganda.
that's right sheeple, repeat after me: anyone who spends time trying to understand the medical science behind water fluoridation is a?.... CONSPIRACY THEORIST
"It's still a study on exposure to high levels?"
The short answer to that is NO,
It's a meta-analysis, looking at fluorides toxicity, specifically its toxic effects on the nervous system including the very troubling negative changes to cognition, brain function and structure. The meta-analysis is analysing studies conducted all over the world on water fluoridation that are have looked specifically at the effects of fluoride on the mental cognition and the brain/CNS in general. There is a strong focus on studying the effects on children, which is a crucial point to understand about what this study has found which is that children are most vulnerable to the all the worst effects of fluoride.
Also it's important to note that this study is looking at the effects of drinking water fluoridation, i.e. the purposeful addition of fluoride to drinking water by the authorities, this is quite distinct from naturally occurring minerals of high fluoride content which might contaminate ground water/drinkin water and can lead to extremely severe fluoride poisoning in those exposed, especially long term exposure as fluoride accumulates in the body over time bringing an increasingly toxic effect as level in the body rise. So to be clear, the Harvard meta-analysis we are looking at is well aware of this distinction and has conducted the analysis accordingly, so that there is no confusion in the findings.
Of course the same toxic accumulation of fluoride in the body happens as a result of the long term ingestion of fluoridated drinking water, it's just the dosage of fluoride maintained by my local gov-water-authority has been carefully maintained at a level that will not directly induce agonising death but it will induce plenty of toxic effects which make the notion of adding fluoride to tap water for a possible dental benefit just plain wrong, no matter how you slice it.
the following is not at all directed at anyone in particular
The only reason we have fluoride added to our water by the government is that there are not enough people who are capable of their own thoughts or who even aspire to one day grow the ability to cultivate their own understanding of the things they personally get behind... well their sure isn't a medical science reason for fluoridating the water... not a good reason anyway. Yes there's a reason for why they put it in the water and it is very important but it can't be teeth because the medical science says other wise. I doubt it's an important or good thing for the vast majority of the people it is intended for but apparently that doesn't even matter because lots of them can't even be bothered to achieve their own thoughts on their own drinking water...or even their children.
Now it doesn't help that we have been force feed fluoride propaganda since young but we know, that the authorities have know for decades that fluoride is nothing but an unprovoked assault against innocent people...that's what the medical science says but for a handful of pathetic, indefensible reasons, most people are happy to accept propaganda.
that's right sheeple, repeat after me: anyone who spends time trying to understand the medical science behind water fluoridation is a?.... CONSPIRACY THEORIST
Last edited:
rickolasnice
Bluelighter
- Joined
- Apr 19, 2007
- Messages
- 6,810
Yes.. it's analysing the toxicity of HIGH levels of flouride in drinking water. You know high levels of water can be toxic, too? It's all about doses.
I'm not saying that 1ppm flouride is safe.. but there isn't enough evidence (or any) that suggests otherwise.
And babies under the age of 6 months are not supposed to be drinking tap water.
Did you read that thread i posted?
I'm not saying that 1ppm flouride is safe.. but there isn't enough evidence (or any) that suggests otherwise.
And babies under the age of 6 months are not supposed to be drinking tap water.
Did you read that thread i posted?
ok first up I just want to give my thanks and respect to everyone who has had a serious crack at this thread, especially to rikolasnice for not letting this thread die so quickly by raising important questions.
"Yes.. it's analysing the toxicity of HIGH levels of flouride in drinking water. You know high levels of water can be toxic, too? It's all about doses."
no, please re-read the actual full-text link to the Harvard study and you will find that there is plenty of reason to worry about 1mg/L and there is actually zero reason not to think it is toxic and no it's not simply a matter of opinion on what the Harvard study means. I am worried that you are reading the study by skimming through it and trying intently to find things that might be reassuring of the safety of water fluoridation but in your haste you are taking parts of the study greatly out of context and getting there meaning completely backwards. For example, you have twice reported the fact that adequate study of 1mg/L does not exist which you have also twice taken out of context by saying that this implies that there is not any evidence to suggest it is not safe but rickolasnice, this can only be incorrect when you think about it in practical terms or even if you read it in the context of the paragraph it came from.
"Did you read that thread i posted?"
yes I did read the thread you linked to and I am rather disappointed that you let other BL members persuade you that the historical and medical science facts you were initially in possession of is wrong because you made an honest mistake about the difference between some SSRIs with a fluorine atom in its structure VS the sodium fluoride "they" add to tap water. Mate nobody made an actual argument valid argument for why you where wrong, it looks like they just embarrassed you into thinking that you don't know what you're talking about because you don't have a basic chemistry background...
the truth is that we need to be very very wary of people who will passionately tell you you're dead wrong and you're a pseudo scientific moron but give you no actual reason for how you're wrong other than "you're clearly uneducated" etc, I personally have a strong medical science and chemistry background, having completed 1.5 degrees and a post-graduate qualification and I am still studying (I can't be specific because I run the risk of IDing my self but my degrees covered stock standard 1st and second year chem and several years biological and human medical science type subjects) and I want people to know that approximately zero of my emotional-investment portfolio invested into anything which surrounds water fluoridation which frees me up to concern my self solely with the task of slowly but surely exploring water fluoridation. So just like if I was studying a specific drug that I know I will be examined on at uni, I need to be studying the scientifically derived “knowns” and “unknowns” about that specific drug. Also, when I say something is “scientifically derived” I should also be able to critique the scientific methodology used.
