# Sleep and Dreams > Sleep and Health >  >  Sodium Flouride's effect on the pineal gland

## ultimatedood

I think this is really important and would like to share it. I have searched for this and the latest posts are over a year old. This is a still a really good thread: http://www.dreamviews.com/f36/fluori...hmm-why-52859/

A Fluoride-Free Pineal Gland is More Important than Ever

Correct me if I'm wrong here, this is to the best of my knowledge
_Sodium_ Flouride's main target is the pineal gland, which produces dmt. Flouride is a toxin and in our water, and toothpaste. When the pineal gland is oppressed by flouride it produces less "stuff" I guess, and it also leaves the mind in a docile state.

I think we should all do this How to Remove Fluoride from Drinking Water and also brush teeth with baking soda.  

If you know any ways to detox please tell me.
Here's on site: How to Detox Fluorides from Your Body

----------


## Xei

Fluoride is not toxic in the concentrations in which it is found in drinking water.

----------


## nina

Actually the pineal gland is responsible for synthesis of Melatonin. It has only been speculated that DMT may be produced in the pineal glad, but there is no scientific evidence supporting this. Fluoride's main target is not the pineal gland, but water fluoridation does indeed have an affect on the pineal gland, which is outside of the blood brain barrier and is a calcifying tissue.

----------


## ultimatedood

Ok thanks. I don't think we should have flouride still

----------


## Pheenix

If you wish to discontinue using toothpaste, I recommend tooth soap. Look it up.

----------


## nina

There is fluoride free toothpaste you can buy at any convenience store. It's definitely not as "refreshing" feeling...but at least it's poison free.

----------


## elucid

Isnt flouride rat poison?

----------


## saltyseedog

flouride toothpaste = biggest scam ever
I heard the flouride they put in water is toxic waste from aliluminum production I think?
They put it in the water supply because its cheaper to do that than dispose of it properly.
I also heard that flouride actually eats away at your tooth enamel, but it kills the bacteria in your mouth that produce acids that eat away at your tooth enamel.
So I guess baking soda would nutralise the acid produced by the bacteria that eat sugars in your mouth.
Also you can rinse hydrogen peroxide to kill the bacteria in your mouth.

----------


## aktw4

> flouride toothpaste = biggest scam ever
> I heard the flouride they put in water is toxic waste from aliluminum production I think?
> They put it in the water supply because its cheaper to do that than dispose of it properly.
> I also heard that flouride actually eats away at your tooth enamel, but it kills the bacteria in your mouth that produce acids that eat away at your tooth enamel.
> So I guess baking soda would nutralise the acid produced by the bacteria that eat sugars in your mouth.
> Also you can rinse hydrogen peroxide to kill the bacteria in your mouth.



Where'd you hear this? I believe you, I just want to know your sources.




> Fluoride is not toxic in the concentrations in which it is found in drinking water.



Doesn't make it okay. Doesn't mean it won't affect you in the long run.

----------


## Maria92

If you brush with baking soda, you'll quickly wear your teeth away. It is quite abrasive. Once in a while is fine, but if you do it every single time, you won't have teeth for long.  :Cheeky: 

And seriously, you people are concerned over nothing. Fluoridation of drinking water has contributed to a nice improvement of overall dental health. The amounts are so tiny that they won't hurt you, and believe it or not, your body does require fluorine in minute quantities. So kindly stfu about conspiracies. Okay?  :smiley:

----------


## saltyseedog

of coarse its not... now go back to sleep sheepy

----------


## MindGames

I once did a research paper on the effects of fluoride consumption on public health, and it does seem we would be much better off without it. Excessive fluoride intake from public water supplies can cause dental fluorosis, a medical condition which discolors the teeth, among numerous other health conditions, some of which I will list below. Numerous studies have proven that fluoride is only effective when applied topically to the teeth, and not when ingested.

Main health conditions caused by fluoride intake:
-Skeletal Fluorosis (aka "Bone Disease"), an arthritic skeletal disease
-IQ deficits in children
-Damage to cells and neurotransmitters in the brain of the developing fetus
-Central Nervous System disturbances among adults
-Impaired learning and memory functions in animal studies
-Direct toxic effects of fluoride on the brain
-Genetic damage
-Dental fluorosis (mentioned above), a commonly found (20%-80%) discoloring of the teeth, negating the assertion that fluoride ingestion has any real cosmetic dental benefits
-Increased teeth porosity, leading to pitting, chipping, fracturing, and decay of teeth (belying any reasonable amount of improved overall public tooth health)
-Pineal Gland calcification, causing depressed melatonin synthesis and altered timing of sexual maturity; the Pineal Gland contains the highest levels of fluoride in the entire human body
-Reduced fertility and semen potency
-Hypothyroidism (suppressed Thyroid Gland activity)


For more detailed information and countless studies on the effects of fluoride on public health, you may go to fluoridealert.org and click on the Health Effects Database link on the left. Note the *.org*; the American Dental Association redirects fluoridealert*.com* to their own website.


Mario92, it's not much of a conspiracy theory rather than a political battle. Public water fluoridation was in no way motivated by scientific studies on its health benefits. In any case, it's not the first time our government has used misinformation to fuel their own agenda. I am in no way a paranoid conspiracy theorist; I am simply an American citizen who chooses to inform myself (and others, sometimes) on public issues concerning myself and others.

"The EPA was pressured by supporters of fluoride, however well-meaning, and by states that would have to remove excess fluoride, to raise the standard to a level that now borders on unsafe, according to EPA's own scientific review. EPA's actions were not driven by science, but by political pressure from supporters of fluoride."
- Journal of the Academy of General Dentistry, February 1987

----------


## Maria92

>implying there's actually enough fluoride in the water to actually cause any of those health issues, which there is not. 
>implying drinking water never makes contact with teeth
>implying fluoride is pure poison and has absolutely no benefit other than cosmetic dental appearance

----------


## SKA

There is also Chlorine in our drinking water.
So destilling drinking water is allways a good idea.

----------


## Maria92

> There is also Chlorine in our drinking water.
> So destilling drinking water is allways a good idea.



Chloride is a chemical the human body needs for metabolism (the process of turning food into energy). It also helps keep the body's acid-base balance. The amount of chloride in the blood is carefully controlled by the kidneys.

Chloride ions have important physiological roles. For instance, in the central nervous system, the inhibitory action of glycine and some of the action of GABA relies on the entry of Cl− into specific neurons. Also, the chloride-bicarbonate exchanger biological transport protein relies on the chloride ion to increase the blood's capacity of carbon dioxide, in the form of the bicarbonate ion.

----------


## saltyseedog

Chlorine kills the good bacteria that help you digest food. Distilled water can be good if you want to detox, but its not good for regular consumtion because it has no minerals. Also water that comes in plastic has... plastic in it.

----------


## Maria92

>again implying there's a significant enough amount of chlorine in drinking water to do any real harm

----------


## saltyseedog

well there is enough to kill bacteria

----------


## Maria92

>implying bacteria don't reproduce
>implying there is significant or long-term damage that comes from killing off the bacteria
>implying there is enough chlorine left in the water to kill the bacteria by the time it actually reaches them

----------


## MindGames

> >implying there's actually enough fluoride in the water to actually cause any of those health issues, which there is not.



Do you have any studies indicating there is not enough fluoride to cause any of those health issues? There is certainly an abundance of studies referenced on fluoridealert.org stating otherwise. Feel free to take a look sometime.  :smiley: 

In any case, I merely provided an array of health conditions caused by fluoride intake. Nowhere did I imply that all of those health conditions were caused at absolute normal levels of fluoride consumption (although I would like to point out that most of the effects of fluoride on the brain, including calcification of the pineal gland, _are_ commonly found at the regular levels of fluoride consumption of 1.0 ppm). I haven't looked too in-depth into the matter, but other health conditions I listed may also be caused at the regular fluoride dosage. Aside from that, I would like to point out that I simply stated my position on the subject; nowhere did I assume anything you are suggesting, and if I did throw in a couple statements prompting the reader to assume anything you are saying, I would like you to point them out to me so I can keep that in mind in later debates. I, as I am sure is the case with most others too, would really appreciate it if you didn't try to put words and 'assumptions' into my mouth. Thank you.  :Shades wink: 





> >implying drinking water never makes contact with teeth



Although it may have a relatively small effect, fluoridated drinking water doesn't make contact with teeth long enough to have any substantial effects. The accepted "optimal level" of fluoride in water is 1 ppm, in contrast to the level of fluoride found in most toothpaste (around 1450 ppm) which is brushed onto the entire surface of the cleaned teeth for around 60 seconds, a recommended two or three times per day. Let's say the average person brushes his or her teeth twice per day. That means an average of 120 seconds of tooth contact with toothpaste is recommended per day at a fluoride concentration of 1450 ppm.
Now consider this. The recommended amount of drinking water per day is 8 cups, which equates to about 160 swallows (see this study) per day. Let's say each swallow of water takes around two seconds to pass over the teeth, give or take half a second. That means 320 seconds of tooth contact with water is recommended per day at a fluoride concentration of 1 ppm.

To give a more accurate comparison of the two, the 120 seconds of 1450 ppm F topical dosage must be adjusted to the calculated concentration of fluoride for 320 seconds. Multiplying 120 by 2 2/3 and dividing 1450 ppm by 2 2/3 gives us 320 seconds of 543.75 ppm F. Let's compare this to the concentration of fluoride found in drinking water. 320 seconds of 1 ppm F topically applied while the water is swallowed throughout the day. That means the concentration of fluoride found in toothpaste, when topically applied, is over 540 times more effective than the contact of fluoride provided by drinking fluoridated drinking water. You would need to drink the recommended amount of publicly fluoridated water for 540 days to get the same amount of treatment provided by two one-minute sessions of tooth brushing.

One might also point out that a few cities have exceeded the optimal level of water fluoridation of 1.0 ppm and increased the fluoride concentration to up to 4.0 ppm, which is generally deemed to be borderline dangerous to one's health. If one were living in such a community, that would shorten the length of time needed to obtain the same amount of topical treatment as one day of brushing the teeth through drinking fluoridated water from 540 days to 135 days. Even at that concentration of fluoride in public water supplies, it seems as though fluoride consumption doesn't have much of an effect on tooth health according to these calculations.





> >implying fluoride is pure poison and has absolutely no benefit other than cosmetic dental appearance



As with the rest of the words you're trying to put into my mouth, I never assumed this. Since you bring the subject up, though, I do admit that the cosmetic dental effects of fluoride are in fact the most widely acknowledged effects of water fluoridation. I have read elsewhere that fluoride may have positive effects on bone health, but these assertions are subject to the same political bias as those concerning fluoride's effect on tooth health and must be treated as such, by questioning them with studies such as those generously provided by the Fluoride Action Network. I do digress, though; if fluoride _does_ have a positive effect on any part of the body (which I have yet to see solid proof of), then it is still capable of causing negative effects throughout other parts of the human body (such as the pineal gland, which was the initial concern upon creating this topic).


Good day to you, sir.

-MindGames

----------


## Maria92

And I would like to direct your attention to this source. 





> Fluoride may be ingested or applied topically. If foods containing fluoride (such as meat, fish, eggs, and tea leaves) are consumed, then *fluoride enters the bloodstream and is eventually absorbed by the teeth and bones.* Many communities add fluoride to the drinking water to ensure that the recommended levels are obtained. 
> 
> Fluoride can *also* be applied directly to teeth by a professional in a dental office. The teeth will *readily absorb topical fluoride treatments*, and the *chemical will remain in the mouth for several hours*. Less thorough topical fluoride treatments may also be applied at home using products such as toothpaste, mouthwash or mouth rinse, fluoride gels, or *fluoride supplements.*



I'd be quite wary of any source that states fluoride can only be absorbed through the teeth. Tell me...how does the bloodstream factor into your 540 day calculation? 





> Many governmental health agencies recommend that both children and adults receive some level of fluoride. Children need fluoride to protect their permanent teeth as they are forming. Adults need fluoride so that they can continue to protect teeth against tooth decay. Several groups of people could benefit especially from fluoride treatments because they have a higher risk of tooth decay.







> *When used properly, fluoride is usually considered a safe and effective tool to prevent tooth decay.* However, *high levels of fluoride exposure for extended periods of time* may result in harm. For example, dental fluorosis - a discoloration of tooth enamel - may occur if a person is exposed to too much fluoride. In addition, it is possible for a lifetime of exposure to high fluoride levels to lead to bone weakening and skeletal fluorosis (joint stiffness and pain).
> 
> More extreme, toxic effects may result if someone consumes too much fluoride. Fluoride overdose is possible, for example, if a small child consumes an entire tube of tooth paste. Symptoms include nausea, vomiting blood, diarrhea, stomach pain, salivation, watery eyes, general weakness, shallow breathing, faintness, tiredness, and convulsions.







> Although scientific research has supported the benefits of fluoride treatment in preventing tooth decay, many people question its safety and effectiveness. Several interest groups *cite recent increases in dental fluorosis and fluoride levels in water that exceed optimal levels in calling for an end to fluoridated drinking water.* They deem fluoride treatments unnecessary and less useful and more dangerous than originally thought.



And you'll note that I used the word "imply," not "state." You ARE implying, whether you intend to or not.

----------


## MindGames

Ah, I do see where my first post may have caused some confusion. Public water fluoridation is _not_ the only source of fluoride that can be ingested and therefore contribute to causing fluoride-related health conditions; it seems I should have made that more clear for you. Fluoride is also added to other sources such as toothpaste, mouthwash, (I quote your source) "meat, fish, eggs, and tea leaves"; fluoride gels, fluoride supplements, et cetera; and in the case of gels, toothpaste and mouthwash, small amounts of fluoride actually are unintentionally ingested during usage. I assure you, I did not intentionally imply that public water supplies were the only source of fluoride ingestion. My position still stands, though, that public water supplies should not be fluoridated in the first place, and I also maintain that fluoride ingestion from fluoridated water alone causes several health conditions in and of itself (which I later made clear in my second post). I also did not imply that the fluoride in fluoridated water does not make contact with the teeth; the implications, rather, were that the contact of fluoride with teeth when ingested via fluoridated water is ineffective, or not effective enough, in providing any cosmetic dental benefit. Lastly, at the levels we are ingesting fluoride via public water fluoridation and other means, I certainly do believe it is poisonous to our bodies, and may have suggested that in particular in my first post (although not that it is _pure_ poison). I certainly did not imply that fluoride does not have any other possible benefits in the human body when ingested, but even if it did have benefits, I strongly believe that the negative side effects far outweigh any potential benefits.


Onto the article you generously provided.

