View Full Forums : Flouride
02-03-2008, 12:30 PM
Scientific American (http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=second-thoughts-on-fluoride)
Second Thoughts on Fluoride
New research indicates that a cavity-fighting treatment could be risky if overused
Researchers are intensifying their scrutiny of fluoride, which is added to most public water systems in the U.S. Some recent studies suggest that overconsumption of fluoride can raise the risks of disorders affecting teeth, bones, the brain and the thyroid gland.
A 2006 report by a committee of the National Research Council recommended that the federal government lower its current limit for fluoride in drinking water because of health risks to both children and adults.
02-03-2008, 12:34 PM
A couple good posts form people who seems to know what they are talking about in the comments section of the SA link:
There is a huge difference between natural fluorides in drinking water [calcium fluoride leached from soil at high levels that cause teeth effects] vs. artificially synthesized fluorides such as sodium fluoride or fluosilicic acid. The former is not a toxic compound with an LD50 of a safe high 5,000 mg/kg. The latter are toxic compounds, with LD50s comparable to arsenic compounds and lead at 150 mg/kg. Deaths from artificially fluoridated water have been caused by lowering of blood calcium from high fluoride levels during overfeeds (Gessler, New England Journal of Medicine 330:95, 1994). This could not have happened with natural calcium fluoride. The Fagin article uses the term fluoride for both substances in many statements. For example the idea that fluoride has adverse effects at doses that are higher than those causing desired teeth effects compares apples and oranges. Natural calcium fluoride alters teeth structure without being as detrimental to bone as would unnatural fluorides. Natural calcium fluoride does not cause bone fluorosis of much significance until at least 10 ppm in drinking water lifetime (Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, 2003). Unnatural fluorides without calcium however behave much differently. These are assimilated much more efficiently (90%) from the gut into the blood than is natural fluoride (10%)(ASTDR, 2003). Much lower doses lead to efficient accumulation of fluoride into bone (National Research Council, Report on Fluoride in Drinking Water, 2006, p. 94; ATSDR, 2003). Unfortunately, however as pointed out in the article, only unnatural fluorides are authorized by the CDC and ADA for water fluoridation. Yes, unnatural fluorides produce bone tumors in people exposed as children age 7-8. The study claiming otherwise merely mixed all data together into a pool so that the effect, that is real, is not statistically detectable due to dilution, where 7-8 year olds are only a small percent of the entire population of people. Our four most comprehensive studies have shown that unnatural fluorides do not reduce the incidence of dental caries but in fact usually increase them (for example Hileman, Chemical and Engineering News, Vol 67, No. 19, May, 1989). The original report that Newburgh had fewer caries was due to the fact that unnatural fluorides, which are calcium chelators and thus metabolic poisons that also effect the brain and thyroid, suppressed development of teeth so that first decay was merely delayed until later in the Newburgh children. The benefit was a statistical illusion (Pediatric Dentistry, Feb., 1998). Finally, tabulated fluoride contents of foods is of limited value since beverages usually contain mostly artificial fluorides if manufactured in fluoridated cities [because filtering cannot remove the ion, being smaller than the water molecule]. Solid foods however contain mostly natural calcium fluoride of much less concern
Although reverse osmosis filters can lower fluoride, the amount depends on the beginning concentration of the fluoride. State certified units tested high levels and find a large amount of lowering, but the fluoride ion is smaller in diameter (2.6 Angstroms) than the water molecule (2.75 A) and cannot be removed by RO pores directly. My theory is that at high levels, RO may simply be removing calcium fluoride or aluminum fluoride precipitates, lowering the ion level indirectly. It is impossible to remove it entirely with filtration. A special procedure used by Aquathin claims its ion exchange device will remove it electrostatically [as we use in labs] and is worth a look. Aluminum filter I don't recommend because they change the fluoride into dangerous soluble aluminun fluoride and a subsequent filter is also needed to remove that. Another option is from Ecowater, a calcium canister of raw oyster shells that naturalizes the fluoride and filters much, like one's bones would have done, but before drinking it, not after. These though are thousands of dollars each and no undersink unit is yet available. Since the fluosilicic acid also is a byproduct toxic waste corrosive it usually contains arsenic and lead as well and I recommend using a good filter such as one from Multipure in Las Vegas or Seagull in Carlsbad, CA to remove these metals under-sink. Absorption from showering is more problematic. Some of my students developed a fluoride hypersensitivity from eating toothpaste when growing up. They now use calcium gels from the drug store to mix with shampoo to prevent the skin rashes that plagued them after silicofluoridation was begun in Escondido, CA a couple of years ago.
Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
This poster had something to add aswell:
Also fluoride is not inert, and it binds with iron and al for some nasty compunds to damage neurons. The history of fluoride in this country is a sad one of deception and fraud to put a positive spin on a toxic waste (Thanks Alcoa Al. Co.). Then the MDs and Dentists latched on as a great way to increase business. The original "studies" were distorted- less cavities because they LOST THIER TEETH from an overdose. And since 99% of this waste goes down the toilet, it's out into our rivers, farm, gardens etc and back in the food. See Russel Blaylock's book Health Secrets -reference.
02-05-2008, 04:50 PM
The problem with having any intelligent discussion about Fluoride is that in the past opponents claimed that adding fluoride to drinking water was a Communist plot.
If we move beyond that and look at it from a scientific standpoint, then I would agree that one wonders if it is really needed, considering the availability of fluoridated toothpaste, and the large numbers of people who drink bottled water.
Adding anything to water, especially something which is toxic in large quantities, should be considered carefully.
02-05-2008, 06:46 PM
Water is toxic in large quantities.
I have treated two people thus far with water intoxication.
Never had a fluoride overdose.
04-09-2008, 04:39 AM
the fluoride in municipal water systems is put there to promote oral health. it would take a lifetime to drink enough to make u sick. fluoride is one of the most deadly elements in the world at full strength.
04-09-2008, 12:25 PM
Get thee behind me, oh undead thread. Return unto the dusty archives from whence ye came!
I'm itching to delete his sig...
04-09-2008, 01:15 PM
Do so. If I still had access I would have. Solicitation has never been allowed on the Grove and his sig is entirely comprised of links to commercial enterprises. The sole purpose of his posts, insofar as I can determine, is to allow him the opportunity to post his sig.
04-10-2008, 06:01 PM
*sigh* And now I'm wishing I had checked the boards one last time before I went to bed last night, just so I could see the offending sig.
Curiosity splatters the druid. ><
Clearbrooke of Quellious
It wasn't all that exciting. Just a bunch of spam advertisements.
vBulletin v3.0.0, Copyright ©2000-2010, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.