So My 8 Year Old Neice Tells me That Her School Gives Her Fluoride Pills. . .

[Dafunkdoc_Unlimited]

Last but not least, here's a little something to read for those of you still afraid of drinking properly fluoridated water..........​

Over the years, antifluoridationists have offered hundreds of objections. By 1960, the number was so great that a team at the University of Michigan published an 85-page book that classified and rebutted more than 200 of them. Since that time, hundreds more have surfaced. But the sheer number should tell us something. If even one objection were valid, do you think fluoridation would still be with us?

Here is the actual book in .pdf format.

http://www.dentalwatch.org/fl/classification_of_objections.pdf

Check out #7 Mental and neurological abnormalities or diseases............FROM 1960!!!!!!!!
​

 

[OsO]

This is HILARIOUS!!! Dudes are still trying to dispute decades of research and studies that prove the levels of properly fluoridated water cause no problems. They then try to argue that there is an issue with accumulation over time and THAT has been proven superfluous. When that fails, then they try to say that there is more research needed when the fact of the matter is, THE RESEARCH WILL NEVER END DUE TO THE CLEAN WATER ACT OF 1972........
Every study concludes that levels of fluoride over the EPA maximum cause issues. There is no evidence to the contrary. None.​

you're not addressing the point about accumulation of fluoride over time.

you dont see brown stained teeth as an adverse effect, which is just nasty

you have no idea how long it takes the body to detoxify from fluoride, or how much fluoride is safe over a given time span. or if it varies according to the person.

you're not addressing the outrageous cost to the tapayer.

you're not addressing all the medical professionals and countries who oppose water fluoridation for the same reasons im stating.

you're not addressing the studies done by the CDC itself that suggest fluoride intake is not good for small children, pregnant women, and anyone under 8 years old.

you just keep saying the same narrow-minded shyt over and over again.

so until you address the above points with a level of intellectual honesty there's really no point in continuing this convo. you're gonna keep repeating the proper dosage argument, and im going to keep coming with the above argument. ive addressed your lone point about proper dosage by asking questions about accumulation over time--a response which you have yet to generate.

so let me ask you this... if the fluoride levels in our water supply are at "optimum" levels then why do so many people get fluorosis from water fluoridation? you're so sure we're at the optimum levels of fluoridation, but if we were at optimum levels wouldnt there be zero negative effects as you claim? but since there are negative effects, we must NOT be at the optimum range for water fluoridation, correct?

also, i did a couple minutes of research to find out how the body detoxifies from fluoride intake, this is what i found:
http://www.fluoridation.com/fluorideindrinkingwater.htm

"Fluoride accumulates in the body. Healthy adult kidneys excrete 50 to 60% of the fluoride ingested each day (Marier & Rose 1971). The remainder accumulates in the body, largely in calcifying tissues such as the bones and pineal gland (Luke 1997, 2001). Infants and children excrete less fluoride from their kidneys and take up to 80% of ingested fluoride into their bones (Ekstrand 1994). The fluoride concentration in bone steadily increases over a lifetime (NRC 2006)."

if these studies are legit then wave goodbye to your entire argument. just the last sentence alone from the National Research Council's 2006 report on water fluoridation kills your whole argument.

 

[Dafunkdoc_Unlimited]

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23015601

Published online 2012 September 25.
​

Abstract
OBJECTIVE:
To assess the effects of provided fluoride-safe drinking-water for the prevention and control of endemic fluorosis in China.

DESIGN:
A national cross-sectional study in China.

SETTING:
In 1985, randomly selected villages in 27 provinces (or cities and municipalities) in 5 geographic areas all over China.

PARTICIPANTS:
Involved 81,786 children aged from 8 to 12 and 594,698 adults aged over 16.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE:
The prevalence of dental fluorosis and clinical skeletal fluorosis, the fluoride concentrations in the drinking-water in study villages and in the urine of subjects.

RESULTS:
The study showed that in the villages where the drinking-water fluoride concentrations were higher than the government standard of 1.2 mg/l, but no fluoride-safe drinking-water supply scheme was provided (FNB areas), the prevalence rate and index of dental fluorosis in children, and prevalence rate of clinical skeletal fluorosis in adults were all significantly higher than those in the historical endemic fluorosis villages after the fluoride-safe drinking-water were provided (FSB areas). Additionally, the prevalence rate of dental fluorosis as well as clinical skeletal fluorosis, and the concentration of fluoride in urine were found increased with the increase of fluoride concentration in drinking-water, with significant positive correlations in the FNB areas. While, the prevalence rate of dental fluorosis and clinical skeletal fluorosis in different age groups and their degrees of prevalence were significantly lower in the FSB areas than those in the FNB areas.