You see, I am not at all impressed by the inability of people world-wide to remain dispassionate and not let their various emotional investments stand in the way of getting a clear toxicological/pharmacological picture of sodium fluoride treated tap water…again, why are people defending a simple ionic compound so passionately when this in reality is cut and dry? People have let a straight-forward issue become too complex by allowing themselves to be manipulated into believing that the issue of water fluoridation is much more complex than it actually is and that there is or at least should be a simple black and white answer to fluoridated water's safety concerns. (i.e. there is a popular smug arrogant line of thinking that goes; only hippies, conspiracy theorist and scientifically uneducated people would bother to question the gov about water fluoridation)
"Yes.. it's analysing the toxicity of HIGH levels of flouride in drinking water. You know high levels of water can be toxic, too? It's all about doses."
no, please re-read the actual full-text link to the Harvard study and you will find that there is plenty of reason to worry about 1mg/L and there is actually zero reason not to think it is toxic and no it's not simply a matter of opinion on what the Harvard study means. I am worried that you are reading the study by skimming through it and trying intently to find things that might be reassuring of the safety of water fluoridation but in your haste you are taking parts of the study greatly out of context and getting there meaning completely backwards. For example, you have twice reported the fact that adequate study of 1mg/L does not exist which you have also twice taken out of context by saying that this implies that there is not any evidence to suggest it is not safe but rickolasnice, this can only be incorrect when you think about it in practical terms or even if you read it in the context of the paragraph it came from.
"Did you read that thread i posted?"
yes I did read the thread you linked to and I am rather disappointed that you let other BL members persuade you that the historical and medical science facts you were initially in possession of is wrong because you made an honest mistake about the difference between some SSRIs with a fluorine atom in its structure VS the sodium fluoride "they" add to tap water. Mate nobody made an actual argument valid argument for why you where wrong, it looks like they just embarrassed you into thinking that you don't know what you're talking about because you don't have a basic chemistry background...
the truth is that we need to be very very wary of people who will passionately tell you you're dead wrong and you're a pseudo scientific moron but give you no actual reason for how you're wrong other than "you're clearly uneducated" etc, I personally have a strong medical science and chemistry background, having completed 1.5 degrees and a post-graduate qualification and I am still studying (I can't be specific because I run the risk of IDing my self but my degrees covered stock standard 1st and second year chem and several years biological and human medical science type subjects) and I want people to know that approximately zero of my emotional-investment portfolio invested into anything which surrounds water fluoridation which frees me up to concern my self solely with the task of slowly but surely exploring water fluoridation. So just like if I was studying a specific drug that I know I will be examined on at uni, I need to be studying the scientifically derived “knowns” and “unknowns” about that specific drug. Also, when I say something is “scientifically derived” I should also be able to critique the scientific methodology used.
You see, I am not at all impressed by the inability of people world-wide to remain dispassionate and not let their various emotional investments stand in the way of getting a clear toxicological/pharmacological picture of sodium fluoride treated tap water…again, why are people defending a simple ionic compound so passionately when this in reality is cut and dry? People have let a straight-forward issue become too complex by allowing themselves to be manipulated into believing that the issue of water fluoridation is much more complex than it actually is and that there is or at least should be a simple black and white answer to fluoridated water's safety concerns. (i.e. there is a popular smug arrogant line of thinking that goes; only hippies, conspiracy theorist and scientifically uneducated people would bother to question the gov about water fluoridation)
rickolasnice
Bluelighter
- Joined
- Apr 19, 2007
- Messages
- 6,810
That initial post about the flouride in SSRIs was a joke
And you're right I didn't read it properly.. I'll reply more later.
And you're right I didn't read it properly.. I'll reply more later.
Foreigner
Bluelighter
- Joined
- Mar 18, 2009
- Messages
- 8,301
I've been anti-fluoride and pro-fluoride so I'm well versed in both sides of the argument.
I grew up in a place with fluoridated water and now I live somewhere that doesn't do that. Anecdotally I do notice a difference in people's teeth. I have changed up my dental routine a lot over the years. I've tried using fluoride, tried not using it, tried using other things, etc. The routine I have now is to use a fluoride toothpaste once a week and that is perfect for me. At all other times I brush with water, floss every 24 hours, and use a peroxide dilution to sterilize my mouth.
Ingesting fluoride transforms surface level hydroxyapatite in your bone structure into fluorapatite. Topical applications for your teeth seem to be relatively harmless, though there is still ongoing research about the benefits of HA vs. FA. There are some marginal benefits, like FA has lower solubility and it thwarts plaque bacteria growth a bit, but honestly it's not that major.