In response to fluoride being absorbed through the bloodstream, it is acknowledged by researchers that this method of fluoride treatment is _not_ effective; topical fluoride treatment is the only method which benefits tooth health. Take a look at my source, which has plenty of research to back up its statements: (In fact, I'd be rather wary of _your_ source when it has virtually no research sources listed, and whose primary purpose is news-related; not necessarily scientific, which is the appropriate type of source for this debate.)





> When water fluoridation first began in the 1940s, dentists believed that fluoride's main benefit came from ingesting fluoride during the early years of life. This belief held sway for over 40 years.
> 
> However, it is now acknowledged by dental researchers to be incorrect. According to the Centers for Disease Control, fluoride's predominant effect is TOPICAL (direct contact with teeth) and not systemic (from ingestion).
> 
> Hence, there is no need to ingest fluoride to derive it's purported benefit for teeth.
> 
> As stated by the US Centers for Disease Control:
> 
> "[L]aboratory and epidemiologic research suggests that fluoride prevents dental caries predominately after eruption of the tooth into the mouth, and its actions primarily are topical for both adults and children" (CDC, 1999, MMWR 48: 933-940).



Notice the sources listed on the page I got that quote from. That's what we're shooting for here. Research sources.

Unless you can provide research sources showing evidence in favor of the claims made by your "source", your assertion that fluoride is effective for treatment of teeth when absorbed through the bloodstream remains invalid. Also, some of the parts you emphasized in your first quote didn't even help prove your bloodstream theory; it has already been made known that topical fluoride treatments are readily absorbed through the teeth. That doesn't back up your first assertion at all. I realize you might have been trying to make the point that topical fluoride treatment is effective _in addition to_ fluoride ingestion, but all that does is imply that fluoride ingestion is in fact effective when in reality, you don't have research sources to back up that claim anyway. But yes, it is widely held that topical fluoride treatment is effective.  :smiley: 

Onto your second quotation.




> Many governmental health agencies recommend that both children and adults receive some level of fluoride. Children need fluoride to protect their permanent teeth as they are forming. Adults need fluoride so that they can continue to protect teeth against tooth decay. Several groups of people could benefit especially from fluoride treatments because they have a higher risk of tooth decay.



Notice that the first sentence only states that some level of fluoride is recommended, and not by what means. In any case, I am sure government agencies recommend public water fluoridation since government is responsible for putting fluoride in our water in the first place. In response to that, water fluoridation is not the only means of, and is hardly the safest and most effective method of, treating individuals with fluoride. The rest of the quote is true from what I can tell, but does not necessarily prove your point since fluoride treatments do not have to come in the form of public water fluoridation when there are safer and more effective methods of fluoride treatments than via ingestion.

Onto your third quote.





> When used properly, fluoride is usually considered a safe and effective tool to prevent tooth decay. However, high levels of fluoride exposure for extended periods of time may result in harm. For example, dental fluorosis - a discoloration of tooth enamel - may occur if a person is exposed to too much fluoride. In addition, it is possible for a lifetime of exposure to high fluoride levels to lead to bone weakening and skeletal fluorosis (joint stiffness and pain).
> 
> More extreme, toxic effects may result if someone consumes too much fluoride. Fluoride overdose is possible, for example, if a small child consumes an entire tube of tooth paste. Symptoms include nausea, vomiting blood, diarrhea, stomach pain, salivation, watery eyes, general weakness, shallow breathing, faintness, tiredness, and convulsions.



Yes, fluoride is considered a safe and effective tool to prevent tooth decay, but only when it is applied topically, and not when ingested, as I have shown. My response to the rest of the first paragraph is that, yes, there _is_ too much fluoride in publicly fluoridated water, and that, yes, some of those conditions _can_ be caused by consuming enough of it, especially when fluoride levels are raised from the harmful levels of 1 part per million to the dangerous levels of 4 parts per million, which has happened in some areas. That only proves that fluoride can be dangerous, which supports my position.
In response to the second paragraph, yes, since fluoride is a toxic substance, it is logical that if you consume large amounts of it, you are going to have some nasty side effects. That further proves how unsafe fluoride is when ingested.

Now, for the last section you quoted:





> Several interest groups cite recent increases in dental fluorosis and fluoride levels in water that exceed optimal levels in calling for an end to fluoridated drinking water. They deem fluoride treatments unnecessary and less useful and more dangerous than originally thought.



It is mentioned that the amount of fluoride in fluoridated drinking water exceeds the deemed "optimal levels" (1 ppm), and that (I will assume here that "fluoride treatment" refers to water fluoridation) water fluoridation is now deemed to be unnecessary and "more dangerous than originally thought." This adds strength to my position that public water supplies should not be fluoridated, rather than support your position. What were you trying to prove by emphasizing the fact that fluoride levels have recently increased? What must really be brought to attention is the fact that your source mentions how dangerous and unnecessary water fluoridation actually is, in contrast to what was previously deemed to be a safe and effective treatment. I tip my hat to you for quoting information in favor of my position.


Your last post seemed to largely disprove your theory that water fluoridation is beneficial. Tell me, what are you trying to prove here?
Or are you simply grasping at straws?



Til next time,

-MindGames.

 :Shades wink:

----------


## Maria92

What I want to see is a peer-reviewed scientific study that states, very clearly, that public water fluoridation carries with it significant long-term health risks, and that those health risks are the exclusive result of said public water fluoridation. Otherwise, it is a harmless practice that at least contributes to people receiving the proper level of fluoride nutrition, which is more beneficial to those who don't have access to or purchase and use products such as toothpaste and other topical treatments. It also contributes to those who don't particularly care to or are unable to consume natural sources of fluoride. 

What I don't want is you telling me the risks of fluoride poisoning from rare and unusual overdoses. What I don't want is a claim that a few instances of overfluoridation of water supplies merits the shutting down of fluoridation in entirety.

----------


## Man of Shred

We have survived thousands of years without drinking fluoridated water... I think we can survive a few thousand more without it.

----------


## Maria92

We have survived thousands of years without vaccinations, antibiotics, modern medicine, and your mother. 

Just because we can, doesn't mean we necessarily should.

----------


## saltyseedog

> >implying there is significant or long-term damage that comes from killing off the bacteria



It would make it harder on your body to digest food if its lacking in the beneficial bacteria I would think. There are certain chemicals that your body cannot break down so it needs bacteria to do it. Like in beans and brocolli that give you farts because the gas is a by product of bacteria breaking down chemicals that our bodies can't. Eating yogurt helps  :smiley:

----------


## Maria92

It would cause long-term damage, of course...provided the bacteria never divide. So long as they continue to divide into healthy colonies as fast as or faster than they are killed off, then there is no problem. So long as they are able to replenish themselves before hypothetically being killed off again from chlorine, then there is no problem. If the day-to-day, week-to-week, year-to-year balance is not significantly being directly affected by chlorine in the water supply, there is no problem.

----------


## Xei

> We have survived thousands of years without drinking fluoridated water... I think we can survive a few thousand more without it.



I would hate for you to be a massive hypocrite, so please stop using any form of modern medicine.

----------


## nina

WHY I CHANGED MY MIND ABOUT WATER FLUORIDATION 
by JOHN COLQUHOUN* 
Perspectives in Biology and Medicine, 41, 1, Autumn 1997

Former Advocate 
To explain how I came to change my opinion about water fluoridation, I must go back to when I was an ardent advocate of the procedure. I now realize that I had learned, in my training in dentistry, only one side of the scientific controversy over fluoridation. I had been taught, and believed, that there was really no scientific case against fluoridation, and that only misinformed lay people and a few crackpot professionals were foolish enough to oppose it. I recall how, after I had been elected to a local government in Auckland (New Zealand's largest city, where I practised dentistry for many years and where I eventually became the Principal Dental Officer) I had fiercely  and, I now regret, rather arrogantly  poured scorn on another Council member (a lay person who had heard and accepted the case against fluoridation) and persuaded the Mayor and majority of my fellow councillors to agree to fluoridation of our water supply.

A few years later, when I had become the city's Principal Dental Officer, I published a paper in the New Zealand Dental Journal that reported how children's tooth decay had declined in the city following fluoridation of its water, to which I attributed the decline, pointing out that the greatest benefit appeared to be in low-income areas [1]. My duties as a public servant included supervision of the city's school dental clinics, which were part of a national School Dental Service which provided regular six-monthly dental treatment, with strictly enforced uniform diagnostic standards, to almost all (98 percent) school children up to the age of 12 or 13 years. I thus had access to treatment records, and therefore tooth decay rates, of virtually all the city's children. In the study I claimed that such treatment statistics "provide a valid measure of the dental health of our child population" [1]. That claim was accepted by my professional colleagues, and the study is cited in the official history of the New Zealand Dental Association [2].

INFORMATION CONFIDED

I was so articulate and successful in my support of water fluoridation that my public service superiors in our capital city, Wellington, approached me and asked me to make fluoridation the subject of a world study tour in 1980  after which I would become their expert on fluoridation and lead a campaign to promote fluoridation in those parts of New Zealand which had resisted having fluoride put into their drinking water.

*Before I left on the tour my superiors confided to me that they were worried about some new evidence which had become available: information they had collected on the amount of treatment children were receiving in our school dental clinics seemed to show that tooth decay was declining just as much in places in New Zealand where fluoride had not been added to the water supply.* But they felt sure that, when they had collected more detailed information, on all children (especially the oldest treated, 12-13 year age group) from all fluoridated and all nonfluoridated places [3]  information which they would start to collect while was I away on my tour  it would reveal that the teeth were better in the fluoridated places: not the 50 to 60 percent difference which we had always claimed resulted from fluoridation, but a significant difference nonetheless. They thought that the decline in tooth decay in the nonfluoridated places must have resulted from the use of fluoride toothpastes and fluoride supplements, and from fluoride applications to the children's teeth in dental clinics, which we had started at the same time as fluoridation. Being a keen fluoridationist, I readily accepted their explanation. Previously, of course, we had assured the public that the only really effective way to reduce tooth decay was to add fluoride to the water supply.

WORLD STUDY TOUR

My world study tour took me to North America, Britain, Europe, Asia, and Australia [4]. In the United States I discussed fluoridation with Ernest Newbrun in San Francisco, Brian Burt in Ann Arbor, dental scientists and officials like John Small in Bethesda near Washington, DC, and others at the Centers for Disease Control in Atlanta. I then proceeded to Britain, where I met Michael Lennon, John Beale, Andrew Rugg-Gunn, and Neil Jenkins, as well as many other scientists and public health officials in Britain and Europe. Although I visited only profluoridation research centers and scientists, *I came across the same situation which concerned my superiors in New Zealand. Tooth decay was declining without water fluoridation.* Again I was assured, however, that more extensive and thorough surveys would show that fluoridation was the most effective and efficient way to reduce tooth decay. Such large-scale surveys, on very large numbers of children, were nearing completion in the United States, and the authorities conducting them promised to send me the results.

LESSON FROM HISTORY

*I now realize that what my colleagues and I were doing was what the history of science shows all professionals do when their pet theory is confronted by disconcerting new evidence: they bend over backwards to explain away the new evidence. They try very hard to keep their theory intact  especially so if their own professional reputations depend on maintaining that theory.* (Some time after I graduated in dentistry almost half a century ago, I also graduated in history studies, my special interest being the history of science  which may partly explain my reexamination of the fluoridation theory ahead of many of my fellow dentists.)

So I returned from my study tour reinforced in my pro-fluoridation beliefs by these reassurances from fluoridationists around the world. I expounded these beliefs to my superiors, and was duly appointed chairman of a national "Fluoridation Promotion Committee". I was instructed to inform the public, and my fellow professionals, that water fluoridation resulted in better children's teeth, when compared with places with no fluoridation.

Surprise: Teeth Better Without Fluoridation?

Before complying, I looked at the new dental statistics that had been collected while I was away for my own Health District, Auckland. These were for all children attending school dental clinics  virtually the entire child population of Auckland. *To my surprise, they showed that fewer fillings had been required in the nonfluoridated part of my district than in the fluoridated part. When I obtained the same statistics from the districts to the north and south of mine  that is, from "Greater Auckland", which contains a quarter of New Zealand's population  the picture was the same: tooth decay had declined, but there was virtually no difference in tooth decay rates between the fluoridated and non fluoridated places. In fact, teeth were slightly better in the nonfluoridated areas. I wondered why I had not been sent the statistics for the rest of New Zealand. When I requested them, they were sent to me with a warning that they were not to be made public. Those for 1981 showed that in most Health Districts the percentage of 12- and 13-year-old children who were free of tooth decay  that is, had perfect teeth  was greater in the nonfluoridated part of the district.* Eventually the information was published [4].

*Over the next few years these treatment statistics, collected for all children, showed that, when similar fluoridated and non-fluoridated areas were compared, child dental health continued to be slightly better in the nonfluoridated areas [5,6].* My professional colleagues, still strongly defensive of fluoridation, now claimed that treatment statistics did not provide a valid measure of child dental health, thus reversing their previous acceptance of such a measure when it had appeared to support fluoridation.

I did not carry out the instruction to tell people that teeth were better in the fluoridated areas. *Instead, I wrote to my American colleagues and asked them for the results of the large-scale surveys they had carried out there. I did not receive an answer. Some years later, Dr John Yiamouyiannis obtained the results by then collected by resorting to the U.S. Freedom of Information Act, which compelled the authorities to release them. The surveys showed that there is little or no differences in tooth decay rates between fluoridated and nonfluoridated places throughout America [7].* Another publication using the same database, apparently intended to counter that finding, reported that when a more precise measurement of decay was used, a small benefit from fluoridation was shown (20 percent fewer decayed tooth surfaces, which is really less than one cavity per child) [8]. Serious errors in that report, acknowledged but not corrected, have been pointed out, including a lack of statistical analysis and a failure to report the percentages of decay-free children in the fluoridated and nonfluoridated areas [7].

Other large-scale surveys from United States, from Missouri and Arizona, have since revealed the same picture: *no real benefit to teeth from fluoride in drinking water* [9, 10]. For example, Professor Steelink in Tucson, AZ, obtained information on the dental status of all schoolchildren  26,000 of them  as well as information on the fluoride content of Tucson water [10]. He found: "When we plotted the incidence of tooth decay versus fluoride content in a child's neighborhood drinking water, a positive correlation was revealed. *In other words, the more fluoride a child drank, the more cavities appeared in the teeth"* [11].

From other lands  Australia, Britain, Canada, Sri Lanka, Greece, Malta, Spain, Hungary, and India  a similar situation has been revealed: either little or no relation between water fluoride and tooth decay, or a positive one (more fluoride, more decay) [12- 17]. For example, over 30 years Professor Teotia and his team in India have examined the teeth of some 400,000 children. *They found that tooth decay increases as fluoride intake increases. Tooth decay, they decided, results from a deficiency of calcium and an excess of fluoride* [17].