CONCLUSIONS:
The provision of fluoride-safe drinking-water supply schemes had significant effects on the prevention and control of dental fluorosis and skeletal fluorosis. The study also indicated that the dental and skeletal fluorosis is still prevailing in the high-fluoride drinking-water areas in China.

The whole article follows......

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3467640/​

 

[Dafunkdoc_Unlimited]

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22298140

2011 Oct-Dec
​

Abstract
BACKGROUND:
The problem of high fluoride concentration in groundwater resources has become one of the most important toxicological and geo-environmental issues in India. Excessive fluoride in drinking water causes dental and skeletal fluorosis, which is encountered in endemic proportions in several parts of the world. World Health Organization (WHO) guideline value and the permissible limit of fluoride as per Bureau of Indian Standard (BIS) is 1.5 mg/L. About 20 states of India, including 43 blocks of seven districts of West Bengal, were identified as endemic for fluorosis and about 66 million people in these regions are at risk of fluoride contamination. Studies showed that withdrawal of sources identified for fluoride often leads reduction of fluoride in the body fluids (re-testing urine and serum after a week or 10 days) and results in the disappearance of non-skeletal fluorosis within a short duration of 10-15 days.

OBJECTIVE:
To determine the prevalence of signs and symptoms of suspected dental, skeletal, and non-skeletal fluorosis, along with food habits, addictions, and use of fluoride containing toothpaste among participants taking water with fluoride concentration above the permissible limit, and to assess the changes in clinical manifestations of the above participants after they started consuming safe drinking water.

MATERIALS AND METHODS:
A longitudinal intervention study was conducted in three villages in Rampurhat Block I of Birbhum district of West Bengal to assess the occurrence of various dental, skeletal, and non-skeletal manifestations of fluorosis, along with food habits, addictions, and use of fluoride containing toothpaste among the study population and the impact of taking safe water from the supplied domestic and community filters on these clinical manifestations. The impact was studied by follow-up examination of the participants for 5 months to determine the changes in clinical manifestations of the above participants after they started consuming safe drinking water from supplied domestic filters and community filter with fluoride concentration below the permissible limit. The data obtained were compared with the collected data from the baseline survey.

RESULTS:
The prevalence of signs of dental, skeletal, and non-skeletal fluorosis was 66.7%, 4.8-23.8%, and 9.5-38.1%, respectively, among the study population. Withdrawal of source(s) identified for fluoride by providing domestic and community filters supplying safe water led to 9.6% decrease in manifestation of dental fluorosis, 2.4-14.3% decrease in various manifestations of skeletal fluorosis, and 7.1-21.5% decrease in various non-skeletal manifestations within 5 months. Following repeated motivation of participants during visit, there was also 9.7-38.1% decrease in the usage of fluoride containing toothpaste, and 9.8-45.3% and 7.3-11.9% decrease in the consumption of black lemon tea and tobacco, respectively, which are known sources of fluoride ingestion in our body and have an effect on the occurrence of various manifestations of fluorosis following drinking of safe water from domestic and community filters.

CONCLUSION:
Increased prevalence of dental, skeletal, and non-skeletal fluorosis was found among the study population. Withdrawal of source(s) identified for fluoride by supplying domestic and community filters, dietary restriction, and other nutritional interventions led to decrease in manifestation of the three types of fluorosis within 5 months.

 

[Dafunkdoc_Unlimited]

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12403544
​

Fluorosis: is it really a problem?

Abstract
BACKGROUND:
Scientists have noted an association between mottled enamel and fluoride exposure since the early 1900s. By the mid-1900s, they also recognized that fluoride intake was related to lower caries incidence. To harness the protective effect of fluoride while limiting the occurrence of fluorosis, dental researchers have recommended that the fluoride level in drinking water be 1 part per million or less.

