Developmental Fluoride Neurotoxicity: Lowers IQ and Causes Tumors - Page 2
Tropical Fish

Tropical Fish Keeping - Aquarium fish care and resources » The Tropical Fish Keeping Community » Off Topic Discussions » Developmental Fluoride Neurotoxicity: Lowers IQ and Causes Tumors

Developmental Fluoride Neurotoxicity: Lowers IQ and Causes Tumors

This is a discussion on Developmental Fluoride Neurotoxicity: Lowers IQ and Causes Tumors within the Off Topic Discussions forums, part of the The Tropical Fish Keeping Community category; --> Somewhere down the line, it's always all about the Benjamins, neh?...

Like Tree8Likes

Reply
LinkBack Thread Tools vBmenu Seperating Image Search this Thread vBmenu Seperating Image
Developmental Fluoride Neurotoxicity: Lowers IQ and Causes Tumors
Old 12-08-2012, 08:45 PM   #11
 
Chesh's Avatar
 
Somewhere down the line, it's always all about the Benjamins, neh?
Termato likes this.
Chesh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-08-2012, 09:08 PM   #12
 
Termato's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chesherca View Post
Somewhere down the line, it's always all about the Benjamins, neh?
Sadly :(

I said this on Facebook about this topic "All we can really do is enlighten ourselves as much as we can and act upon what we know"

That's the best we can do because knowledge is power :D

They want us stupid....get smart.
Chesh likes this.
Termato is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-08-2012, 10:36 PM   #13
 
DKRST's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Termato View Post
So I found this scary article released by Harvard and published in October to the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences

Developmental Fluoride Neurotoxicity: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

There was also an article written about this Journal:

Major Harvard Study Confirms Fluoride Lowers IQ

To sum it up, the Fluoride enriched areas were reporting kids with lower IQ on average in comparison to the areas with lower fluoride levels.

I've been drinking bottled water and using Fluoride free tooth paste for over a year now due to me finding out some other things about the water, now it just kind of reinforced the safety measures. How does the government INSERT fluoride into the water when they KNOW that it's harmful...Seriously..
Sorry Termato, methinks you need to really read the entire study, not just the summary/abstract! This is a case where a scientist says something and the general public takes it waaaay out of context!
If you actually read the entire article, the flouride levels they are testing are from areas having highly-elevated naturally-flouridated waters (it is a natural mineral in water in hugely varying levels around the world).
In some places in the US, natural flouride levels cause brown spots on teeth, the levels are so high.

Now having said that, let me make a very careful comment. FLOURIDE IS SAFE, in the proper levels in our drinking water at levels used for flouridation. The levels that are added to non-flouride containing water are really tiny (0.7 milligrams of fluoride per liter). See the CDC website: Q & A's - Fact Sheets - Community Water Fluoridation - Oral Health

Lets look at this another way. You are more at risk from the BPA (Bisphenol A), a plastic softener, used in the plastic bottles your bottled water is in! BPA has been banned as a toxic substance in some countries (not banned in the US, but it can't be legally added in the plastic used for baby bottles). One more example. You need iodine to live. However, if you get too much iodine, it is toxic and you will die! It's all about balance. Some flouride is needed to make strong teeth. Too much causes problems, just like too much iodine, salt, or even vitamin A. The benefit of water flouridation is very well documented scientifically, as are the costs of too little flouridation.

I know I won't convince the "conspiracy theory" paranoics out there who think it's all a government conspiracy. Not even going to try. I'm a scientist (Ph.D) with three kids. I teach environmental science. I make decisions based on statistical evidence and scientific studies. All my kids drink tap water, one even had flouride drop supplements as a baby! Now I have two in college on scholarships, all three super-smart. The study talks about super-high flouride levels found in naturally occurring waters NOT the flouride added to tapwater.

It's NOTHING to worry about!