CAUSE OF DECLINE IN TOOTH DECAY

At first I thought, with my colleagues, that other uses of fluoride must have been the main cause of the decline in tooth decay throughout the western world. But what came to worry me about that argument was the fact that, in the nonfluoridated part of my city, where decay had also declined dramatically, very few children used fluoride toothpaste, many had not received fluoride applications to their teeth, and hardly any had been given fluoride tablets. So I obtained the national figures on tooth decay rates of five-year-olds from our dental clinics which had served large numbers of these children from the 1930s on [18]. *They show that tooth decay had started to decline well before we had started to use fluorides* (Fig. 1). Also, the decline has continued after all children had received fluoride all their lives, so the continuing decline could not be because of fluoride. The fewer figures available for older children are consistent with the above pattern of decline [18]. So fluorides, while possibly contributing, could not be the main cause of the reduction in tooth decay.

So what did cause this decline, which we find in most industrialized countries? I do not know the answer for sure, but we do know that after the second world war there was a rise in the standard of living of many people. In my country there has been a tremendous increase in the consumption of fresh fruit and vegetables since the 1930s, assisted by the introduction of household refrigerators [19]. There has also been an eightfold increase in the consumption per head of cheese, which we now know has anti-decay properties [19, 20]. These nutritional changes, accompanied by a continuing decline in tooth decay, started before the introduction of fluorides.

The influence of general nutrition in protection against tooth decay has been well described in the past [21], but is largely ignored by the fluoride enthusiasts, who insist that fluorides have been the main contributor to improved dental health. The increase in tooth decay in third-world countries, much of which has been attributed to worsening nutrition [22], lends support to the argument that improved nutrition in developed countries contributed to improved dental health.

Flawed Studies

The studies showing little if any benefit from fluoridation have been published since 1980. Are there contrary findings? Yes: many more studies, published in dental professional journals, claim that there is a benefit to teeth from water fluoride. An example is a recent study from New Zealand, carried out in the southernmost area of the country [23]. Throughout New Zealand there is a range of tooth decay rates, from very high to very low, occurring in both fluoridated and nonfluoridated areas. The same situation exists in other countries.

What the pro-fluoride academics at our dental school did was to select from that southern area four communities: one nonfluoridated, two fluoridated, and another which had stopped fluoridation a few years earlier. Although information on decay rates in all these areas was available to them, from the school dental service, they chose for their study the one nonfluoridated community with the highest decay rate and two fluoridated ones with low decay rates, and compared these with the recently stopped fluoridated one, which happened to have medium decay rates (both before and after it had stopped fluoridation). The teeth of randomly selected samples of children from each community were examined. *The chosen communities, of course, had not been randomly selected.* The results, first published with much publicity in the news media, showed over 50 percent less tooth decay in the fluoridated communities, with the recently defluoridated town in a "middle" position (see left side of Fig. 2). When I obtained the decay rates for all children in all the fluoridated and all the nonfluoridated areas in that part of New Zealand, as well as the decay rates for all children in the recently defluoridated town, they revealed that there are virtually no differences in tooth decay rates related to fluoridation (see right side of Fig. 2).

When I confronted the authors with this information, they retorted that the results of their study were consistent with other studies. And of course it is true that many similar studies have been published in the dental professional literature. It is easy to see how the consistent results are obtained: an appropriate selection of the communities being compared. There is another factor: most pro-fluoridation studies (including this New Zealand one) were not "blind"  that is, the examiners knew which children received fluoride and which did not. Diagnosis of tooth decay is a very subjective exercise, and most of the examiners were keen fluoridationists, so it is easy to see how their bias could affect their results. It is just not possible to find a blind fluoridation study in which the fluoridated and nonfluoridated populations were similar and chosen randomly.

EARLY FLAWED STUDIES

One of the early fluoridation studies listed in the textbooks is a New Zealand one, the "Hastings Fluoridation Experiment" (the term "experiment" was later dropped because the locals objected to being experimented on) [24]. I obtained the Health Department's fluoridation files under my own country's "Official Information" legislation. They revealed how a fluoridation trial can, in effect, be rigged [25]. The school dentists in the area of the experiment were instructed to change their method of diagnosing tooth decay, so that they recorded much less decay after fluoridation began. Before the experiment they had filled (and classified as "decayed") teeth with any small catch on the surface, before it had penetrated the outer enamel layer. After the experiment began, they filled (and classified as "decayed") only teeth with cavities which penetrated the outer enamel layer. It is easy to see why a sudden drop in the numbers of "decayed and filled" teeth occurred. This change in method of diagnosis was not reported in any of the published accounts of the experiment.

Another city, Napier, which was not fluoridated but had otherwise identical drinking water, was at first included in the experiment as an "ideal control"  to show how tooth decay did not decline the same as in fluoridated Hastings. But when tooth decay actually declined more in the nonfluoridated control city than in the fluoridated one, in spite of the instructions to find fewer cavities in the fluoridated one, the control was dropped and the experiment proceeded with no control. (The claimed excuse was that a previously unknown trace element, molybdenum, had been discovered in some of the soil of the control city, making tooth decay levels there unusually low [26], but this excuse is not supported by available information, from the files or elsewhere, on decay levels throughout New Zealand).

The initial sudden decline in tooth decay, in the fluoridated city, plus the continuing decline which we now know was occurring everywhere else in New Zealand, were claimed to prove the success of fluoridation. These revelations from government files were published in the international environmental journal, The Ecologist, and presented in 1987 at the 56th Congress of the Australian and New Zealand Association for the Advancement of Science [27].

When I re-examined the classic fluoridation studies, which had been presented to me in the text books during my training, I found, as others had before me, that they also contained serious flaws [28-30]. The earliest set, which purported to show an inverse relationship between tooth decay prevalence and naturally occurring water fluoride concentrations, are flawed mainly by their nonrandom methods of selecting data. The later set, the "fluoridation trials" at Newburgh, Grand Rapids, Evanston, and Brantford, display inadequate baselines, negligible statistical analysis, and especially a failure to recognize large variations in tooth decay prevalence in the control communities. We really cannot know whether or not some of the tooth decay reductions reported in those early studies were due to water fluoride.

I do not believe that the selection and bias that apparently occurred was necessarily deliberate. Enthusiasts for a theory can fool themselves very often, and persuade themselves and others that their activities are genuinely scientific. I am also aware that, after 50 years of widespread acceptance and endorsement of fluoridation, many scholars (including the reviewers of this essay) may find it difficult to accept the claim that the original fluoridation studies were invalid. That is why some of us, who have reached that conclusion, have submitted an invitation to examine and discuss new and old evidence "in the hope that at least some kind of scholarly debate will ensue" [31].

However, whether or not the early studies were valid, new evidence strongly indicates that water fluoridation today is of little if any value. *Moreover, it is now widely conceded that the main action of fluoride on teeth is a topical one (at the surface of the teeth), not a systemic one as previously thought, so that there is negligible benefit from swallowing fluoride* [32].

*Harm from Fluoridation*

The other kind of evidence which changed my mind was that of harm from fluoridation. We had always assured the public that there was absolutely no possibility of any harm. We admitted that a small percentage of children would have a slight mottling of their teeth, caused by the fluoride, but this disturbance in the formation of tooth enamel would, we asserted, be very mild and was nothing to worry about. It was, we asserted, not really a sign of toxicity (which was how the early literature on clinical effects of fluoride had described it) but was only at most a slight, purely cosmetic change, and no threat to health. In fact, we claimed that only an expert could ever detect it.

HARM TO TEETH

So it came as a shock to me when I discovered that in my own fluoridated city some children had teeth like those in Fig. 3. This kind of mottling answered the description of dental fluorosis (bilateral diffuse opacities along the growth lines of the enamel). Some of the children with these teeth had used fluoride toothpaste and swallowed much of it. But I could not find children with this kind of fluorosis in the nonfluoridated parts of my Health District, except in children who had been given fluoride tablets at the recommended dose of that time.

*I published my findings: 25 percent of children had dental fluorosis in fluoridated Auckland and around 3 percent had the severer (discolored or pitted) degree of the condition[33]. At first the authorities vigorously denied that fluoride was causing this unsightly mottling. However, the following year another Auckland study, intended to discount my finding, reported almost identical prevalences and severity, and recommended lowering the water fluoride level to below 1 ppm [34]. Others in New Zealand and the United States have reported similar findings.* All these studies were reviewed in the journal of the International Society for Fluoride Research [35]. The same unhappy result of systemic administration of fluoride has been reported in children who received fluoride supplements [36]. As a result, in New Zealand as elsewhere, the doses of fluoride tablets were drastically reduced, and parents were warned to reduce the amount of fluoride toothpaste used by their children, and to caution them not swallow any. Fluoridationists would not at first admit that fluoridated water contributed to the unsightly mottling  though later, in some countries including New Zealand, they also recommended lowering the level of fluoride in the water. They still insist that the benefit to teeth outweighs any harm.

WEAKENED BONES

Common sense should tell us that if a poison circulating in a child's body can damage the tooth-forming cells, then other harm also is likely. We had always admitted that fluoride in excess can damage bones, as well as teeth.

By 1983 I was thoroughly convinced that fluoridation caused more harm than good. I expressed the opinion that some of these children with dental fluorosis could, just possibly, have also suffered harm to their bones [Letter to Auckland Regional Authority, Jan. 1984]. This opinion brought scorn and derision: there was absolutely no evidence, my dental colleagues asserted, of any other harm from low levels of fluoride intake, other than mottling of the teeth.

*Six years later, the first study reporting an association between fluoridated water and hip fractures in the elderly was published* [37]. It was a large-scale one. Computerization has made possible the accumulation of vast data banks of information on various diseases. Hip fracture rates have increased dramatically, independently of the increasing age of populations. Seven other studies have now reported this association between low water fluoride levels and hip fractures [38-44]. Have there been contrary findings? Yes; but most of the studies claiming no association are of small numbers of cases, over short periods of time, which one would not expect to show any association [45, 46]. Another, comparing a fluoridated and a nonfluoridated Canadian community, also found an association in males but not in females, which hardly proves there is no difference in all cases [47]. Our fluoridationists claim that the studies which do show such an association are only epidemiological ones, not clinical ones, and so are not conclusive evidence.

*But in addition to these epidemiological studies, clinical trials have demonstrated that when fluoride was used in an attempt to treat osteoporosis (in the belief it strengthened bones), it actually caused more hip fractures [48-52]. That is, when fluoride accumulates in bones, it weakens them. We have always known that only around half of any fluoride we swallow is excreted in our urine; the rest accumulates in our bones [53, 54]. But we believed that the accumulation would be insignificant at the low fluoride levels of fluoridated water. However, researchers in Finland during the 1980s reported that people who lived 10 years or more in that country's one fluoridated city, Kuopio, had accumulated extremely high levels of fluoride in their bones  thousands of parts per million  especially osteoporosis sufferers and people with impaired kidney function [55, 56]. After this research was published, Finland stopped fluoridation altogether. But that information has been ignored by our fluoridationists.*

BONE CANCER?

An association with hip fracture is not the only evidence of harm to bones from fluoridation. Five years ago, animal experiments were reported of a fluoride-related incidence of a rare bone cancer, called osteosarcoma, in young male rats [57]. *Why only the male animals got the bone cancer is not certain, but another study has reported that fluoride at very low levels can interfere with the male hormone, testosterone* [58]. That hormone is involved in bone growth in males but not in females.

This finding was dismissed by fluoridation promoters as only "equivocal evidence", unlikely to be important for humans. *But it has now been found that the same rare bone cancer has increased dramatically in young human males  teenage boys aged 9 to 19  in the fluoridated areas of America but not in the nonfluoridated areas [59]. The New Jersey Department of Health reported osteosarcoma rates were three to seven times higher in its fluoridated areas than in its nonfluoridated areas* [60].

Once again, our fluoridationists are claiming that this evidence does not "conclusively" demonstrate that fluoride caused the cancers, and they cite small-scale studies indicating no association. One study claimed that fluoride might even be protective against osteosarcoma [61]; yet it included only 42 males in its 130 cases, which meant the cases were not typical of the disease, because osteosarcoma is routinely found to be more common in males. Also, the case-control method used was quite inappropriate, being based on an assumption that if ingested fluoride was the cause, osteosarcoma victims would require higher fluoride exposure than those without the disease. The possibility that such victims might be more susceptible to equal fluoride exposures was ignored. All these counter-claims have been subjected to critical scrutiny which suggests they are flawed [62, 63]. Nonetheless, the pro-fluoride lobbyists continue to insist that water fluoridation should continue because, in their view, the benefits to teeth outweigh the possibility of harm. Many dispute that assessment.

OTHER EVIDENCE OF HARM

There is much more evidence that tooth mottling is not the only harm caused by fluoridated water. Polish researchers, using a new computerized method of X-ray diagnosis, reported that *boys with dental fluorosis also exhibit bone structure disturbances [64]. Even more chilling is the evidence from China that children with dental fluorosis have on average lower intelligence scores* [65, 66]. This finding is supported by a recently published animal experiment in America, which showed that fluoride also accumulated in certain areas of the brain, affecting behavior and the ability to learn [67].

Endorsements Not Universal

Concerning the oft-repeated observation that fluoridation has enjoyed overwhelming scientific endorsement, one should remember that even strongly supported theories have eventually been revised or replaced. From the outset, distinguished and reputable scientists opposed fluoridation, in spite of considerable intimidation and pressure [68, 69].

Most of the world has rejected fluoridation. Only America where it originated, and countries under strong American influence persist in the practice. Denmark banned fluoridation when its National Agency for Environmental Protection, after consulting the widest possible range of scientific sources, pointed out that the long-term effects of low fluoride intakes on certain groups in the population (for example, persons with reduced kidney function), were insufficiently known [70]. Sweden also rejected fluoridation on the recommendation of a special Fluoride Commission, which included among its reasons that: "The combined and long-term environmental effects of fluoride are insufficiently known" [71]. Holland banned fluoridation after a group of medical practitioners presented evidence that it caused reversible neuromuscular and gastrointestinal harm to some individuals in the population [72].

Environmental scientists, as well as many others, tend to doubt fluoridation. In the United States, scientists employed by the Environmental Protection Agency have publicly disavowed support for their employer's pro-fluoridation policies [73]. The orthodox medical establishment, rather weak or even ignorant on environmental issues, persist in their support, as do most dentists, who tend to be almost fanatical about the subject. In English- speaking countries, unfortunately, the medical profession and its allied pharmaceutical lobby (the people who sell fluoride) seem to have more political influence than environmentalists.