OVERVIEW:
Despite the recognition that fluoride levels in water can be controlled to offer caries protection with minimal risk of fluorosis, the cosmetic defect continues to appear. However, although the word "fluorosis" conjures up images of brown stained and pitted enamel, such severe cases rarely are seen in the United States. Children in this country are exposed to fluoride from numerous sources and the appearance of mild fluorosis is not unusual.

CONCLUSIONS AND PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS:
In most cases, fluorosis is a minor cosmetic defect that should not be cause for alarm. Dentists should educate their patients about the optimal range of fluoride intake for caries protection, sources of fluoride and the possibility of fluorosis.

 

[Dafunkdoc_Unlimited]

http://www.cda-adc.ca/jcda/vol-69/issue-5/286.pdf
​

An Update on Fluorides and Fluorosis​

Abstract
Decisions concerning use of fluoride in its many forms for caries prevention are more complicated now than in the past because of the need to balance these benefits with the risks of dental fluorosis. This article reviews pertinent literature concerning dental fluorosis (definition, appearance, prevalence), pre- and post-eruptive use of fluoride, esthetic perceptions of dental fluorosis, fluoride levels of beverages and foods, the Iowa Fluoride Study, and the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s “Recommendations for Using Fluoride to Prevent and Control Dental Caries in the United States.” Water fluoridation and use of fluoride dentifrice are the most efficient and cost-effective ways to prevent dental caries; other modalities should be targeted toward high-risk individuals.

© J Can Dent Assoc 2003; 69(5):286–91
This article has been peer reviewed.

 

[OsO]

you're not addressing the point about accumulation of fluoride over time.

you dont see brown stained teeth as an adverse effect, which is just nasty

you have no idea how long it takes the body to detoxify from fluoride, or how much fluoride is safe over a given time span. or if it varies according to the person.

you're not addressing the outrageous cost to the tapayer.

you're not addressing all the medical professionals and countries who oppose water fluoridation for the same reasons im stating.

you're not addressing the studies done by the CDC itself that suggest fluoride intake is not good for small children, pregnant women, and anyone under 8 years old.

you just keep saying the same narrow-minded shyt over and over again.

so until you address the above points with a level of intellectual honesty there's really no point in continuing this convo. you're gonna keep repeating the proper dosage argument, and im going to keep coming with the above argument. ive addressed your lone point about proper dosage by asking questions about accumulation over time--a response which you have yet to generate.

so let me ask you this... if the fluoride levels in our water supply are at "optimum" levels then why do so many people get fluorosis from water fluoridation? you're so sure we're at the optimum levels of fluoridation, but if we were at optimum levels wouldnt there be zero negative effects as you claim? but since there are negative effects, we must NOT be at the optimum range for water fluoridation, correct?

also, i did a couple minutes of research to find out how the body detoxifies from fluoride intake, this is what i found:
http://www.fluoridation.com/fluorideindrinkingwater.htm

"Fluoride accumulates in the body. Healthy adult kidneys excrete 50 to 60% of the fluoride ingested each day (Marier & Rose 1971). The remainder accumulates in the body, largely in calcifying tissues such as the bones and pineal gland (Luke 1997, 2001). Infants and children excrete less fluoride from their kidneys and take up to 80% of ingested fluoride into their bones (Ekstrand 1994). The fluoride concentration in bone steadily increases over a lifetime (NRC 2006)."

if these studies are legit then wave goodbye to your entire argument. just the last sentence alone from the National Research Council's 2006 report on water fluoridation kills your whole argument.

 

[Dafunkdoc_Unlimited]

LOL @ every single talking-point in that wall of text being destroyed by scientific evidence and he keeps re-posting the same drivel like it means something.

You can lead a horse to fluoridated water.......​

 

[Dafunkdoc_Unlimited]

OBJECTION: Fluorides are cumulative poisons. Their effects may not be noticed for 20 years or more.

APPRAISAL: It is true that all of the compounds presently used for the fluoridation of water have long been known as poisons, WHEN INGESTED IN MASSIVE DOSES. It is true, also, that chlorine, alum and soda ash are all corrosive chemical poisons employed in the treatment of water. However, like fluorides they must be used in their proper concentrations to produce their benefits with safety and efficiency. It is well known that drugs and medications are often highly poisonous when used in excessive dosages. Hodge and Smith have pointed out that there is no possibility of acute fatal poisoning when using water fluoridated at 1.0 ppm.