Last edited by DKRST; 12-08-2012 at 10:44 PM..
DKRST is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to DKRST For This Useful Post:
Chesh (12-08-2012), Mikaila31 (12-16-2012)
Old 12-08-2012, 10:55 PM   #14
 
Chesh's Avatar
 
Oh, you scientist-types are no fun! *pouts* Conspiracy theorizing is so entertaining!

I know you're right, though - we need a small amount of fluoride, and pretty much from what I've read it's added to the water system to ensure that everyone gets at least that amount. . . but I STILL think that it should be something that we are given a choice about. I just don't think it should be in our tap water! Don't even get me started on the evil that is plastic, but a good bit of the 'bottled spring water' we get is just tap water, anyway. This is one of those things where you really can't win.
Chesh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-09-2012, 12:09 AM   #15
 
Termato's Avatar
 
I agree that in the immediate sense, I do not have anything to worry about. I'm going to be quoting parts of the research just so I don't have to paraphrase because I'm tired and sick.

First the Method:
Quote:
Methods: We searched the MEDLINE, EMBASE, Water Resources Abstracts, and TOXNET databases through 2011 for eligible studies. We also searched the China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) database, because many studies on fluoride neurotoxicity have been published in Chinese journals only. In total, we identified 27 eligible epidemiological studies with high and reference exposures, end points of IQ scores, or related cognitive function measures with means and variances for the two exposure groups. Using random-effects models, we estimated the standardized mean difference between exposed and reference groups across all studies. We conducted sensitivity analyses restricted to studies using the same outcome assessment and having drinking-water fluoride as the only exposure. We performed the Cochran test for heterogeneity between studies, Begg’s funnel plot, and Egger test to assess publication bias, and conducted meta-regressions to explore sources of variation in mean differences among the studies.
So as they state here they are taking the data from the databases. This is real information taken by these noted organizations and/or governments. The kind of comparison they are doing is basically correlation vs causation BUT they have actual facts (relevant test results with Fluoride) to back it up which makes it valid.

Let's then look at the Result and Conclusion:

Quote:
The standardized weighted mean difference in IQ score between exposed and reference populations was –0.45 (95% confidence interval: –0.56, –0.35) using a random-effects model. Thus, children in high-fluoride areas had significantly lower IQ scores than those who lived in low-fluoride areas. Subgroup and sensitivity analyses also indicated inverse associations, although the substantial heterogeneity did not appear to decrease.

Conclusions: The results support the possibility of an adverse effect of high fluoride exposure on children’s neurodevelopment. Future research should include detailed individual-level information on prenatal exposure, neurobehavioral performance, and covariates for adjustment.
I think that states everything clearly there.

Notice how that's Children's Neurodevelopment because at the end of the study it was stated (I'll reference it further down) the developing brain, especially new borns and those still in the womb that are in most danger.

Now to take a step back from this to point out my MAIN concern.
----Those who know about the Nitrate story in Salisbury can probably skip reading this -------
The Eastern Shore of Maryland is a very big agricultural part of the state. The farms produce a lot of waste that goes into the water and after getting into fish keeping I decided to test the waters. Now I found that the level of Nitrate in the drinking water at Salisbury was above legal limits when testing with my kit (API Master Test Kit). There is a whole thread on this. Anyways, I got the water tested by a the Salisbury University who used an Ion selective electrode test and got back accurate results of 33.6ppm of Nitrate NO3− in the water. That's getting close to the legal limit.

I contacted the water company before, through and after this. They reported 5ppm of Nitrate...

----You can probably start reading here again...if you want...lol ---

It's a big long story that I just tried to break down real fast. The point is that the people testing some of this stuff aren't always qualified. Even if they are, who's to say they are reporting correctly...or who knows? I don't want to say that anyone is actually doing that, but hey someone could and might. You never know. I'd like to believe otherwise though.