----------


## Xei

By the way, the whole pineal gland being mystical thing is nonsense, it derives from some philosophical handwaving by Descartes which was derided even by fellow philosophers in his time. It's just another gland.

----------


## nina

> By the way, the whole pineal gland being mystical thing is nonsense, it derives from some philosophical handwaving by Descartes which was derided even by fellow philosophers in his time. It's just another gland.



Regardless, it is an important gland in our brains, directly affected by the ingestion of fluoride, just like teeth and bones.

----------


## Bizarre Jester

I use reverse osmosis to remove the poison from my drinking water. I also use fluoride free toothpaste with mouth wash. So far I haven't been having a problem with tooth decay or anything like that.





> Fluoride is not toxic in the concentrations in which it is found in drinking water.



Maybe not in one drink, but long term exposure can have negative health consequences.





> flouride toothpaste = biggest scam ever
> I heard the flouride they put in water is toxic waste from aliluminum production I think?
> They put it in the water supply because its cheaper to do that than dispose of it properly.
> I also heard that flouride actually eats away at your tooth enamel, but it kills the bacteria in your mouth that produce acids that eat away at your tooth enamel.
> So I guess baking soda would nutralise the acid produced by the bacteria that eat sugars in your mouth.
> Also you can rinse hydrogen peroxide to kill the bacteria in your mouth.



This is all true, the fluoride that is in toothpaste is toxic waste. It is effective at killing bacteria, but can also kill humans. If people need to poison themselves to remove bacteria it shows how well their health is in the first place.

----------


## Tipharot

There is actually no evidence that the pineal gland produces DMT, or that DMT is linked to dreaming. I'm a huge fan of psychedelics, but their benefits are mostly in waking life not in the dreamworld. All we know about DMT in the human body is that it is found in trace amounts in the bloodstream, it's speculated that it's produced in the pineal gland but there's no evidence to actually suggest this.

However melatonin, which we all know *is* linked to sleep and dreaming, is produced there, and so yes, the pineal gland is important to dreamers and it is best to avoid things such as fluorides which can damage it.

However, it is pretty much impossible to avoid fluorides altogether (fluorides are present naturally across the world, but in small safe amounts, however due to pollution and additional sodium fluoride these levels often soar in residential areas), but if possible use a non-fluoride toothpaste (as HUGE amounts of sodium fluoride are absorbed sub-lingually when you brush your teeth) and drink mineral water rather than tap water.

----------


## Dreamsun

Fluoride causing spots on teeth, U.S. says - Health - Kids and parenting - msnbc.com


And an old link 
Study Links Fluoride to Bone Cancer in Men - Health News | Current Health News | Medical News - FOXNews.com

----------


## nina

That article has been discussed already in the News section of the forum. Thanks for sharing though.  :wink2: 

http://www.dreamviews.com/f100/ap-ex...-water-108693/

----------


## MindGames

I got bored with this debate before, but I want to jump back in. Do you guys think it's right that the government forces mass medication on the public? (Speaking of public water fluoridation, of course.)

----------


## Baron Samedi

flouride is poison, pure and simple.

----------


## Maria92

> flouride is poison, pure and simple.



Define "poison," cuz the body actually does benefit from fluoride in trace amounts. Enough of anything will make it toxic. Hell, pure distilled water can be toxic if you drink enough of it.

----------


## Baron Samedi

> Define "poison," cuz the body actually does benefit from fluoride in trace amounts. Enough of anything will make it toxic. Hell, pure distilled water can be toxic if you drink enough of it.



This is from the Material Safety Data Sheet. OSHA requires that all chemicals used in a workplace must have an MSDS, so workers know what the hazards are.


_Potential Acute Health Effects:
Hazardous in case of skin contact (irritant), of eye contact (irritant, corrosive), of ingestion, of inhalation. Slightly hazardous in
case of skin contact (corrosive). Severe over-exposure can result in death.
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.

Section 6: Accidental Release Measures
Small Spill: Use appropriate tools to put the spilled solid in a convenient waste disposal container.
Large Spill:
Poisonous solid. Stop leak if without risk. Do not get water inside container. Do not touch spilled material. Use water spray to
reduce vapors. Prevent entry into sewers, basements or confined areas; dike if needed. Call for assistance on disposal. Be
careful that the product is not present at a concentration level above TLV. Check TLV on the MSDS and with local authorities.

Precautions:
Do not ingest. Do not breathe dust. In case of insufficient ventilation, wear suitable respiratory equipment. If ingested,
seek medical advice immediately and show the container or the label. Avoid contact with skin and eyes. Keep away from
incompatibles such as oxidizing agents, metals, acids, alkali.

Routes of Entry: Inhalation. Ingestion.
Toxicity to Animals: Acute oral toxicity (LD50): 52 mg/kg [Rat].

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.

Other Toxic Effects on Humans:
Hazardous in case of skin contact (irritant), of eye contact (corrosive), of ingestion, of inhalation. Slightly hazardous in case of
skin contact (corrosive).

Special Remarks on Toxicity to Animals:
Lowest Published Lethal Dose: LDL [Human] - Route: Oral; Dose: 71 mg/kg LDL [Woman] - Route: Oral; Dose: 90 mg/kg LDL
[Woman] - Route: Oral; Dose: 360 mg/kg LDL [Mouse] - Route: Skinl; Dose: 300 mg/kg

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.

Special Remarks on other Toxic Effects on Humans:
Acute Potential Health Effects: Skin: Causes skin irritation and possible burns, especially if skin is wet or moist. Eyes: Causes
eye irritation and burns. May cause chemical conjunctivitis and corneal damage. 

Ingestion: Harmful if swallowed. Causes
digestive (gastrointestinal) tract irritation and burns. May cause severe and permanent damage to the digestive. Ingestion of
large amounts may cause salivation, thirst, nausea, vomiting, hypermotility, diarrhea, and abdominal pain. May affect behavior/
central nervous system/nervous system (headache, nervousness, dizziness, seizures, convulsions, tremor, muscle weakness,
somnolence), respiration (respiratory depression, dyspnea), cardiovascular system (weak pulse, hypotension, dysrhythmias,
cardiac arrest), liver, urinary system (polyuria, polydypsia) brain, metabolism (loss of appetite, hypcalcemia, hyperkalemia,
hypomagnesia, ), teeth, bones, and blood (changes in red and white blood cell count, interference in blood coagulation)
Inhalation: Causes irritation and chemical burns of the respiratory tract with coughing, breathing difficulty and possibly nasal
septum perforation and coma. May affect bones. Chronic Potential Heath Effects: Chronic ingestion may cause fluorosis.
Effects of fluorisis may include joint pain, weakness, limited joint mobility, brittle bones, ossifications on x-ray, thickening
of long bone cortices, calcificaiton of ligaments, osteomalacia, osteosclerosis (skeletal (bone and teeth) abnormalties) and
mottled tooth enamel. Other symptoms may include anemia, nausea, vomiting, diarrhea or constipation, kidney damage and
weight loss/anorexia. Chronic inhalation may cause bronchitis to develop with cough, phlegm, and/or shortness of breath. ,
liver (hepatic enzymes increased, jaundice), .

_
MSDS CLICK

----------


## Spartiate

It's all about concentration.  Potassium is vital for our health, but in very high concentrations it is used to stop the heart in lethal injections.  Are you going to stop eating bananas?

----------


## MindGames

The human body does not require any fluoride at all.





> fluoride is no longer considered an essential factor for human growth and development.



SOURCE: National Research Council (1993). Health Effects of Ingested Fluoride. National Academy Press, Washington DC. p. 30.





> These contradictory results do not justify a classification of fluorine as an essential element, according to accepted standards.



SOURCE: National Academy of Sciences. (1989). Recommended Dietary Allowances: 10th Edition. Commission on Life Sciences, National Research Council, National Academy Press. p. 235.


If fluoride is not an essential element, the human body can develop normally without it. We don't need any fluoride.

It is also true that fluoride makes a minimal impact on tooth health when ingested, as has been proven in numerous studies.





> it is now accepted that systemic [ingested] fluoride plays a limited role in caries prevention.



SOURCE: Pizzo G, Piscopo MR, Pizzo I, Giuliana G. (2007). Community water fluoridation and caries prevention: a critical review. Clinical Oral Investigations 11(3):189-93.


The main effect of fluoride is from topical application, as I have stated numerous times in this thread.





> the major anticaries benefit of fluoride is topical and not systemic.



SOURCE: National Research Council. (2006). Fluoride in Drinking Water: A Scientific Review of EPA's Standards. National Academies Press, Washington D.C. p 13.


Therefore, why must we ingest it if the only effect is obviously from topical application and it has been conclusively shown that fluoride has an insignificant effect on teeth when ingested? There are quite obvious health risks associated with fluoride.


And if anyone here thinks that this minimal effect on tooth health is absolutely necessary for the people who cannot afford dental care and must get this insignificant benefit from the ingestion of fluoride, why must the rest of us be forced to consume this poison, in however small concentrations, when we are already covered by dental care?


To all who are pro- fluoride ingestion, why do you fail to show any studies regarding any benefits of fluoride? You are simply making assertions which you cannot back up scientifically.

----------


## MindGames

> It's all about concentration.  Potassium is vital for our health, but in very high concentrations it is used to stop the heart in lethal injections.  Are you going to stop eating bananas?



Ah, yes, but fluoride is not. You are comparing two dissimilar substances. Potassium is healthy, but fluoride is a poison, _no matter what amount_ it is consumed in. In fact, fluoride is now considered to not be required by the human body at all in any stage of life, as I showed in my previous post.

The fact that fluoride is only added to our water in small concentrations doesn't make it only less toxic; it just makes the effects take place over a longer period of time (such as the long-term effects seen in pineal gland calcification caused by the intake of fluoride).

----------


## Maria92

Who was this directed at? As of late, all I've said is that fluoride isn't toxic in trace amounts. And trace amounts, according to the American Dental Hygienists' Association, do provide some benefit to tooth maintenance.

----------


## MindGames

The effect of fluoride ingestion is minimal. It is not enough to prevent tooth decay.





> According to a systematic review published by the Ontario Ministry of Health and Long Term Care, "The magnitude of [fluoridation's] effect is not large in absolute terms, is often not statistically significant and may not be of clinical significance." (36)



Edit: You have also previously stated that the body requires fluoride in minute quantities. I thought I'd clear that up.





> ... believe it or not, your body does require fluorine in minute quantities



Quoting your sources in the future should solve that problem.

----------


## Maria92

Require? I could have sworn I typed out benefit. Oh well, whatever. >.>

----------


## Spartiate

> (such as the long-term effects seen in pineal gland *calcification* caused by the intake of *fluoride*).



cal·ci·fi·ca·tion  (kls-f-kshn)
n.
1.
a. Impregnation with *calcium* or *calcium* salts, as with *calcium* carbonate.
b. Hardening, as of tissue, by such impregnation.
2. A calcified substance or part.
3. An inflexible, unchanging state: calcification of negotiations.


??????????????????????

----------


## nina

*It's obvious that MindGames was referring to the build up of fluoride in the pineal gland, BECAUSE it is a calcifying tissue*. 

And he is absolutely correct. It is surprising that both you and Mario seem so adamantly in denial of the fluoride issue, even though more than sufficient sources have been given numerous times to support the claims.

Also, not only does fluoride accumulate in the pineal gland, it also has indirect mechanisms of increasing calcification.





> .......normal serum concentrations of fluoride can act as a governor on  the rate of calcification with fluctuations in the serum phosphate  concentration, enhancing when the phosphate is low and inhibiting when  it is high. Higher fluoride concentrations show more enhancement and  less inhibition. 
> 
> To cut through the jargon, very high concentrations of fluoride in the body mess up the calcium metabolism, resulting in increased calcification.



*Teeth, Bones, and Pineal are all Calcifying tissues. Fluoride has been shown to have a DIRECT correlation with pineal Calcium concentrations.*





> The purpose was to discover whether fluoride (F) accumulates in the aged human pineal gland. The aims were to determine (a) F-concentrations of the pineal gland (wet), corresponding muscle (wet) and bone (ash); (b) calcium-concentration of the pineal. Pineal, muscle and bone were dissected from 11 aged cadavers and assayed for F using the HMDS-facilitated diffusion, F-ionspecific electrode method. Pineal calcium was determined using atomic absorption spectroscopy. Pineal and muscle contained 297±257 and 0.5±0.4 mg F/kg wet weight, respectively; bone contained 2,037±1,095 mg F/kg ash weight. The pineal contained 16,000±11,070 mg Ca/kg wet weight. There was a positive correlation between pineal F and pineal Ca (r = 0.73, p<0.02) but no correlation between pineal F and bone F. By old age, the pineal gland has readily accumulated F and its F/Ca ratio is higher than bone......
> 
> ...The pineal gland is a mineralizing tissue...
> 
> ...The human pineal gland is outside the blood-brain barrier [Arendt, 1995]. It is one of a few unique regions in the brain (all midline structures bordering the third and fourth ventricles) where the blood-brain barrier is weak. Cells in these regions require direct and unimpeded contact with blood [Rapoport, 1976]. Therefore, pinealocytes have free access to fluoride in the bloodstream. This fact, coupled with the presence of HA, suggest that the pineal gland may sequester fluoride from the bloodstream....
> 
> ...*Pineal fluoride and pineal calcium were directly correlated*: r = 0.73, p < 0.02, n = 10, slope= 0.02 (fig. 1). Assuming stoichiometric HA, the pineal contained an estimated 40,000 ± 27,700 mg HA/kg wet weight (11,600-93,200 mg HA/kg). The estimated F concentration of pineal HA was 9,000 ± 7,800 mg/kg (650-21,800 mg/kg). Figure 2 shows that the F/calcium ratio was higher in pineal HA than in corresponding bone HA....
> 
> ...This study has added new knowledge on the fate and distribution of fluoride in the body. It has shown for the first time that fluoride readily accumulates in the human pineal gland although there was considerable inter-individual variation (14-875 mg F/kg). By old age, the average pineal gland contains about the same amount of fluoride as teeth (300 mg F/kg) since dentine and whole enamel contain 300 and 100 mg F/kg, respectively [Newbrun, 1986]. Unlike brain capillaries, pineal capillaries allow the free passage of fluoride through the endothelium....
> ...

----------


## Maria92

Alright, first off, this isn't that big of an issue. The quantities found in drinking water 99% of the time are well within tolerable levels, i.e. no significant side effects. Second, fluoride is naturally found in some common foods. Third:





> To cut through the jargon, *very high concentrations of fluoride in the body* mess up the calcium metabolism, resulting in increased calcification.