Heyroth has mentioned four sources of evidence for the safety of fluoridation of public supplies of water including, 1) animal, 2) volunteer human experimentation, 3) epidimiological studies of the health of residents of communities whose water bears excessive amounts of fluorides, and 4) the results of medical examinations of personnel exposed to fluorides in the industry.

Heyroth cited studies which concerned the health of persons who have lived to advanced ages where the water contained from natural sources more than 1 ppm. No evidence was found of skeletal fluorosis in radiographs of 31 persons who had lived for 18 to 68 years at Bureau, Illinois, where the water contained 2.5 ppm of fluoride, or in those of 86 residents of Kempton, Illinois where the content had varied between 1.3 and 3.0 ppm. Heyroth also cited examinations of 50 persons in Lake Preston, SD where the water contained 6.0 ppm of fluoride. He stated that 'all four lines of evidence lead to the conclusion that fluoridation of water to 1.0 ppm provides an ample margin of safety.'

Further studies by Leone and his associates have provided additional corroborative data and conclusions.

Heyroth found that an increase in the density of bone may be detected at a daily intake of about that found in drinking water containing 5.0 or more parts per million. Leone found that even at 8.0 ppm that "no clinically significant physiological or functional effects resulted from prolonged ingestion of water containing excessive fluorides, except for dental fluorosis."

Leone, reported that a radiologic survey of 114 persons at Bartlett, Texas, where the water contained about 8.0 ppm of fluoride, revealed minimal evidence of an increase in the density of the bones of 12 percent of those examined, but in none there was deformity or interference with skeletal function. These 114 persons had lived in Bartlett for at least 15 years. Leone also reported that "a most unusual finding was the evidence of beneficial adult bone effect in counteracting the osteoporotic changes in the aged; hip fractures, a common occurrence to aging groups, was absent in the high fluoride area."

The statement that fluorides are cumulative poisons has not been substantiated. Also, no evidence or studies have been presented for scientific evaluation to indicate that fluorides have produced harmful effects on the health of any person. Even though millions of people have drunk, throughout their lives, water fluoridated far beyond the trace quantity recommended for dental health, no evidence of injury has been observed, with the exception of mottled enamel, which occurred in areas using water containing excessive quantities of fluoride.

"Bu-bu-but fluoride accumulates in the body and we don't know the long-lasting effects"..........​

 

[Dafunkdoc_Unlimited]

I'm just surprised people don't understand how scientific studies and research is funded .... or how scientist are influenced. Aren't all you muthafakas scientist in HL??? People who are pro fluoride are simply gullible... There are studies that support both sides... but the studies that show the affects of childrens brains and the health dangers it presents to preg women are undeniable.

Yes, they are undeniably false and non-existent since fluoride doesn't pass through the placenta and it takes extremely high doses of fluoride to have any effect on people. Far above what's in properly fluoridated water.

People who don't know how studies are performed and how the information relates to their arguments (or lack thereof) are simply ignorant and scared of nothing.

That's why they never produce any evidence that corroborates their opinions, hoping to scare you into believing bullshyt and reviving old, scientifically refuted claims that they think are 'new'.

Let me show you why your belief is invalid......
​

OBJECTION: Fluoride passes through the placenta of the mother and poisons the developing fetus.

APPRAISAL: The St. Louis Medical Society, using data supplied by the Wisconsin Board of Health, studied the relationship of deaths and pregnant women and of babies before and after births to the amounts of fluorine in the water in their Wisconsin communities during two successive 5-year periods. The Society concluded that "The well recognized stresses of pregnancy and the sensitiveness of the developing fetus to changes in its environment could be expected to reflect the toxicity if any were produced by the water. Yet there is no important or consistent difference in the frequency of deaths at term (stillbirth), immediately after delivery (neonatal), during the first year of life (infant), or in the mothers themselves in the cities whose supplies of water contained from 0.03 ppm to 2.5 ppm of fluoride. There was no significant alteration of these patterns in the city of Sheboygan during the 5-year period following the raising of its concentration of fluoride from 0.03 ppm to 1.2 ppm."

The available evidence seems to indicate there is no toxic effect. from drinking water fluoridated to physiologic concentrations of approximately 1.0 ppm, on either the mother or the child.