I think this is where what you are talking about comes in:

Quote:
A recent experimental study where the rat hippocampal neurons were incubated with various concentrations (20 mg/L, 40 mg/L, and 80 mg/L) of sodium fluoride in vitro showed that fluoride neurotoxicity may target hippocampal neurons
And this is also important:

Quote:
Although acute fluoride poisoning may be neurotoxic to adults, most of the epidemiological information available on associations with children’s neurodevelopment is from China, where fluoride generally occurs in drinking water as a natural contaminant, and the concentration depends on local geological conditions. In many rural communities in China, populations with high exposure to fluoride in local drinking-water sources may reside in close proximity to populations without high exposure (NRC 2006).
And this is basically what you just said:

Quote:
Opportunities for epidemiological studies depend on the existence of comparable population groups exposed to different levels of fluoride from drinking water. Such circumstances are difficult to find in many industrialized countries, because fluoride concentrations in community water are usually no higher than 1 mg/L, even when fluoride is added to water supplies as a public health measure to reduce tooth decay. Multiple epidemiological studies of developmental fluoride neurotoxicity were conducted in China because of the high fluoride concentrations that are substantially above 1 mg/L in well water in many rural communities, although microbiologically safe water has been accessible to many rural households as a result of the recent 5-year plan (2001–2005) by the Chinese government.
Now here it gets to the entire reason why I posted this. Keep in mind my ONLY concern is of human error.

Quote:
In its review of fluoride, the NRC (2006) noted that the safety and the risks of fluoride at concentrations of 2–4 mg/L were incompletely documented. Our comprehensive review substantially extends the scope of research available for evaluation and analysis. Although the studies were generally of insufficient quality, the consistency of their findings adds support to existing evidence of fluoride-associated cognitive deficits, and suggests that potential developmental neurotoxicity of fluoride should be a high research priority. Although reports from the World Health Organization and national agencies have generally focused on beneficial effects of fluoride (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 1999; Petersen and Lennon 2004), the NRC report examined the potential adverse effects of fluoride at 2–4 mg/L in drinking water and not the benefits or potential risks that may occur when fluoride is added to public water supplies at lower concentrations (0.7–1.2 mg/L) (NRC 2006).
As noted previously in the text, they stated that due the low amounts of Fluoride in the water made them narrow down the area in which they gathered the data from. Therefore, no substantial research has been done on the data that has been recorded for those areas. That means that while we know that at the last 20 mg/L of Fluoride will have negative effects, there is not a clear limit as to how much will start to effect you. I haven't done enough research to find it yet.

If you are constantly drinking water with Fluoride, you will have a higher concentration of it than someone who does not. So if someone drinks a lot of water, they will have a higher concentration of Fluoride. So assuming that the danger level is high enough above the legal standard limit and that the testing is being done correctly on the water, than drinking Fluoride water is safe.

That was my conclusion when I read this. Can you see my trend of thought? As you can see I like finding holes in things.

I'm concerned about people testing my water that aren't qualified enough. I'm also concerned for the people who aren't in a safe area, like myself. People like those that live in these areas: Above 4.0 PPM : Natural levels of fluoride in Drinking Water by State.

That is a list of Water Systems in the USA that have a natural level of Fluoride above 4.0 and it goes up to about 15.9 on the last entry. That's 4.1 less than the lowest concentration they tested in the study. So I think this information is highly relevant and very important for people to know.

With the research, they put together a table--see here: PubMed Central, Table 1: Environ Health Perspect. 2012 October; 120(10): 1362

If you look at the level of Fluoride on some of those, they are exceptionally HIGH and some are just above and around those in our water system. That's a big reason to be concerned there, I would think. Again, they have not gathered enough research on small concentrations.

For some more relevant sources:

Here is how much Fluoride Colgate puts into their toothpaste:
  • Drug Facts for Colgate Total Advanced Whitening Paste - Sodium fluoride 0.24% (0.15% w/flouride ion) …Anticavity

So that sounds pretty safe according to the article above. If you look at my cities water report:

Annual Drinking Water Quality Report

We have 0.6ppm of Fluoride and 1.3ppm of Nitrate as of 2011. That's safe for us according to this article. It all sounds safe and probably is...for us anyways. The thing is you can see now, hopefully, why I even posted this and why I pointed out the issues I did. In retrospect I should have pointed all this out earlier but than again, I was lazy.