This bit here. Trace amounts are generally harmless, and still recommended by the ADHA for proper or enhanced tooth maintenance. Fourth, can somebody please point to a source that outlines death as a result of fluoride poisoning to be a legitimately common cause of death? Fifth, I would put money on the steak you had for dinner being more harmful than a bit of fluoride in your water. Doesn't mean you should stop eating steak. Sixth, I'm more than content to have fluoride in my drinking water. I see no reason, what with everything else I expose my body to on a daily basis, to get up in arms about this issue. I seriously think you people are blowing this way out of proportion. Don't like it? Fine. Write Congress, or get a filter, or buy bottled water. But to what point or purpose? You are vastly more likely to die from stroke or heart attack or die in a crash or from cancer, or hell, from _being burned alive_ than you are from fluoride overdose. I've never read about someone passing away after a long and brutal struggle of pineal calcification. 

So what I'm saying is: what is all this fuss about?

----------


## nina

YOU SEEM TO BE FAILING TO UNDERSTAND THE FACT THAT FLUORIDE ACCUMULATES IN THE BODY TISSUES. Hence, over time...even trace amounts WILL BE PROBLEMATIC AS THEY ACCUMULATE. Haven't we said this enough? Jeez.

You have fun drinking all the fluoride you like...you seem to be majorly in denial, or apparently just really oblivious to what these poisons can do to the body even in very small amounts over time. No one is talking about fluoridated water being deadly, and the fact that you would only consider something to be a problem when it starts killing people is absolutely ridiculous but helps me to understand your stance on the situation more clearly.

----------


## nina

Ok, let me try to explain this in terms of why you should care. 

As people age, their quality of sleep and of dreams becomes less and less. This has been directly linked to calcification of the pineal gland, which is a natural process as we age. However due to things that we now commonly consume in modern life, such as fluoride, this speeds up the process of calcification in the pineal gland. This means that people are going to start having sleeping problems earlier in life, due to lack of endogenous melatonin whose synthesis gets obstructed as the pineal gland becomes more calcified. Now, can this problem be solved with something as simple as melatonin supplements? I have no idea. Somehow I doubt it, because people who have their pineals removed are put on melatonin supplements, but they still have an extremely difficult time getting a healthy amount of sleep. Also isn't it ridiculous to think that everyone will have to start taking melatonin as they age because we are destroying our pineal glands with too much fluoride in our diets?

But there are plenty of other implications that go beyond the most obvious of troubles with sleep and dreaming. Such things have already been mentioned in this thread...cancer, early puberty in girls, skeletal fluorosis, and dental fluorosis, just to name a few. If none of these things are of particular importance to you, then I guess you really have no reason to post further in this thread.

----------


## MindGames

> Alright, first off, this isn't that big of an issue. The quantities found in drinking water 99% of the time are well within tolerable levels, i.e. no significant side effects.



Sources?
Here, let me give you an example.

Over the past ten years a large body of peer-reviewed science has raised concerns that fluoride may present unreasonable health risks, particularly among children, at levels routinely added to tap water in American cities.
ENVIRONMENTAL WORKING GROUP, July 2005.





> Second, fluoride is naturally found in some common foods.



So what? That doesn't make it any healthier. Fluoride is still toxic to the human body, no matter what the source is. Also, if fluoride is already found naturally in common foods (which, I might add, make more contact with teeth since it is chewed), then why is it being added to our water? That's additional, unnecessary fluoride. If anything, we should be trying to _reduce_ our fluoride consumption if it is found in common foods.





> Third:
> 
> This bit here. Trace amounts are generally harmless, and still recommended by the ADHA for proper or enhanced tooth maintenance.



Do you have any studies saying that trace amounts are harmless, or are you just bullshitting? Of course if you were to just drink a couple cups of fluoridated water it wouldn't do much harm, but that's not the case with long-term exposure.
The accumulation of fluoride does long-term damage in the body, and fluoride does accumulate in the pineal gland over time. When it does so, it alters melatonin production and alters the onset of sexual maturity (this was found in gerbils).

The effects of fluoride _ingestion_ on tooth health are minimal. How many times have I said that? The only real effect is topical application.





> Fourth, can somebody please point to a source that outlines death as a result of fluoride poisoning to be a legitimately common cause of death?



Nobody has argued that fluoride will kill you (other than in my first post, which I listed legitimate causes of death, however uncommon; the main thing I was trying to point out was the negative health effects caused by fluoride). What you have to understand is that fluoride accumulates over time, and result in an overall decrease in the quality of life by slowly accumulating in tissues such as the pineal gland. Considering this is a lucid dreaming forum and that melatonin plays a huge role in dreaming, I'm surprised you don't find fluoride accumulation in the pineal gland to be a very big concern.
To give you another example, long-term fluoride exposure damages the kidneys and decreases their ability to rid the body of fluoride, accelerating the buildup of fluoride in the body. Bearing in mind that fluoride is toxic to the human body, increasing the concentrations of fluoride in the human body should have negative overall health effects; and therefore decrease the quality of life over time.

Anyway, why does a chemical have to kill you to be undesirable? I've already shown that fluoride has negative cumulative health effects.





> Fifth, I would put money on the steak you had for dinner being more harmful than a bit of fluoride in your water. Doesn't mean you should stop eating steak.



Therefore, just because fluoride is less harmful than other things, we should continue to consume it? Hell, why don't we just add a bit of uranium in our water? As long as it's less harmful than a steak in the short run, it shouldn't do too much harm, right?
Think about what you're saying. Steak is essential for nourishment. Fluoride is not. Hell, fluoridated tap water isn't even essential for _tooth health_. Toothpaste is. Simply brushing with toothpaste is many times more effective than consuming fluoride, which degenerates your overall health in the process. Fluoridated tap water is not going to prevent you from getting cavities, nor will it increase your tooth health by very much.





> Sixth, I'm more than content to have fluoride in my drinking water. I see no reason, what with everything else I expose my body to on a daily basis, to get up in arms about this issue.



Yeah, let's allow the public health to slowly degenerate. As long as each source of poison doesn't decrease our quality of life by _too_ much, there's no reason to address each problem.

Fluoride has noticeable negative effects on the human body. I, for one, would like to minimize the amount of unnecessary damage to my body, and I am sure many Americans would agree with me. If you desire fluoride in your water, fluoridate it yourself.

----------


## Spartiate

Everywhere I look I find tons of sources claiming the impact of fluoride is positive and that any negatives are cosmetic or inconclusive.  Most of the adamant negative critics come from holistic remedy sites and conspiracy theorists.  I have never heard of anybody having any issue with fluoridated water.  Hell even people not connected to an aqueduct (like me) use ground water that has small concentrations of fluoride salts.

Anyways my real question here is, if fluoride is so harmful, then why does the government spend millions of dollars introducing and controlling it in the water flow?  This is especially relevant in countries with universal healthcare like Canada or the UK where the government would have to directly pay for the damage done.

----------


## Maria92

> Therefore, just because fluoride is less harmful than other things, we should continue to consume it? Hell, why don't we just add a bit of uranium in our water? As long as it's less harmful than a steak in the short run, it shouldn't do too much harm, right?
> Think about what you're saying. Steak is essential for nourishment. Fluoride is not. Hell, fluoridated tap water isn't even essential for tooth health. Toothpaste is. Simply brushing with toothpaste is many times more effective than consuming fluoride, which degenerates your overall health in the process. Fluoridated tap water is not going to prevent you from getting cavities, nor will it increase your tooth health by very much.



Just cherry-picking here. But steak is not required for nourishment. Vegetarians and vegans can attest to this. So if it is so bad for you, why do you continue to consume it? All you have to do is stop eating meat. If you want to cut out fluoride, all you have to do is buy distilled water or install a filter. So much of what you do on a routine basis is far worse for you than fluoride. If you live such a pristine, healthy lifestyle that water fluoridation is such a big concern for you, then kudos. But for the average person, water fluoridation isn't even in the top 10 concerns. Calcification of the pineal gland isn't exactly a dire concern for most people. Kinda hard to care about it when it doesn't really kick in until later in life, when you have a good chance of battling cholesterol or cancer or Alzheimer's. You know...things that can do some immediate, serious damage. 

So yeah, if you feel like getting water fluoridation taken away, then be my guest. I won't stop you, I won't debate you, I won't care. But I think there are certainly more pressing concerns that could be addressed.

----------


## aktw4

> Just cherry-picking here. But steak is not required for nourishment. Vegetarians and vegans can attest to this. So if it is so bad for you, why do you continue to consume it? All you have to do is stop eating meat. If you want to cut out fluoride, all you have to do is buy distilled water or install a filter. So much of what you do on a routine basis is far worse for you than fluoride. If you live such a pristine, healthy lifestyle that water fluoridation is such a big concern for you, then kudos. But for the average person, water fluoridation isn't even in the top 10 concerns. Calcification of the pineal gland isn't exactly a dire concern for most people. Kinda hard to care about it when it doesn't really kick in until later in life, when you have a good chance of battling cholesterol or cancer or Alzheimer's. You know...things that can do some immediate, serious damage. 
> 
> So yeah, if you feel like getting water fluoridation taken away, then be my guest. I won't stop you, I won't debate you, I won't care. But I think there are certainly more pressing concerns that could be addressed.



A filter won't filter out fluoride.

*Edit:* I don't get it. Are you really saying that the health impacts are too small for anyone to worry about? Oh please.





> Everywhere I look I find tons of sources claiming the impact of fluoride is positive and that any negatives are cosmetic or inconclusive.  Most of the adamant negative critics come from *holistic remedy sites and conspiracy theorists.*



You are simply being ignorant. "It's a conspiracy" What a terrible argument.

----------


## aktw4

--double post--

----------


## Maria92

> A filter won't filter out fluoride.



yes it will





> *Edit:* I don't get it. Are you really saying that the health impacts are too small for anyone to worry about? Oh please.



Are you saying that the health effects are significantly severe enough to justify the effort required to remove fluoridation from our water supplies? It's one thing to badmouth it on a forum...quite another to actually get the government to change. Considering _all the other shit out there you're exposed to on a daily basis that is far worse for you,_ is this really the best use of your time?

----------


## nina

> Are you saying that the health effects are significantly severe enough to justify the effort required to remove fluoridation from our water supplies?



Who said anything about getting them to _remove_ it? I just want them to stop adding more of it.  ::?:

----------


## Spartiate

> You are simply being ignorant. "It's a conspiracy" What a terrible argument.



Thank you for putting words in my mouth.  What a terrible debating tactic.

Do you have anything substantial to add or are you just here to fulfill your need for rebellion against the establishment and their sheeple?

----------


## MindGames

> Do you have anything substantial to add or are you just here to fulfill your need for rebellion against the establishment and their sheeple?



Hahaha.





> Are you saying that the health effects are significantly severe enough to justify the effort required to remove fluoridation from our water supplies? It's one thing to badmouth it on a forum...quite another to actually get the government to change. Considering _all the other shit out there you're exposed to on a daily basis that is far worse for you,_ is this really the best use of your time?



As Aquanina said, all I really want is for them to stop adding excess fluoride to the products and water we consume. I'm convinced that the aluminum industry simply doesn't want to dispose of fluoride properly, so they add it to the public's water to save a couple bucks. It has no real health benefits from consuming it, as I've shown.

If fluoride is really that insubstantial, then why do you waste your time debating about it? It's obviously important enough for the people who want the government to stop adding fluoride to our water. You're not going to change the fact that we're concerned about it.

If you're wondering why I'm so concerned, well, I just don't want fluoride having a negative impact on my body. It's the fact that the government adds _unnecessary_ extra amounts of fluoride that makes me concerned about the matter. I'm not going to let my body deteriorate _in any unnecessary way_ for the benefit of some already-rich aluminum corporation.

I don't know, call it being American. I care about my life and personal freedoms. I am also aware that the government is more than willing to let this country go to shit, as is more than evident in our country's current state. If exposing the issue of fluoride increases the American public's awareness of the reality of our leaders' motives, then maybe they'll be more concerned about other matters which serve private agendas, such as the COICA bill introduced by Congress which tries to censor the Internet with a complete disregard for our freedoms (I'm speaking of our right to innocence until _proven_ guilty), bills like the Patriot act, DADT, etc. You have the right to not care about certain matters or focus your attention on other things, but every issue needs to be addressed, especially those which affect millions of American lives in the case of public water fluoridation.

----------


## Maria92

> If you're wondering why I'm so concerned, well, I just don't want fluoride having a negative impact on my body. It's the fact that the government adds _unnecessary_ extra amounts of fluoride that makes me concerned about the matter. I'm not going to let my body deteriorate _in any unnecessary way_ for the benefit of some already-rich aluminum corporation.



Welcome to capitalism. Beautiful thing, ain't it? [/sarcasm] Srsly, aluminum plants aren't the only ones taking advantage of you. 





> I don't know, call it being American. I care about my life and personal freedoms. I am also aware that the government is more than willing to let this country go to shit, as is more than evident in our country's current state. If exposing the issue of fluoride increases the American public's awareness of the reality of our leaders' motives, then maybe they'll be more concerned about other matters which serve private agendas, such as the COICA bill introduced by Congress which tries to censor the Internet with a complete disregard for our freedoms (I'm speaking of our right to innocence until _proven_ guilty), bills like the Patriot act, DADT, etc. You have the right to not care about certain matters or focus your attention on other things, but every issue needs to be addressed, especially those which affect millions of American lives in the case of public water fluoridation.



See, COICA is something I consider a valid threat. It has _huge_ implications for the future freedom of America, and the internet as a whole. And it is something I actively worked against. But consuming something that may or may not interrupt my sleep cycle until I'm an old man with significantly more important health concerns, I don't find so pressing. At any rate, to prevent them from adding more to what's already there (assuming there are actually plans to do so), you're looking at writing your congressman or funding some lobbyists. If you think this is the best use of your resources, then by all means, go right ahead.

----------


## Moto

> What I want to see is a peer-reviewed scientific study that states, very clearly, that public water fluoridation carries with it significant long-term health risks, and that those health risks are the exclusive result of said public water fluoridation. Otherwise, it is a harmless practice that at least contributes to people receiving the proper level of fluoride nutrition, which is more beneficial to those who don't have access to or purchase and use products such as toothpaste and other topical treatments. It also contributes to those who don't particularly care to or are unable to consume natural sources of fluoride. 
> 
> What I don't want is you telling me the risks of fluoride poisoning from rare and unusual overdoses. What I don't want is a claim that a few instances of overfluoridation of water supplies merits the shutting down of fluoridation in entirety.



 
Here you go
NTEU 280 Fluoride
 You can get the study at the bottom in the sources.  Also less melatonin = less DMT .  Also less melatonin = less restful sleep.  Less restful sleep = more tired during day, more dependance on caffeinated beverages, which lock you into a "happy" state of non-creative action and thought, albeit faster.  