I am against adding fluoride to public water by virtue of the fact I am being forced to ingest a chemical without my consent. It has more to do with that than anything else. I don't care if it's supposedly good for you or not. If I want fluoride then I'll use fluoride. Dental care is not covered by public health so if people want to avoid fluoride and maybe have tooth decay then it will be their responsibility to deal with that - but either way we have to respect their choice to not be medicated. Also, as a natural health practitioner, I know that there are other ways to keep your teeth and bones strong and healthy that do not need to involve converting your bone structure to FA. Fluoride is mostly compensating for poor mineral intake in the general population. Our society eats like shit when it comes down to it.
I'm far more concerned about medications found in drinking water than I am fluoride. In some cities people who drink water straight from the tap are getting doses of hormones, anti-depressants, etc. Our water decontamination processes are not keeping up to date with all of the new chemicals that industries are creating. THAT should scare people way more than fluoride!
I grew up in a place with fluoridated water and now I live somewhere that doesn't do that. Anecdotally I do notice a difference in people's teeth. I have changed up my dental routine a lot over the years. I've tried using fluoride, tried not using it, tried using other things, etc. The routine I have now is to use a fluoride toothpaste once a week and that is perfect for me. At all other times I brush with water, floss every 24 hours, and use a peroxide dilution to sterilize my mouth.
Ingesting fluoride transforms surface level hydroxyapatite in your bone structure into fluorapatite. Topical applications for your teeth seem to be relatively harmless, though there is still ongoing research about the benefits of HA vs. FA. There are some marginal benefits, like FA has lower solubility and it thwarts plaque bacteria growth a bit, but honestly it's not that major.
I am against adding fluoride to public water by virtue of the fact I am being forced to ingest a chemical without my consent. It has more to do with that than anything else. I don't care if it's supposedly good for you or not. If I want fluoride then I'll use fluoride. Dental care is not covered by public health so if people want to avoid fluoride and maybe have tooth decay then it will be their responsibility to deal with that - but either way we have to respect their choice to not be medicated. Also, as a natural health practitioner, I know that there are other ways to keep your teeth and bones strong and healthy that do not need to involve converting your bone structure to FA. Fluoride is mostly compensating for poor mineral intake in the general population. Our society eats like shit when it comes down to it.
I'm far more concerned about medications found in drinking water than I am fluoride. In some cities people who drink water straight from the tap are getting doses of hormones, anti-depressants, etc. Our water decontamination processes are not keeping up to date with all of the new chemicals that industries are creating. THAT should scare people way more than fluoride!
good to read your considered opinion on fluoride and tap water in general. I have heard of there being a problem with all kinds of horror in the tap water and that article on medication in the drinking water is great and a must read for anyone interested in the poisoning of tap water.
rickolasnice
Bluelighter
- Joined
- Apr 19, 2007
- Messages
- 6,810
OK.. I read it in full..
99.9% of it is discussing the neurotoxic affects of exposure to high levels of flouride..
There is a brief mentioning of this study http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21237562 suggesting that lowER levels (3ppm and below) does indeed show signs of affecting childrens IQ.. Anyone got access to the full paper?
99.9% of it is discussing the neurotoxic affects of exposure to high levels of flouride..
There is a brief mentioning of this study http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21237562 suggesting that lowER levels (3ppm and below) does indeed show signs of affecting childrens IQ.. Anyone got access to the full paper?
yeah but that's one of the major points of the article, that is there's simply not even close to enough research done on it. It's not the case that it has been proven safe, no it has been proven dangerous as low as 3mg/L and there is a lack of willingness to do the studies on 1mg/L. That's the whole problem in the first place.
Last edited:
Hi all
I have found a very good article which does an excellent job of explaining the toxicological mechanisms by which Fluoride causes disease in the body and also talk about excitotoxicity being the possible main way in which fluoride slowly works it magic..
I have read a lot about fluoride over the past couple of month but this article has made me feel genuinely frightened and angry, especially for the children exposed to fluoridated water because they are the most vulnerable to fluoride, much more than adults
EXCITOTOXICITY: A POSSIBLE CENTRAL MECHANISM IN
FLUORIDE NEUROTOXICITY
I have found a very good article which does an excellent job of explaining the toxicological mechanisms by which Fluoride causes disease in the body and also talk about excitotoxicity being the possible main way in which fluoride slowly works it magic..
I have read a lot about fluoride over the past couple of month but this article has made me feel genuinely frightened and angry, especially for the children exposed to fluoridated water because they are the most vulnerable to fluoride, much more than adults
EXCITOTOXICITY: A POSSIBLE CENTRAL MECHANISM IN
FLUORIDE NEUROTOXICITY
IntimacyAddict
Bluelighter
- Joined
- Dec 31, 2012
- Messages
- 144
Can't say I'm too concerned about fluoride toxicity at 1ppm although I mostly drink spring water anyway, but the concept of being forced to ingest a chemical just so it can wash over my teeth as apparently it can only be absorbed through the tooth enamel and does nothing positive once in the digestive tract seems a bit like being forced to wash your car with the windows down ![:\](https://bluelight.org/xf/BL_Images/Orig_Emoji/wrygrin.gif "wry grin :\")