 

[Dafunkdoc_Unlimited]

Let's dead a couple more talking points while we're at it since I actually have proof of what I'm talking about......​

OBJECTION: Individuals may absorb excessive amounts of fluoride by osmosis while bathing in fluoridated water.

APPRAISAL: A search of the scientific literature does not reveal a single instance of harmful effects which arose from bathing in fluoridated water. However, there have been studies which have developed information relating to the objection.

Leone has produced evidence that an appreciable amount of fluoride has to be consumed in order to produce deleterious effects. The data developed by Leone and his co-workers indicate that the toxic dose would be approximately four to five grams if administered intravenously. This amount is 16,000 to 20,000 times the trace amount contained in an eight oz. glass of water. Hodge and Smith presented a table in a chapter of a publication by the American Association for the Advancement of Science which illustrates the margins of safety existing between the intake of fluorides as recommended for dental protection and each of the four possible toxic effects from an overdose of fluoride. The factor of safety against drinking enough water, fluoridated at 1 pp,. to cause fatal poisoning is 2500 times. An official statement signed by leading American authorities has been included in a formal report concerning fluoridation's safety. Using the Hodge and Smith table, just mentioned, these experts concluded that 'For any person to become poisoned from drinking fluoridated water at one part per million, that person would have to drink at least fifty bathtubs full of water. Long before that, the person would die of water intoxication or drowning.'

Since ingestion of all the fluoride at a concentration of 1.0 ppm would tend inevitably to produce a much more significant result pharmacologically than bathing, it obviously is impossible for persons to be injured by absorption of fluorides from fluoridated drinking water used for bathing purposes.

So, it isn't just 10-gallons as I previously thought, but more like 500.........................................​

 

[Dafunkdoc_Unlimited]

Copy-n-paste more large, rambling paragraphs of invalid suppositions based on ignorance of the facts ending with a smiley because you have no proof or evidence to support your argument, brehs.

Conspiracy Theories.​

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

I'm glad the pro-science crew is in here repping hard body.

"Quote natural news brehs"

 

[OsO]

thank you for finally addressing some of the points, but can you drop the links for those posts you're quoting.

also, those case studies only involve a few hundred people over various amounts of time--hardly definitive evidence.

"Heyroth cited studies which concerned the health of persons who have lived to advanced ages where the water contained from natural sources more than 1 ppm. No evidence was found of skeletal fluorosis in radiographs of 31 persons who had lived for 18 to 68 years at Bureau, Illinois, where the water contained 2.5 ppm of fluoride, or in those of 86 residents of Kempton, Illinois where the content had varied between 1.3 and 3.0 ppm. Heyroth also cited examinations of 50 persons in Lake Preston, SD where the water contained 6.0 ppm of fluoride. He stated that 'all four lines of evidence lead to the conclusion that fluoridation of water to 1.0 ppm provides an ample margin of safety.'"

in addition the only fluoridation damage they were looking for was skeletal fluorosis. so cmon breh, this is kinda weak eh? i do applaud you for finally showing up to the conversation and addressing some of my points directly, although i think we can both agree that your above post is not definitive evidence of anything.

and thats also the point, is that there is clear evidence for both sides. dont say there's no evidence for my claim because i already linked you to the studies done by academia and the CDC.

but it concerns me that so many people, doctors and dentists included, want to end water fluoridation, and dont agree thats it's beneficial and may in fact be harmful. it concerns me that WHOLE COUNTRIES oppose water fluoridation and dont agree that it's beneficial and may in fact be harmful. so im not trying to convince you to take the opposite stance and admit that water fluoridation could be harmful... im just trying to get you to see that we need more information before we can come to a definitive conclusion on either side. but in your mind youve already established a definitive belief, and therefore are not accepting any information that contradicts that.

i'd really just like to hear you answer to the question about why so many doctors and dentists, and COUNTRIES do not endorse water fluoridation? there are more people than oppose water fluoridation than participated in those groundbreaking studies you posted but seriously, if it's so great and the science is so exact then why do so many people oppose it?

 

[OsO]

lol and did ya'll know that the FDA has fluoride labeled as a "drug."

"In statements spanning from the 1960s to 2000, the FDA has repeatedly confirmed its position that fluoride is a drug, not a “nutrient,” when used to prevent disease."

http://www.fluoridealert.org/researchers/fda/drug/



you dudes cant be serious right now

so basically we're drugging the entire population lol