Also you should look up Seduction of the Innocent , its this book by this Swiss psychiatrist who talks about how the suggestive imagery of comic books caused violent action, how the suggestive imagery also caused a predisposition towards any behavior illustrated.  This caused mass censorship of comic books by the proactive decisions and actions by parents.  Considering modern day television, music, and all forms of entertainment is much more suggestive than a comic book, and doesn't leave room for imagination, it begs the mind to consider the implications of a government completely disregarding the development of its youth to such a large degree.  Considering China has just taken over the US at all levels, it shows that we as a society have been "sheeple" for too long. 

SOOOOOOooooooooo





> Alright, first off, this isn't that big of an issue. The quantities found in drinking water 99% of the time are well within tolerable levels, i.e. no significant side effects.



Is incorrect, see link and sources above.  





> You are simply being ignorant. "It's a conspiracy" What a terrible argument.



Comment based off of insufficient data, see link above, research on who lobbies EPA for environmental policies, and then make accurate judgements.  Thanks.





> But consuming something that may or may not interrupt my sleep cycle until I'm an old man with significantly more important health concerns, I don't find so pressing.



It affects your sleep cycle as soon as it is in your system in enough concentrations other than your teeth and gums.  

Anyways, my grandfather is a dentist...so I sort of know my shit on this subject cause we have had long talks on it, and he educated me( calling me a dumbass and a cretan all the while LOL; I was like 14 at the time).  I thought I knew it all.  I still don't.  This is my judgements on the data I have RIGHT NOW.  Who knows, maybe cleaning the flouride out of your system from a long term nervous system supression causes a MASSIVE REM REBOUND, causing intensely long lucid dreams all night long  ::lol::  .  I have my doubts...but who knows?  Anyways.  Thanks for the links on cleaning my system out- much thanks.

----------


## aktw4

> Thank you for putting words in my mouth.  What a terrible debating tactic.







> *holistic remedy sites and conspiracy theorists.*



???





> Do you have anything substantial to add or are you just here to fulfill your need for rebellion against the establishment and their sheeple?



No. 





> Are you saying that the health effects are significantly severe enough to justify the effort required to remove fluoridation from our water supplies? It's one thing to badmouth it on a forum...quite another to actually get the government to change. Considering _all the other shit out there you're exposed to on a daily basis that is far worse for you,_ is this really the best use of your time?



You make it sound like taking fluoride out of the water is difficult. How about just stop dumping it in there?

I know this shouldn't be on your list of top ten things to worry about, but this is a thread on fluoride.

----------


## Maria92

> You make it sound like taking fluoride out of the water is difficult. How about just stop dumping it in there?
> 
> I know this shouldn't be on your list of top ten things to worry about, but this is a thread on fluoride.



Heheh. Water fluoridation is a process overseen, controlled, and implemented by the U.S. Government. Good luck getting THAT changed. Seriously....have you seen how our gov't operates? It's not as easy as "stop adding it." I've pointed out methods of distillation and commercially available filters designed to remove fluoride, as has the OP. If it concerns you, then get a filter, buy bottled water, or try to get fluoridation repealed (hahah, yeah right). While you're doing that, I'll be off having the good fortune to live off of unfluoridated well water.

----------


## MindGames

I agree with you on that point, Mario. It's not going to be an easy process to get the government to stop adding fluoride to our water.

Regardless of that, though, they shouldn't be adding it to our water in the first place.






> While you're doing that, I'll be off having the good fortune to live off of unfluoridated well water.



Ah, so you believe that having unfluoridated water is good fortune. So do I. Unfortunately, I have to buy mine.

----------


## Spartiate

How many people here know that there is already fluoride levels in a lot of the world's groundwater equal or higher to that found in aqueducts.  Yet we've been surviving off of wells for thousands of years.

Some places in Asia have really badly contaminated groundwater and symptoms of fluoride poisoning can clearly be seen (mostly through bone problems), symptoms that we don't find in developed countries that practise water fluoridation.

----------


## MindGames

The goal isn't to just survive. It's to increase the quality of life.

Fluoride is poison, no matter what the source is.

----------


## Spartiate

So why does the government add fluoride to our water, why does toothpaste contain fluoride, why do dentists clean you with fluoride foam and mouthwash?

If fluoride is only poison, then who got the bright idea to use it everywhere?

----------


## MindGames

I don't know exactly what the government's purpose is for adding fluoride to our water. My guess is that the aluminum industry is paying the government to put fluoride in public water supplies so that they don't have to dispose of it properly. Proper fluoride disposal is probably very costly.

Dentists don't make you swallow fluoride, so I don't have a problem with fluoride use there. Fluoride is beneficial for tooth health when used in toothpaste and fluoride foam/mouthwash (this is known as topical treatment).

e: The benefits of fluoride and the proper/effective methods of treatment have already been discussed here, so I recommend you read the entire thread. Lots of useful information has already been posted.

----------


## Spartiate

I want to hear from you how the mechanics of fluoride in the body positively affect dental hygiene, because you don't seem to understand the well established benefits.

In my country and many others, the government pays for our healthcare.  Why would the government deliberately poison citizens if they end up paying for it in the long run?  You're not looking at the big picture.

----------


## MindGames

Fluoride doesn't affect dental hygiene once it's in the body. Fluoride only has positive dental effects when topically applied. Once fluoride is in the body it accumulates in the pineal gland and negatively affects the kidneys, thyroid gland, and the bones, among other things.

Honestly, I'm not your government, so I don't know their exact reasons for putting it in. Nobody here has given any good reasons for fluoride being in our drinking water. My point of view is that fluoride shouldn't be in there in the first place if it is toxic to the human body when consumed.

----------


## Spartiate

How can you criticize what you don't understand?  Ingestion of fluoride inevitably leads to it ending up in your saliva in small concentrations, which means constant topical application.  When the natural enamel of your teeth is demineralized by the acid produced by dental bacteria, it chemically binds to the fluoride ions in your saliva to form a new, stronger, more acid resistant mineral.  When acid levels drop, this mineral coats the teeth forming a protective layer.

Remineralisation of teeth - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A century ago, doctors were researching why kids in a certain region of Colorado had oddly stained teeth.  They discovered that it was because of high fluoride levels in the groundwater of that region, and also that these kids had fewer cavities than average.  They developed the idea into what it is today.  Countries around the world have been adding fluoride to their drinking water for over 50 years, and the only accepted negative side effect has been mild dental fluorosis, which is mostly cosmetic.

And that is why the government _spends_ millions of dollars to put fluoride in your water.

----------


## Caradon

I avoid drinking tap water as much as possible. I drink spring water in hope that there will be at least less fluoride in it. I've considered getting a fluoride test kit and filter to remove even whats in the spring water I drink.  I've tried fluoride free toothpaste, but I have very sensitive teeth and when I don't use Sensodyne it can get painful. I just try not to swallow any or drink any water for a while after brushing. I don't know if there is any fluoride free toothpaste for sensitive teeth.

----------


## Spartiate

You sound terrified.

----------


## Maria92

> How many people here know that there is already fluoride levels in a lot of the world's groundwater equal or higher to that found in aqueducts.  Yet we've been surviving off of wells for thousands of years.
> 
> Some places in Asia have really badly contaminated groundwater and symptoms of fluoride poisoning can clearly be seen (mostly through bone problems), symptoms that we don't find in developed countries that practise water fluoridation.



Neato. I ended up running a battery of tests as part of a high school chemistry class to see what exactly is in my tap water. The only thing I found was a slightly above average concentration of calcium. 





> Ah, so you believe that having unfluoridated water is good fortune. So do I. Unfortunately, I have to buy mine.



I don't really care one way or another, but seeing how you all are so damn paranoid about a little bit of fluoride, I figure I might as well rub it in a little.  :wink2:

----------


## Caradon

> You sound terrified.



Not really lol. I just don't want anything messing up my dreams. Even without the fluoride risk I'd be drinking my spring water. It tastes way better. And since I drink mostly water I figure I may as well have the best tasting water.  :smiley:

----------


## Maria92

Partially relevant.

----------


## aktw4

> You sound terrified.



im scared

----------


## MindGames

> I don't really care one way or another, but seeing how you all are so damn paranoid about a little bit of fluoride, I figure I might as well rub it in a little.



 ::roll:: 

I'm not paranoid. I'm just looking out for my health.

Nice debate tactics, by the way. How often do you feel the urge to insult people who don't agree with your point of view?

----------


## Maria92

> I'm not paranoid. I'm just looking out for my health.



By targeting one of the most minor influences of it. 





> Nice debate tactics, by the way. How often do you feel the urge to insult people who don't agree with your point of view?



Hmm? I see no insult. But otherwise, all the time. It's rather fun.

----------


## nina

I'm convinced that Spartiate works for the government.

----------


## MindGames

Son of a bitch, my proxy fucked up. I'll re-post my reply in a couple hours.

----------


## Moto

> How can you criticize what you don't understand?



My Grandfathers a dentist...so...I understand much better than a wikipedia article, one that I have read as well.  The topical application of flouride at your dentist office is more than enough.  





> Ingestion of fluoride inevitably leads to it ending up in your saliva in small concentrations, which means constant topical application.  When the natural enamel of your teeth is demineralized by the acid produced by dental bacteria, it chemically binds to the fluoride ions in your saliva to form a new, stronger, more acid resistant mineral.  When acid levels drop, this mineral coats the teeth forming a protective layer.
> 
> Remineralisation of teeth - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> A century ago, doctors were researching why kids in a certain region of Colorado had oddly stained teeth.  They discovered that it was because of high fluoride levels in the groundwater of that region, and also that these kids had fewer cavities than average.  They developed the idea into what it is today.  Countries around the world have been adding fluoride to their drinking water for over 50 years, and the only accepted negative side effect has been mild dental fluorosis, which is mostly cosmetic.



READ ARTICLE BELOW.




> And that is why the government _spends_ millions of dollars to put fluoride in your water.



And why don't they spend those millions in buying direct topical flouride for everyone?  Why is the government so concerned about peoples f***ing teeth, but not their literacy status?  Ad Absurdum?  Yes, that is what the this country has gotten to.  I would say Ultra Ad Absurdum.  

YO SPARTIATE, READ THIS BEFORE YOU OPEN YOUR TRAP AGAIN THANKS.
NTEU 280 Fluoride
Misuse through ignorance through not enough human testing.  Then when human testing came out through mass human testing, covering up.  Why?  I leave you to decode that.  Then again, if you constantly ingest flouride, may be a little harder for you.

----------


## aktw4

> By targeting one of the most minor influences of it.



 No. We should not ignore all minor issues simply because they are minor.





> --wall of text--

----------


## MindGames

Thank you for that article, Moto. That explains everything I've been saying about water fluoridation, and more. When you see all of the effects in one document, it makes it more clear how harmful fluoride is, when it is unnecessary to be consumed at all.

----------


## Spartiate

> My Grandfathers a dentist...so...I understand much better than a wikipedia article, one that I have read as well.  The topical application of flouride at your dentist office is more than enough.



I wasn't addressing you.You don't inherit your grandfather's doctorate.I have no way of knowing if your granfather is a good dentist, or even a dentist at all.

How often do you go to the dentist, every six months, every year?  And for many more people the answer is never.  How often do you have saliva in your mouth?






> READ ARTICLE BELOW.



Couple points of bias in that article.  They claim that the standard level of fluoride in drinking water was set at 4 mg/L.  In reality, this is the _maximum_ allowable limit (termed "Maximum Contaminant Level" by the EPA).  They tested rats, rats are not humans.  They mention children affected by fluoride in China, but don't mention the concentration of fluoride.  Asia is well known for having highly contaminated ground water and natural fluoride poisoning.  There is no artificial water fluoridation in China.  The article claims that current levels of Fluoride in the United States are sufficient to cause a significant number of moderate to severe dental fluorosis cases.  This is what severe dental fluorosis looks like, how many people have you met with teeth like this?





> And why don't they spend those millions in buying direct topical flouride for everyone?



Because it's far cheaper to put it in the water and everybody happens to have running water in their house which is pretty convenient.





> Why is the government so concerned about peoples f***ing teeth, but not their literacy status?



Because people need teeth to eat.  As far as I know, literacy rates are no longer calculated in the United States because they are so high.  For statistical reasons, they are estimated at 99%.





> YO SPARTIATE, READ THIS BEFORE YOU OPEN YOUR TRAP AGAIN THANKS.



You sound angry, I hope you haven't been bothered by any tooth pain lately?





> NTEU 280 Fluoride



Here is a much bigger article:

Recommendations for Using Fluoride to Prevent and Control Dental Caries in the United States





> Misuse through ignorance through not enough human testing.  Then when human testing came out through mass human testing, covering up.  Why?  I leave you to decode that.  Then again, if you constantly ingest flouride, may be a little harder for you.



50 years of widespread use in the general population of many countries is "testing" enough.  Turns out we're all fine.

----------


## Maria92

> No. We should not ignore all minor issues simply because they are minor.



But by investing so much energy into this one tiny aspect of your life...it's tantamount to complaining about someone's second hand smoke, and then huffing down half a box of cigars yourself. If you're _really_ concerned about your health, and not just jumping on the hipster "fluoride is bad for you, man" bandwagon, then there are far easier and cheaper steps you can take right now to a healthy life. Oh yeah, and they'll be severely more beneficial than dodging the maybe side effects of fluoride. 

So I'll ask again: what is all this fuss about? Y'know, I could see getting up in arms about cyanide or plutonium or arsenic in the water supply. Those are toxins that can and will do substantial damage. _This is fluoride._ Seriously?

----------


## monk3y

just a question..

would calcium ions have the same calcifying effects as fluoride?

----------


## MindGames

> But by investing so much energy into this one tiny aspect of your life...it's tantamount to complaining about someone's second hand smoke, and then huffing down half a box of cigars yourself. If you're really concerned about your health, and not just jumping on the hipster "fluoride is bad for you, man" bandwagon, then there are far easier and cheaper steps you can take right now to a healthy life. Oh yeah, and they'll be severely more beneficial than dodging the maybe side effects of fluoride. 
> 
> So I'll ask again: what is all this fuss about? Y'know, I could see getting up in arms about cyanide or plutonium or arsenic in the water supply. Those are toxins that can and will do substantial damage. This is fluoride. Seriously?



