Closed Thread
Page 15 of 16 FirstFirst ... 513141516 LastLast
Results 141 to 150 of 160
  1. #141
    Pegasus's Avatar
    Pegasus is offline and all that the Lorax left here in this mess was a small pile of rocks with the one word...UNLESS
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    14,650
    Thanks
    1,738
    Thanked
    1,738
    Reviews
    2
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 postsAmber Star - 2,000 postsAmethyst Star - 5,000 postsEmerald Star - 10,000 posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Steve533 View Post
    pegasus, either you're playing dumb or you have no idea how to find and evaluate relevant information.
    Nah, if I wanted to play dumb, I'd reference non peer reviewed published papers, instead of ones carried out by universities.

    Funny thing is, I've lectured at university level, I've tutored at university level, I've partaken in university research (Oh, yes, and I have a tertiary bachelor degree which required me to undertake evidence based research). I've always been aware of the fact that a paper has to contain certain things to be considered of substantial importance in the field.

    The problem I have is that I am not teaching or studying at uni at the moment, so I don't have access to a full university catalogue of up to date journals, and have had to rely upon google. I've noted others asking you about the lack of peer reviewed research papers from your side of the table, yet no response. All you seem to have done is to disregard positive evidence for the inclusion of fluoride into drinking water.

    Trying to negate information which is put forward by others with an oposing position than yourself, does not make your information any more valid.
    Quote Originally Posted by Atropos View Post
    The funny part is that I am not a staunch "fluoridationist"- I just have a strong sense of logic and hate unfounded conspiracy theories and scaremongering done by people who have nothing better to do.
    I have read enough to be convinced its in our water for a reason, to know its a supplement (as opposed to a medication) and also to know a poison is generally determined by the dosage. I do not believe that the government would bother to do it if it caused health problems, I do not believe the government scientific bodies allow us to be poisoned and, much like vaccines, I don't believe the government would be happy to fund something which will eventually cost them more via the health system. They have no reason to do such a thing and I do not for a moment believe they are doing it unknowingly.

    And this ^^^^ is me too.

    I am concerned with a lot more things in my life at a much higher level. However, I feel like there's almost a conspiracy theory feel to how you're wording your posts and scaremongering is something that doesn't sit comfortably with me.

  2. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Pegasus For This Useful Post:

    Atropos  (11-03-2013),beebs  (11-03-2013),hollychops  (11-03-2013),Mod-DJ Nette  (11-03-2013)

  3. #142
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    21
    Thanks
    4
    Thanked
    16
    Reviews
    0
    Some of you have accused me of not providing information from peer reviewed sources. I have actually provided links to, and quotes from, an article in Environmental Science and Policy, two articles in Acta Orthopaedica, two articles in Community Dentistry and Oral Epidemiology, and an article in Caries Research. That's six articles from peer reviewed journals. I have also provided links to the 2006 US National Research Council report on fluoride in drinking water, which is packed with references to peer reviewed sources and is the most comprehensive review of fluoride toxicity ever produced, and to the Fluoride Action Network website and meetup, where scores of peer reviewed journal articles can be found. Below are some more links to peer reviewed journal articles. Anyone who bothers to look can easily find many more.

    1. http://cof-cof.ca/wp-content/uploads...0-Jul-2012.pdf
    Here's an article from the peer reviewed journal Environmental Health Perspectives in 2012.
    Developmental Fluoride Neurotoxicity: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
    "As noted by the NRC committee (NRC 2006), assessments of fluoride safety have relied on incomplete information on potential risks."
    "The results suggest that fluoride may be a developmental neurotoxicant that affects brain development at exposures much below those that can cause toxicity in adults"
    "potential developmental neurotoxicity of fluoride should be a high research priority"

    2. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21237562
    Here's an article from the peer reviewed Journal of Hazardous Materials in 2011.
    The relationships between low levels of urine fluoride on children's intelligence, dental fluorosis in endemic fluorosis areas in Hulunbuir, Inner Mongolia, China.
    "Mean value of fluoride in drinking water was 1.31±1.05 mg/L (range 0.24-2.84). Urine fluoride was inversely associated with IQ in the multiple linear regression model when children's age as a covariate variable was taken into account (P<0.0001). Each increase in 1 mg/L of urine fluoride associated with 0.59-point decrease in IQ (P=0.0226). Meanwhile, there was a dose-response relationship between urine fluoride and dental fluorosis (P<0.0001). In conclusion, our study suggested that low levels of fluoride exposure in drinking water had negative effects on children's intelligence and dental health and confirmed the dose-response relationships between urine fluoride and IQ scores as well as dental fluorosis."
     