I hope I stated everything clearly, again I apologize because I am quite tired and sick today so if stuff doesn't make sense...that is why. I feel like I just wrote a paper.

Ok, I'm going to bed. Have a good night!

Last edited by Termato; 12-09-2012 at 12:12 AM..
Termato is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Termato For This Useful Post:
Chesh (12-09-2012)
Old 12-09-2012, 07:22 AM   #16
 
Chesh's Avatar
 
Sick? Termie, don't be sick! (it's all that fluoride)

You pretty much summed up how *I* feel about this topic. The fluoride debate is one of those that is constantly being brought up in parenting circles, along with a few others, and I've read many articles, studies, and reports on both sides of the argument.

What has always bothered me is that we don't know how much of the stuff we actually are putting into our (and our children's) systems. A specific (small) amount is needed by the body, yes. And it isn't harmful until you go far over that limit. I understand that. But I have no way of calculating the proper dosage based on how much water each member of my family drinks in a day - then adding in all of the other things that fluoride is added to, or gets into by default of it being in the water.

While I agree that it isn't nearly as big of a concern as some people make it out to be, it still IS a concern. Since we don't really know how much of the stuff we're ingesting, and because the problems fluoride causes are kind of general, and can't generally be traced back to fluoride. We all sit in this huge grey area between above how much we need, and below the amount that is considered harmful. . .

I know that the general health of people's teeth in this country has been benefited by having fluoride in the water, and that it isn't a life-or-death issue. But I still think of fluoride as a contaminate in our drinking water. It shouldn't be in there, and there are better and safer ways for us to go about getting the proper amount that we need. . .
Termato likes this.
Chesh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-13-2012, 09:54 PM   #17
 
redchigh's Avatar
 
Meh. Speculation, questionable patterns, workaround logic and a whole lot of 'might' 'could' 'possibly' statements are all I see.

Yes, flouride can be toxic in high enough levels. That's why you don't swallow toothpaste. I was in debate for years, sothat's all I see it is. I believe people should have a choice, sure. Think about the parenting circles it spreads in- normally upper-middle to upper class; Normally, people who A, have access to adequate dental care (and thus don't need the flouride as much), and B, can usually afford bottled water or good filtration.

There are also a lot of unresearched variables. Tooth decay absolutely leads to heart disease. This is proven, and there have been no studies to correlate an increase in heart disease to decreased flouride, but it is certainly possible. The human body doesn't absorb ALL flouride from the water, no more than your body absorbs all the water your drink. Levels over .4 mg/l should be all but ignored. At higher natural levels, it's a contaminant, not an additive.

The study you quoted is only that. A study, and one that has no new research. It only looks at data and tries to draw conclusions.

http://www.bmj.com/cgi/reprint/321/7265/855.pdf


At the Harvard School of Dental Medicine, One Professor
Chesh likes this.

Last edited by redchigh; 12-13-2012 at 10:05 PM..
redchigh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-14-2012, 11:25 PM   #18
 
Termato's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by redchigh View Post
Meh. Speculation, questionable patterns, workaround logic and a whole lot of 'might' 'could' 'possibly' statements are all I see.

Yes, flouride can be toxic in high enough levels. That's why you don't swallow toothpaste. I was in debate for years, sothat's all I see it is. I believe people should have a choice, sure. Think about the parenting circles it spreads in- normally upper-middle to upper class; Normally, people who A, have access to adequate dental care (and thus don't need the flouride as much), and B, can usually afford bottled water or good filtration.

There are also a lot of unresearched variables. Tooth decay absolutely leads to heart disease. This is proven, and there have been no studies to correlate an increase in heart disease to decreased flouride, but it is certainly possible. The human body doesn't absorb ALL flouride from the water, no more than your body absorbs all the water your drink. Levels over .4 mg/l should be all but ignored. At higher natural levels, it's a contaminant, not an additive.