This is a debate about the harmful effects of fluoride. It's not a protest. We're simply discussing about whether or not it's necessary to add fluoride to our water supplies when studies have shown that it has little to no effect on tooth health, regardless of its processes once ingested. In reality, not much energy is being invested into this discussion at all, and all you're doing is blowing our concern out of proportion. You're probably the only one wasting their time here when all you do is constantly point out that you don't give a flying fuck about fluoride and that everybody should agree with you. Here's a thought: if you want to show us that fluoride isn't substantially harmful when ingested, then why don't you point out some studies showing this? We have already shown that fluoride _does_ have negative health effects when ingested, substantial enough to be concerned about, and are convinced that these outweigh the dental benefits it is claimed to provide. Also, notice that in your comparison to second hand smoke, you implied that we are not taking any action to be healthy in other ways. This is simply not true, at least not in my case. I agree that it would be ridiculous to focus entirely on an insignificant matter if there were other, much more substantial things in my control to focus on. First of all, though, you assume that those in opposition to fluoride dedicate a large amount of their time and energy in opposition to it. No. I am simply in opposition, and am only debating the matter here to further educate myself on the subject and prove my position. Second, I am unaware of anything much more substantial in my life that I should be concerned about. I lead a fairly healthy lifestyle; not the best, but a lifestyle which is easy enough to lead to be focused on things other than just my health, such as my life in general. If I can increase my health in a passive way over the course of time, such as in the case of halting fluoride ingestion, I will do so, simply for the purpose of positively affecting my health in the long run. I am not petitioning Congress to enact laws banning water fluoridation; I am simply showing that I think that's what _should_ happen.

Are we clear on this? Now can you stop bitching about how you think those in opposition to fluoride are just a bunch of paranoid hippies? Thank you.

 ::roll::

----------


## aktw4

> But by investing so much energy into this one tiny aspect of your life...it's tantamount to complaining about someone's second hand smoke, and then huffing down half a box of cigars yourself. If you're _really_ concerned about your health, and not just jumping on the hipster "fluoride is bad for you, man" bandwagon, then there are far easier and cheaper steps you can take right now to a healthy life. Oh yeah, and they'll be severely more beneficial than dodging the maybe side effects of fluoride. 
> 
> So I'll ask again: what is all this fuss about? Y'know, I could see getting up in arms about cyanide or plutonium or arsenic in the water supply. Those are toxins that can and will do substantial damage. _This is fluoride._ Seriously?



Fluoride is bad for you, man.  People are going to cry over fluoride in our water, what does it matter to you? Why convince them that they are wrong?

Fluoridation in water is obviously an issue, as people have gone out of their way to look into it, and have decided to convince people that it is bad. Doesn't that tell you something?





> This is a debate about the harmful effects of fluoride. It's not a protest. We're simply discussing about whether or not it's necessary to add fluoride to our water supplies when studies have shown that it has little to no effect on tooth health, regardless of its processes once ingested. In reality, not much energy is being invested into this discussion at all, and all you're doing is blowing our concern out of proportion. You're probably the only one wasting their time here when all you do is constantly point out that you don't give a flying fuck about fluoride and that everybody should agree with you. Here's a thought: if you want to show us that fluoride isn't substantially harmful when ingested, then why don't you point out some studies showing this? We have already shown that fluoride _does_ have negative health effects when ingested, substantial enough to be concerned about, and are convinced that these outweigh the dental benefits it is claimed to provide. Also, notice that in your comparison to second hand smoke, you implied that we are not taking any action to be healthy in other ways. This is simply not true, at least not in my case. I agree that it would be ridiculous to focus entirely on an insignificant matter if there were other, much more substantial things in my control to focus on. First of all, though, you assume that those in opposition to fluoride dedicate a large amount of their time and energy in opposition to it. No. I am simply in opposition, and am only debating the matter here to further educate myself on the subject and prove my position. Second, I am unaware of anything much more substantial in my life that I should be concerned about. I lead a fairly healthy lifestyle; not the best, but a lifestyle which is easy enough to lead to be focused on things other than just my health, such as my life in general. If I can increase my health in a passive way over the course of time, such as in the case of halting fluoride ingestion, I will do so, simply for the purpose of positively affecting my health in the long run. I am not petitioning Congress to enact laws banning water fluoridation; I am simply showing that I think that's what _should_ happen.
> 
> Are we clear on this? Now can you stop bitching about how you think those in opposition to fluoride are just a bunch of paranoid hippies? Thank you.



Wow, formatting dude. I can't read this.

*Edit:* Actually, listen to this guy. His debating skills obviously surpass mine.

----------


## Spartiate

> just a question..
> 
> would calcium ions have the same calcifying effects as fluoride?



No, the idea is binding the fluoride ions to the dissolved calcium-containing crystals of the enamel to create a harder substance.







> Fluoridation in water is obviously an issue, as people have gone out of their way to look into it, and have decided to convince people that it is bad. Doesn't that tell you something?



People will complain about everything.  Haven't you noticed how everything (except blueberries) seems to cause cancer these days?  If it was up to some researchers we'd be living in protective plastic bubbles, completely isolated from the environment.  

This remains and always has been the main source of dissent from water fluoridation:



Poster from 1955, scare tactics haven't changed.

----------


## aktw4

Reminds me of the "HACKERS CAN BLOW UP YOUR COMPUTER" article.

And err, scare tactics is usually done by the mass media. You don't see "FLUORIDE CAN KILL YOU AND GIVE YOU CANCER" in the headlines, do you?

*Edit:* According to that poster you are communistic!!!!! I must despise you!!!

Pro-fluoridation scum!!!

----------


## MindGames

Wow, the both of you need to learn how to debate. Propaganda is not the reason for my concern with fluoride. I back up my claims with research.

----------


## Spartiate

So did I.

----------


## aktw4

> Wow, the both of you need to learn how to debate. Propaganda is not the reason for my concern with fluoride. I back up my claims with research.



I know, I've already established that. But how do we know you didn't _forge_ your 'research'? Gagagagaag!!!





> So did I.



LIES!



This isn't research!

----------


## Spartiate

I've made more than one post in this thread.

Also that poster is a research into the historical psychological background of some opponents to water fluoridation (i.e. a history of irrationality).

----------


## MindGames

Spartiate, you know as well as I that I'm not going to read that entire document. Please summarize what you are trying to point out from it.

----------


## Spartiate

> Spartiate, you know as well as I that I'm not going to read that entire document. Please summarize what you are trying to point out from it.



It basically just corroborates everything I've said.  Talks about the mechanism of action of fluoride in dental hygiene, its effectiveness, risks, fluoride sources, cost effectiveness, etc.

----------


## MindGames

Fluoride's mechanism of action is irrelevant when studies have shown that the end result of water fluoridation shows no significant improvement in the amount of dental caries in those communities. The ingestion of fluoride is ineffective, and there seems to be minimal improvement in dental health _at best_.

"A Bayesian survival analysis is presented to examine the effect of fluoride-intake on the time to caries development of the permanent first molars in children between 7 and 12 years of age using a longitudinal study conducted in Flanders... Our analysis shows *no convincing effect of fluoride-intake on caries development*."
SOURCE: Komarek A, et al. (2005). A Bayesian analysis of multivariate doubly-interval-censored dental data. Biostatistics 6:145-55.

“In the present study, *fluoridated water did not seem to have a positive effect on dental health*, as it might have been expected in a community with the respective caries prevalence.” 
SOURCE: Meyer-Lueckel H, et al. (2006). Caries and fluorosis in 6- and 9-year-old children residing in three communities in Iran. Community Dentistry and Oral Epidemiology 34:63-70.

"[E]ven a longitudinal approach *did not reveal a lower caries occurrence in the fluoridated than in the low-fluoride reference community*." 
SOURCE: Seppa L. et al. (2002). Caries occurrence in a fluoridated and a nonfluoridated town in Finland: a retrospective study using longitudinal data from public dental records. Caries Research 36: 308-314.

"We found that caries prevalences do vary between the geochemical regions of the state. In the total sample, however, *there were no significant differences between those children drinking optimally fluoridated water and those drinking suboptimally fluoridated water*."
SOURCE: Hildebolt CF, et al. (1989). Caries prevalences among geochemical regions of Missouri. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 78:79-92.

"In this study in oral epidemiology, officially collected statistics are presented which show that, 15 yr after fluoridation commenced in Auckland, New Zealand, there was still a significant correlation between dental health of children and their social class. They also show that treatment levels have continued to decline in both fluoridated and unfluoridated areas, and are related to social class factors rather than to the presence or absence of water fluoridation... When the socioeconomic variable is allowed for, *dental health appears to be better in the unfluoridated areas.*"
SOURCE: Colquhoun J. (1985). Influence of social class and fluoridation on child dental health. Community Dentistry and Oral Epidemiology 13:37-41. SEE STUDY

"*The magnitude of [fluoridation's] effect is not large in absolute terms, is often not statistically significant and may not be of clinical significance.*" 
SOURCE: Locker, D. (1999). Benefits and Risks of Water Fluoridation. An Update of the 1996 Federal-Provincial Sub-committee Report. Prepared for Ontario Ministry of Health and Long Term Care.


I am completely convinced that you get much more dental benefit from simply brushing your teeth every day.


Also, no one here has given any support for the government's prescription of mass-medication without the consent of the public. That in itself is unethical. Citizens should have the right to choose whether or not they want to be medicated.

----------


## nina

We have made our case with extensive supporting evidence...if they choose to remain ignorant and continue to believe that fluoridated water is actually good for people...then that's their right. But if you really don't care about having fluoride in your water, and are only here to continually instigate the same arguments over and over because you've got nothing better to do...then do us all a favor, leave and stop trolling this thread. I'm getting tired of having to repeat myself just because some of you are in complete denial and refuse to believe valid evidence.

----------


## Spartiate

Is that directed to me?  I have also provided some thorough evidence as well as educated some people here who had _no clue_ how the thing they were complaining about actually works.  I think at this point if we're going to play source war, both sides will just fall into confirmation bias and look for sources that back up their argument.

Water fluoridation is a popular topic for those with irrational fears of evil governments and conspiracies, which is why I feel it is important to rationalize.

My parting argument is... does anybody here know of anybody that has had a health issue that has been conclusively related to artificial water fluoridation?

----------


## Maria92

> Fluoridation in water is obviously an issue,



No it isn't. The entire "issue" is a ridiculous farce. The "issue" is some blown-up non-threat. Fluoridated water has been shown to be of nearly no significant health consequence a vast majority of the time. Meanwhile, _actual issues deserving of attention_ continue to slip behind this sad debate. How about stem cells? Haven't heard about those in a while. And what of the researchers who found out _how to reverse aging?_ These are valid issues. Water fluoridation is not. 





> as people have gone out of their way to look into it, and have decided to convince people that it is bad. Doesn't that tell you something?



It tells me the sheeple are easily frightened over nothing.

----------


## nina

> Water fluoridation is a popular topic for those with irrational fears of evil governments and conspiracies, which is why I feel it is important to rationalize.



Ok so let me ask you this. I have zero interest in conspiracy theories, nor do I believe that the pineal is some magical gland. On the issue of water fluoridation, I am concerned only with facts. Studies done and replicated many times by researchers with PhD's in labs. Not conspiracy theorists. As a person with no interest in conspiracy theories, who respects and assists scientific research...why, Spartiate...would I be opposed to water fluoridation? What reason would I have to be against it if there wasn't good reason to be?

So why do you think I am against water fluoridation? (both spartiate and mario) I'm truly curious as to what you think my motivation may be.


*Please read and respond to what is below (parts in color, bold, or underlined at the very least)*
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

*Cognitive Effects of Fluoride*

"Several studies from China have reported the effects of fluoride in drinking water on cognitive capacities (X. Li et al. 1995; Zhao et al. 1996; Lu et al. 2000; Xiang et al. 2003a,b). Among the studies, the one by Xiang et al. (2003a) had the strongest design. This study compared the intelligence of 512 children (ages 8-13) living in two villages with different fluoride concentrations in the water. The IQ test was administered in a double-blind manner. The high-fluoride area (Wamiao) had a mean water concentration of 2.47 ± 0.79 mg/L (range 0.57-4.50 milligrams per liter [mg/L]), and the low-fluoride area (Xinhuai) had a mean water concentration of 0.36 ± 0.15 mg/L (range 0.18-0.76 mg/L). The populations studied had comparable iodine and creatinine concentrations, family incomes, family educational levels, and other factors. The populations were not exposed to other significant sources of fluoride, such as smoke from coal fires, industrial pollution, or consumption of brick tea. Thus, the difference in fluoride exposure was attributed to the amount in the drinking water. Mean urinary fluoride1 concentrations were found to be 3.47 ± 1.95 mg/L in Wamiao and 1.11 ± 0.39 mg/L in Xinhuai. *Using the combined Raven’s Test for Rural China, the average intelligence quotient (IQ) of the children in Wamiao was found to be significantly lower (92.2 ± 13.00; range, 54-126) than that in Xinhuai (100.41 ± 13.21; range, 60-128).*"

"*The IQ scores in both males and females declined with increasing fluoride exposure*. The distribution of IQ scores from the females in the two villages is shown in Figure 7-1. A comparable illustration of the IQ scores of males is shown in Figure 7-2. *The number of children in Wamiao with scores in the higher IQ ranges was less than that in Xinhuai*. There were corresponding increases in the number of children in the lower IQ range. Modal scores of the IQ distributions in the two villages were approximately the same. A follow-up study to determine whether the lower IQ scores of the children in Wamiao might be related to differences in lead exposure disclosed no significant difference in blood lead concentrations in the two groups of children (Xiang et al. 2003b)."

"A study conducted by Lu et al. (2000) in a different area of China also compared the IQs of 118 children (ages 10-12) living in two areas with different fluoride concentrations in the water (3.15 ± 0.61 mg/L in one area and 0.37 ± 0.04 mg/L in the other). The children were lifelong residents of the villages and had similar social and educational levels. Urinary fluoride concentrations were measured at 4.99 ± 2.57 mg/L in the high-fluoride area and 1.43 ± 0.64 mg/L in the low-fluoride area. IQ measurements using the Chinese Combined Raven’s Test, Copyright 2 (see Wang and Qian 1989), *showed significantly lower mean IQ scores among children in the high-fluoride area (92.27 ± 20.45) than in children in the low-fluoride area (103.05 ± 13.86). Of special importance, 21.6% of the children in the high-fluoride village scored 70 or below on the IQ scale. For the children in the low-fluoride village, only 3.4% had such low scores. Urinary fluoride concentrations were inversely correlated with mental performance in the IQ test. Qin and Cui (1990) observed similar negative correlation between IQ and fluoride intake through drinking water."*

Zhao et al. (1996) also compared the IQs of 160 children (ages 7-14)



FIGURE 7-1 Distribution of IQ scores from females in Wamiao and Xinuai. 
SOURCE: data from Xiang et al. 2003a.