    3. http://fluoridealert.tenintenclients...lenix-1995.pdf
    Here's an article from the peer reviewed journal Neurotoxicology and Teratology in 1995.
    Neurotoxicity of Sodium Fluoride in Rats
     

    4. http://208.109.172.241/health/brain/varner-1998.pdf
    Here's an article from the peer reviewed journal Brain Research in 1998.
    Chronic administration of aluminium-fluoride or sodium-fluoride to rats in drinking water: alterations in neuronal and cerebrovascular integrity
    "chronic administration of AlF3 and NaF in the drinking water of rats resulted in distinct morphological alterations in the brain, including effects on neurons and cerebrovasculature."
     

    5. http://www.fluorideresearch.org/312/...2_p059-128.pdf
    Here's an article from the peer reviewed journal Fluoride in 1998.
    Fluoride-linked Down Syndrome Births and Their Estimated Occurrence Due to Water Fluoridation
    "The number of excess DS births due to water fluoridation is estimated to be several thousand cases annually throughout the world."

    6. http://www.nature.com/nature/journal.../322125a0.html
    Here's an article from the peer reviewed journal Nature in 1986.
    The mystery of declining tooth decay
     

    7. http://www.fluoridealert.org/uploads/susheela-2005.pdf
    Here's an article from the peer reviewed journal Fluoride in 2005.
    Excess Fluoride Ingestion and Thyroid Hormone Derangements in Children Living in Delhi, India
     

    8. http://insideclimatenews.org/sites/d...%20article.pdf
    Here's an article from the peer reviewed journal Endocrine Reviews in 2012.
    Hormones and Endocrine-Disrupting Chemicals: Low-Dose Effects and Nonmonotonic Dose Responses
    [Table 3 lists sodium fluoride as a low-dose endocrine disruptor, which inhibits insulin secretion, parathyroid hormone, and thyroid hormone]

    9. http://curezone.us/upload/pdf/Fluori...teosarcoma.pdf
    Here's an article from the peer reviewed journal Cancer Causes & Control in 2006.
    Age-specific fluoride exposure in drinking water and osteosarcoma (United States).
     

    10. http://files.meetup.com/1755143/Asso..._with%2031.pdf
    Here's an article from the peer reviewed journal Nuclear Medicine Communications in 2012.
    Association of vascular fluoride uptake with vascular calcification and coronary artery disease
     

    11. http://www.fluorideresearch.org/194/...08.pdf#page=38
    Here's an article from the peer reviewed New Zealand Medical Journal in 1985.
    Repetitive Strain Injury (RSI) and Magnesium and Fluoride Intake
     

    12. http://files.meetup.com/1755143/Publ...phe_phs016.pdf
    Here's an article from the peer reviewed journal Public Health Ethics in 2012.
    Ethics of Artificial Water Fluoridation in Australia
    "The author concludes that there is insufficient ethical justification for artificial water fluoridation in Australia."
    "In Australia, the industrial grade fluosilicic acid is the most commonly used chemical for artificial water fluoridation"
    "there is little epidemiological evidence to suggest that widespread adoption of water fluoridation has translated into substantial reduction in caries prevalence in Australia"
    "To date, there is no evidence to support the assertion that water fluoridation reduced social disparities in caries incidence in Australia or internationally"

    13. http://www.newjerseywatereducation.c...umanRights.pdf
    Here's an article from the peer reviewed International Journal of Occupational and Environmental Health in 2003.
    Fluoridation: a violation of medical ethics and human rights"Silicofluorides, widely used in water fluoridation, are unlicensed medicinal substances, administered to large populations without informed consent or supervision by a qualified medical practitioner. Fluoridation fails the test of reliability and specificity, and, lacking toxicity testing of silicofluorides, constitutes unlawful medical research. It is banned in most of Europe; European Union human rights legislation makes it illegal. Silicofluorides have never been submitted to the U.S. FDA for approval as medicines. The ethical validity of fluoridation policy does not stand up to scrutiny relative to the Nuremberg Code and other codes of medical ethics, including the Council of Europe's Biomedical Convention of 1999. The police power of the State has been used in the United States to override health concerns, with the support of the courts, which have given deference to health authorities."
     

    14. http://mli.sagepub.com/content/12/1/11.short
    Here's an article from the peer reviewed journal Medical Law International in 2012.
    Weeping and wailing and gnashing of teeth: the legal fiction of water fluoridation
    "This paper provides an analysis of the jurisprudence and legislation concerning the fluoridation of water in the United Kingdom. Water fluoridation is currently permitted by the Water Act 2003, but this appears to contradict legislation and regulations governing food and healthcare in the UK and the EU. It is concluded that the status quo rests on the legal fiction that fluoridated water does not constitute a medication."