The study you quoted is only that. A study, and one that has no new research. It only looks at data and tries to draw conclusions.

http://www.bmj.com/cgi/reprint/321/7265/855.pdf


At the Harvard School of Dental Medicine, One Professor
How is the fact that they did not gather information in the gap between the legal limits and 20 mg/L not reason enough to ask questions? I feel it is a valid question. If it effects people at such a noticeable amount at such a level, than further studies should be done to know where too much is too much. If there are, I haven't done enough researching to find it.

Also, I think the sheet with the different amounts of natural fluoride is very relevant and real. You can see how big the ranges are.

The only what if's is human error which must be calculated when dealing with such a large population. I have experienced first hand incorrect readings by the people who test our water.

Correlation does not mean causation, therefore if you rely on that research for correlation to determine such a fact; it will not be very reliable. This is also true in the first part of the journal I quoted. Although the first part was only based off of database correlation data, there were experiments done to test Fluorides effects on the brain as I quoted. It is a proven experiment which led to further research on its levels in comparison to its effects on IQ. How is that not valid research? Did you go to the link and read the whole thing and go to the links and really looked into it?

It's either that or I am missing a really big point here. Yes they state that the legal limits found in our tap water are fine. Awesome, because my coffee at work is made with it. I noted that I have no immediate concern for my personal health about fluoride.

My concerns are elsewhere, for those who are exposed to those dangerous levels. Whatever they may be, which is not clear as to where it really starts effecting the brain as such.

The first link gave me a 404 error. the pdf one.

I found this interesting about the second link you posted

Quote:
This misrepresentation, the EWG alleged, stemmed from the fact that Douglass’ report concluded that there was no significant correlation between fluoride and osteosarcoma, a type of bone cancer. Yet a section of a two-page outline of the report, entitled “Publications,” listed a 2001 doctoral thesis written by Elise B. Bassin and supervised by Douglass.

Bassin’s thesis did observe a connection between fluoride in tap water and bone cancer. “Among males, exposure to fluoride at or above the target level was associated with an increased risk of developing osteosarcoma,” Bassin wrote. Bassin and Douglass started with the same raw data, but came to different conclusions.

It appeared that Douglass might have buried Bassin’s findings.
What is interesting is what you find out about Douglas if you keep reading...very interesting post.

---


Ok and here is what is confusing me, why did you say this:

Quote:
Levels over .4 mg/l should be all but ignored. At higher natural levels, it's a contaminant, not an additive.
Why would a level over a safe amount be ignored?

How are natural levels different than us adding, it is the same chemical. Was there something in the article I oversaw?
Chesh likes this.

Last edited by Termato; 12-14-2012 at 11:40 PM..
Termato is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-15-2012, 09:39 PM   #19
 
Pearl2011's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chesherca View Post
Oh, you scientist-types are no fun! *pouts* Conspiracy theorizing is so entertaining!

I know you're right, though - we need a small amount of fluoride, and pretty much from what I've read it's added to the water system to ensure that everyone gets at least that amount. . . but I STILL think that it should be something that we are given a choice about. I just don't think it should be in our tap water! Don't even get me started on the evil that is plastic, but a good bit of the 'bottled spring water' we get is just tap water, anyway. This is one of those things where you really can't win.
I got a venus flytrap for my b-day, and the distilled water had an expiration date on it. Yeah, Not drinking that.

No im using the bottle for rain water. And its full. Stupid. Rain.
Pearl2011 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-16-2012, 12:10 PM   #20
 
Never had a problem with fluoride . That said I had terrible dental hygiene as a kid and have all the cavities to prove it. They told me I need another 3-4 filled last time I was in, which it what they say most times i go in. I'm on a RX toothpaste too with double the fluoride ~ 1.1% sodium fluoride and drinking tap water.

I avoid bottled water, I'd rather drink tap water. Even tho my city tap water is pretty ****ty IMO. I love my parents well water it likely has more stuff in it then my current tap water tho, but it tastes great.
Mikaila31 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:09 PM.