"living in a high-fluoride area (average concentration of 4.12 mg/L) with those of children living in a low-fluoride area (average concentration 0.91 mg/L). Using the Rui Wen Test, the investigators found that the average IQ of children in the high-fluoride area (97.69) was significantly lower than that of children in the low-fluoride area (105.21). No sex differences were found, but, not surprisingly, IQ scores were found to be related to parents’ education. *The investigators also reported that enamel fluorosis was present in 86% of the children in the high-exposure group and in 14% of the children in the low-exposure group and that skeletal fluorosis was found only in the high-exposure group at 9%.*"



"Spittle (1994) reviewed surveys and case reports of individuals exposed occupationally or therapeutically to fluoride and concluded there was suggestive evidence that fluoride could be associated with cerebral impairment. A synopsis of 12 case reports of fluoride-exposed people of all ages showed common sequelae of lethargy, weakness, and impaired ability to concentrate regardless of the route of exposure. In half the cases, memory problems were also reported." 

"*Spittle (1994) described several of the biochemical changes in enzymatic systems that could account for some of the psychological changes found in patients. He suggested that behavioral alterations found after excessive exposure could be due to the disruption of the N-H bonds in amines, and subsequently in proteins, by the production of N-F bonds (Emsley et al. 1981). This unnatural bond would distort the structure of a number of proteins with the collective potential to cause important biological effects. Fluorides also distort the structure of cytochrome-c peroxidase (Edwards et al. 1984). Spittle also noted the likelihood of fluoride interfering with the basic cellular energy sources used by the brain through the formation of aluminum fluorides (Jope 1988) and subsequent effects on G proteins.*"

"Another issue that has been raised about differential effects of silicofluorides (most common form of fluoridated water) comes from the dissertation of Westendorf (1975). In that study, silicofluorides were found to have greater power to inhibit the synthesis of cholinesterases, including acetylcholinesterase, than sodium fluoride (NaF). For example, under physiological conditions, one molar equivalent of silicofluoride is more potent in inhibiting acetylcholinesterase than six molar equivalents of NaF (Knappwost and Westendorf 1974). *This could produce a situation in which acetylcholine (ACh) accumulates in the vicinity of ACh terminals and leads to excessive activation of cholinergic receptors in the central and peripheral nervous system. At high concentrations, agents with this capability are frequently used in insecticides and nerve gases. At intermediate concentrations, choking sensations and blurred vision are often encountered. Modifications of the effectiveness of the acetylcholinergic systems of the nervous system could account for the fact that, even though native intelligence per se may not be altered by chronic ingestion of water with fluoride ranging from 1.2 to 3 mg/L, reaction times and visuospatial abilities can be impaired. These changes would act to reduce the tested IQ scores."*

*"In a study of more than 3,500 French men and women above the age of 65 (Jacqmin et al. 1994), a significant decrease in cognitive abilities was found when their drinking water contained calcium, aluminum, and fluorine."* 

"In addition to a depletion of acetylcholinesterase, fluoride produces alterations in phospholipid metabolism and/or reductions in the biological energy available for normal brain functions. In addition, the possibility exists that chronic exposure to AlFx can produce aluminum inclusions with blood vessels as well as in their intima and adventitia. The aluminum deposits inside the vessels and those attached to the intima could cause turbulence in the blood flow and reduced transfer of glucose and O2 to the intercellular fluids. Finally histopathological changes similar to those traditionally associated with Alzheimer’s disease in people have been seen in rats chronically exposed to AlF (Varner et al. 1998)."


*Neurochemical and Biochemical Changes*

"Lipids and phospholipids, phosphohydrolases and phospholipase D, and protein content have been shown to be reduced in the brains of laboratory animals subsequent to fluoride exposure. The greatest changes were found in phosphatidylethanolamine, phosphotidylcholine, and phosphotidylserine. *Fluorides also inhibit the activity of cholinesterases, including acetylcholinesterase. Recently, the number of receptors for acetylcholine has been found to be reduced in regions of the brain thought to be most important for mental stability and for adequate retrieval of memories.*

It appears that many of fluoride’s effects, and those of the aluminofluoride complexes are mediated by activation of Gp, a protein of the G family. G proteins mediate the release of many of the best known transmitters of the central nervous system. Not only do fluorides affect transmitter concentrations and functions but also are involved in the regulation of glucagons, prostaglandins, and a number of central nervous system peptides, including vasopressin, endogenous opioids, and other hypothalamic peptides. The AlFx binds to GDP and ADP altering their ability to form the triphosphate molecule essential for providing energies to cells in the brain. Thus, AlFx not only provides false messages throughout the nervous system but, at the same time, diminishes the energy essential to brain function.

*Fluorides also increase the production of free radicals in the brain through several different biological pathways. These changes have a bearing on the possibility that fluorides act to increase the risk of developing Alzheimer’s disease. Today, the disruption of aerobic metabolism in the brain, a reduction of effectiveness of acetylcholine as a transmitter, and an increase in free radicals are thought to be causative factors for this disease. More research is needed to clarify fluoride’s biochemical effects on the brain.*"

*"On the basis of information largely derived from histological, chemical, and molecular studies, it is apparent that fluorides have the ability to interfere with the functions of the brain and the body by direct and indirect means. To determine the possible adverse effects of fluoride, additional data from both the experimental and the clinical sciences are needed."*

----------


## aktw4

> No it isn't. The entire "issue" is a ridiculous farce. The "issue" is some blown-up non-threat. Fluoridated water has been shown to be of nearly no significant health consequence a vast majority of the time. Meanwhile, _actual issues deserving of attention_ continue to slip behind this sad debate. How about stem cells? Haven't heard about those in a while. And what of the researchers who found out _how to reverse aging?_ These are valid issues. Water fluoridation is not.



You are right. There have been no significant health consequences, whether it be good or bad. So why is it okay for it to be in our water then? Simply no point.

And water fluoridation is a valid issue. Sure, it is less important than curing cancer and such, but it is still an issue whether you like it or not.





> It tells me the sheeple are easily frightened over nothing.



What makes yo think we are sheeple? Because we believe something that you don't?

----------


## Spartiate

I already mentioned how areas of Asia (including China) have elevated levels of natural fluoride poisoning.  No wonder, look at the concentrations you posted, they're _four times_ higher than fluoride levels found in our drinking water.  As the WHO recommends a maximum fluoride concentration of 1.5 mg/L, I can only assume that the affected chinese children suffer from chronic poisoning.  The fact remains that the only conclusive negative impact of fluoride in concentrations found in our drinking water (~1 mg/L) is mild/moderate dental fluorosis.

A 10 IQ point average difference is humongous, don't you think it would be something we'd notice here if it was an issue?  I haven't conducted any studies myself, but I do have mild dental fluorosis so I must've been exposed to a fair amount of fluoride in my life, yet I graduated top of my class in both high school and college, so I'm obviously not a retard...  I knew a girl in high school who would swallow her toothpaste and she was smarter than me.  It's not like fluoride is cyanide for the brain.  Despite those studies claiming similar socio-economic situations in between both villages (which I couldn't find any info for), it's hard to corroborate that without them posting any kind of numbers...

The study of the french people doesn't mention concentrations and also focuses on aluminum fluoride, which is not an issue here.


Nina, do you know anybody who has become ill or died from fluoride?

----------


## monk3y

YouTube - Professional Perspectives: Fluoride in Tap Water

this is interesting..

----------


## nina

> The study of the french people doesn't mention concentrations and also focuses on aluminum fluoride, which is not an issue here.



Oh...right...because you'd never find Aluminum and Fluoride together in drinking water or in the body. Oh wait. Yes you do. Why don't you actually read for a bit more understanding rather than being so quick to dismiss it?





> Nina, do you know anybody who has become ill or died from fluoride?



I know a few people with dental fluorosis (one severe), but I don't personally know anyone that has died from fluoride. I don't really see how that matters...I also don't personally know anyone that has died from AIDs, cancer, heart attack, stroke...etc. etc. etc. Plus I'm not trying to claim that fluoridated water is deadly or kills. But it could definitely lead to major problems later in life that would cut your life expectancy short. So maybe it just, helps us die _faster_. It's like pesticides really. I suppose you are in favor of those too? Are you a smoker? Maybe you enjoy things that are harmful to the body...I suppose some twisted masochistic nerdy sciencey types might be into that. (not saying you are)

----------


## MindGames

Spartiate, since fluoride has been shown to have obvious negative effects at higher concentrations, it would follow that it still has overall negative effects even when consumed at around 1mg/L. Don't forget that many American cities do have higher fluoride concentrations than 1mg/L.

Here, let me repeat one of the main points in this argument. _Why the hell are we ingesting fluoride in the first place when it has been repeatedly shown that it doesn't have considerable improvements on dental caries?_


*I'm still waiting for an explanation as to why the government is prescribing mass-medication without public consent.*

If you decide to overlook the negative effects of fluoride, it is still a serious ethical issue.

----------


## Maria92

> What makes yo think we are sheeple? Because we believe something that you don't?



"Hey look, here are some obscure minor negative side effects to fluoride that you don't stand much of a chance of contracting."
Public response: "Aaaahhhh, water fluoridation is pure evil! It's a deadly poison that's gonna kill us all!  :Oh noes: "

^I've seen this happen all too many times. Hence: sheeple.

----------


## Spartiate

> Oh...right...because you'd never find Aluminum and Fluoride together in drinking water or in the body. Oh wait. Yes you do. Why don't you actually read for a bit more understanding rather than being so quick to dismiss it?



Well do you have an numbers for aluminum concentration in the water?  Also it's not like aluminum compounds and fluoride compounds will suddenly react together if they're in water.  Cyanide is made of carbon and nitrogen, two of the most abundant elements on the planet, but they don't mix to make cyanide everywhere.





> I know a few people with dental fluorosis (one severe), but I don't personally know anyone that has died from fluoride. I don't really see how that matters...I also don't personally know anyone that has died from AIDs, cancer, heart attack, stroke...etc. etc. etc. Plus I'm not trying to claim that fluoridated water is deadly or kills. But it could definitely lead to major problems later in life that would cut your life expectancy short. So maybe it just, helps us die _faster_. It's like pesticides really. I suppose you are in favor of those too? Are you a smoker? Maybe you enjoy things that are harmful to the body...I suppose some twisted masochistic nerdy sciencey types might be into that. (not saying you are)



I would be curious to ask a doctor how many cases of fluoride related ailments they see in a year.  If fluoride levels at the concentrations we use caused major problems, wouldn't doctors be seeing it in their patients?  I mean we've been using the stuff for over 50 years...  Also I don't smoke and my town doesn't allow pesticides (never come here in May).





> Spartiate, since fluoride has been shown to have obvious negative effects at higher concentrations, it would follow that it still has overall negative effects even when consumed at around 1mg/L. Don't forget that many American cities do have higher fluoride concentrations than 1mg/L.



Really?  A little bit of potassium is important for your nervous system, but a lot of potassium will stop your heart.  Breathing in a pure oxygen atmosphere can damage your internal organs.  Many recreational drugs are safe at low quantities but will eventually kill you if you overdose.  Oftentimes a substance's toxicity has to do with the body not being able to eliminate the substance faster than it is absorbed.  If there are places in the US with fluoride concentrations above safe limits, then I agree to return them to safe concentrations (duh).





> Here, let me repeat one of the main points in this argument. _Why the hell are we ingesting fluoride in the first place when it has been repeatedly shown that it doesn't have considerable improvements on dental caries?_



I beg to differ, plenty of sources including mine show important improvements of dental health with fluoride use.  Although I agree that these improvements are less obvious in recent decades as we are exposed to more sources of fluoride.





> *I'm still waiting for an explanation as to why the government is prescribing mass-medication without public consent.*
> 
> If you decide to overlook the negative effects of fluoride, it is still a serious ethical issue.



I don't suppose you want your government to treat your water as well?  Do you know what horrible chemicals they use for that (chlorine)?  How dare they prevent you from getting E. coli without your consent.

----------


## MindGames

> Really? A little bit of potassium is important for your nervous system, but a lot of potassium will stop your heart. Breathing in a pure oxygen atmosphere can damage your internal organs. Many recreational drugs are safe at low quantities but will eventually kill you if you overdose. Oftentimes a substance's toxicity has to do with the body not being able to eliminate the substance faster than it is absorbed. If there are places in the US with fluoride concentrations above safe limits, then I agree to return them to safe concentrations (duh).



Fluoride will not kill you in many cases, aside from overdose. I'm not arguing that fluoride is deadly. How many times have I and others said this already? Rather, fluoride damages your body in various ways which decrease your overall quality of health, and over time the effects of fluoride result in conditions such as the disruption of pineal function, decreasing the kidneys' ability to rid the body of fluoride, (making the accumulation of fluoride in the body accelerate over time) altering the onset of puberty in adolescents, and decreasing mental aptitude. Now, I understand that at the levels fluoride is added to our water, it doesn't have a major effect on our brain health. However, if it has been shown to have pronounced effects on brain health at higher concentrations, it has the potential to have negative effects (less pronounced as they may be) on brain health even at the level routinely added to our water, especially in younger children since they are more susceptible to the brain-related effects of fluoride. These effects have also been shown to occur in the developing fetus.
Fluoride's concentration in the body also increases over time as the kidneys gradually lose their ability to remove it from the bloodstream. As the concentration of fluoride in the body increases, common sense would show that its effects also become more pronounced. (Notice that I never said it kills you in any case. That is not and never has been my concern with fluoride.)





> I beg to differ, plenty of sources including mine show important improvements of dental health with fluoride use. Although I agree that these improvements are less obvious in recent decades as we are exposed to more sources of fluoride.



My sources would suggest otherwise. Are your sources government-funded or associated with the government in any way? Because if they are, then I would be wary of any bias on the matter. Aside from that, even if they are completely neutral sources, repeated conflicting results of separate studies simply show that fluoride's supposed dental benefits cannot be referenced to justify its use. These benefits have not conclusively enough been shown to exist.





> I don't suppose you want your government to treat your water as well? Do you know what horrible chemicals they use for that (chlorine)? How dare they prevent you from getting E. coli without your consent.



1. Water treatment is not the same as medication.

2. Chlorine is necessary in that case. Fluoride is not necessary, no matter what the application.


Oh yeah, I anticipate that somebody will point out that fluoride is beneficial. We don't have to ingest it to get its dental health benefits. You just have to brush once a day. I lost track of how many times I pointed that out.

----------


## aktw4

> "Hey look, here are some obscure minor negative side effects to fluoride that you don't stand much of a chance of contracting."
> Public response: "Aaaahhhh, water fluoridation is pure evil! It's a deadly poison that's gonna kill us all! "
> 
> ^I've seen this happen all too many times. Hence: sheeple.



Public response? Err, if I asked anyone I know about water fluordation they'd tell me "fluoride is good for you, bottled water causes cancer hurr". etc.

----------