    15. http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/1...96.2011.596818
    Here's an article from the peer reviewed journal Critical Public Health in 2012.
    Slaying sacred cows: is it time to pull the plug on water fluoridation?
    "While traditionally the problem of evidence is characterised as one where policy makers either accept or ignore evidence, a central concern of this article is where poor evidence is promoted by professionals and accepted by policy makers."

  4. The Following User Says Thank You to Steve533 For This Useful Post:

    Phony  (17-03-2013)

  5. #143
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    8,800
    Thanks
    7,291
    Thanked
    9,742
    Reviews
    5
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 postsAmber Star - 2,000 postsAmethyst Star - 5,000 posts
    You've been a member for a couple of months now Steve, and posted nothing but fluoride related comments. This is a parenting forum. Do you have children? Are you planning on children?

  6. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Atropos For This Useful Post:

    hollychops  (14-03-2013),kezanazz  (14-03-2013)

  7. #144
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    2,166
    Thanks
    803
    Thanked
    1,902
    Reviews
    0
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 postsAmber Star - 2,000 posts
    Awards:
    Bubhub Blogger
    I'm so lucky I am currently at home on complete bed rest after a week in hospital. This gives me plenty of time to read through all Steve's articles, and it adds to be daily fare of trashy mags and bad day time tv.

    So from my reading of all the articles (brief summary below for those of you not confined to bed rest), none of them support most of the previous allegations.

    1. A study of fluoride intake in a number of locations, particularly China. Found adverse impacts on IQ when high levels of fluoride ingested. By high I mean very high levels, some up to 11.5mg/L in their drinking water. I have no issue with this study, however as the levels being used are significantly higher than Australian Standard for Drinking Water I don't see the relevance to the debate about the levels being added in Australia. I think we all agree that at certain levels fluoride can be harmful and this confirms it.

    2.There was only a link to the abstract for this article. It appears to be based on the same research as 1. above. Therefore I think my comments above hold.

    3. A study of rats undertaken in America. Various groups of rats were given different doses of fluoride over a period of time. Those in the higher dose groups did exhibit behavioural changes. How these levels compare to what the average human ingests is anyones guess.

    4. A study of rats undertaken in America. Three groups of rats were given Aluminium Fluoride, Sodium Fluoride or none in their drinking water. The study really focussed on the issues associated with the aluminium. Hard to draw to many conclusions about the fluoride as they also discovered both aluminium and fluoride in the rats food. Most definitely adverse effects from high levels of aluminium. Possibly adverse effects from high levels of fluoride, how these levels compare to what the average human ingests is anyones guess.

    5. Straight from the Journal of the International Society of Fluoride Research. The most misleading name for a society possible. Should probably be referred to the ACCC in the same way that the Australian Vaccine Network currently is. A study purporting to prove that younger women have a higher risk of a child with down syndrome than older women and this is due to fluoride intake. I am putting this one in the old lies, damn lies and statistics category. Has taken data from a previous study (which did not find a link with fluoride) added a new set of stats to it and found a different answer. Then made a lot of 'its possible statements'.

    6.I couldn't access more than the 3 line abstract, so no comment on this one.

    7. A study of the impacts of fluoride levels on thyroid function on children in India. Once again the high levels are much higher than that allowable in Australia. This is all naturally occurring fluoride. There are also issues of iodine levels and fluoride from non drinking water sources. My message out of this was don't have kids in India. Yes high levels of fluoride may have impacts, however there were also a lot of other variables not accounted for this in this study.

    8. Must say this one was a little much for my anaemic brain and is well outside my field of expertise as it relates to low dose endocrine disrupters. While sodium fluoride is mentioned in a single table, that is the only reference to it. This article seems to pose more questions than answers in relation to the possibility of endocrine disrupters and lists many, many, many possible disrupters. Probably worth a whole thread of its own, but doesn't really add much to this thread.

    9. An American study into the potential links between fluoride and osteosarcoma. The researchers own conclusion is that more research into this area is needed. There are so many variables in this study that weren't really considered. Jury is still out on this one.

    10. The research focused on patients with coronary disease who were injected with fluoride prior to a PET/CT scan. Struggling to find any relevance to the discussion on fluoride in drinking water.

    11. Another article from our friends at the International Society for Fluoride Research. A short abstract is provided, no other details. Impossible to make any review of the information.

    12. Actually a well balanced and well researched article. However I note that Steve has made some very selective quotes in his link. Another quote from this article 'The consensus view on fluorine in relation to dentalhealth is that it is necessary for optimal dental structureand for facilitating resistance against tooth decay.'. This article is from an ethics publication and concludes that ethically there is insufficient justification for artificial water fluoridation in Australia. It does not conclude that there is no scientific reason to fluoridate and does not conclude any of the things that Steve has mentioned previously. If you can only be bothered to read one of the articles quoted, this should be it.

    13. Note sure if this one is science or just a rant. Lots of bold claims about fluoridation failing the test of reliability and specificity. Not a lot of substance to back any of this up.

    14. Could only access the abstract of this one. Which is a real pity because its been a while since I completed by Master of Laws and I was looking forward to a good legal argument. In any case from reading the abstract I would say it is about the current legislation in the UK regarding what can and can't be added to water supplies. Unlikely to actually have a view on what the science says, however this assumption is based only on my own experience of my training as both an Engineer and a Lawyer and I could be totally wrong.

    15. Sorry couldn't access this article either.

    Well that took a little longer than expected. Just time for a quick shower before the Dr Phil Show.

    Thanks for the information Steve, however I'm not sure it provided much in the way of science of why fluoride is so bad for us. I am still interested in your view of why the government is trying to mislead us all and who you think benefits from this misinformation. I'm sure Atropos is also waiting for an answer to her questions about your proof of why we shouldn't believe the government published articles (note these articles are published by respected scientists with expertise in their field, not politicians - I think you might need to have another look at your understanding of government, law, public servants etc). I am also interested in how your views relate to a parenting forum.

  8. The Following 7 Users Say Thank You to Mod-DJ Nette For This Useful Post:

    Atropos  (14-03-2013),beebs  (14-03-2013),Eko  (15-03-2013),hollychops  (14-03-2013),kezanazz  (14-03-2013),Mod-Wise Enough  (07-11-2014),Tazzy  (17-03-2013)

  9. #145
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    8,800
    Thanks
    7,291
    Thanked
    9,742
    Reviews
    5
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 postsAmber Star - 2,000 postsAmethyst Star - 5,000 posts
    DJ Nette

  10. The Following User Says Thank You to Atropos For This Useful Post:

    beebs  (14-03-2013)

  11. #146
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    338
    Thanks
    14
    Thanked
    136
    Reviews
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Atropos View Post
    DJ Nette
    Heh heh I was just about to tell DJ Nette I think I love her!

  12. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to hollychops For This Useful Post:

    Atropos  (15-03-2013),beebs  (14-03-2013)

  13. #147
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    10,012
    Thanks
    14,124
    Thanked
    7,612
    Reviews
    0
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 postsAmber Star - 2,000 postsAmethyst Star - 5,000 postsEmerald Star - 10,000 posts
    Awards:
    100 Posts in a week
    DJ Nette....you. are. a. legend!

  14. The Following User Says Thank You to beebs For This Useful Post:

    Atropos  (15-03-2013)

  15. #148
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    13,064
    Thanks
    9,846
    Thanked
    12,967
    Reviews
    0
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 postsAmber Star - 2,000 postsAmethyst Star - 5,000 postsEmerald Star - 10,000 posts
    Awards:
    Busiest Member of the Week - week ended 9/1/15Busiest Member of the Week - week ended 7/11/14Busiest Member of the Week - week ended 3/10/14100 Posts in a week
    DJ Nette you're a legend.

  16. The Following User Says Thank You to VicPark For This Useful Post:

    Atropos  (15-03-2013)

  17. #149
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    21
    Thanks
    4
    Thanked
    16
    Reviews
    0
    DJ Nette, I don't expect that you or your partners in crime are interested in the truth, but here it is anyway.

    1. This was a Harvard University study. One of the authors is Philippe Grandjean, who is Adjunct Professor of Environmental Health at Harvard, with a PhD on the toxicity of lead. The following statement concludes a brief article on his Chemical Brain Drain website on the study and its relevance to artificial water fluoridation: "Chemical brain drain should not be disregarded. The average IQ deficit in children exposed to increased levels of fluoride in drinking water was found to correspond to about seven points - a sizable difference. To which extent this risk applies to fluoridation in Wichita or Portland or elsewhere is uncertain, but definitely deserves concern." The very highest fluoride concentration in one of the 27 original studies was 11.5 ppm, with most of the high fluoride groups drinking water with much lower concentrations. An IQ deficit was found by one study in which the drinking water for the high fluoride group had 0.88 ppm fluoride. When differing individual susceptibilities and fluoride exposures are taken into account, it is clear that there is no margin of safety in artificial water fluoridation.
    http://braindrain.dk/2013/02/fluorid...er-and-brains/

    2. This research was also concerned with the effect of fluoride on children's IQs, but the methodology was very different from the studies analysed by the Harvard group, which should have been obvious from the abstract. Fluoride in urine was measured, which is a much better indicator of actual fluoride exposure than the concentration of fluoride in drinking water. The children tested came from four different areas of the same city, with concentrations of fluoride in drinking water ranging from 0.24 ppm to 2.84 ppm. The presence and severity of dental fluorosis was also determined. IQ decreased linearly with increasing urine fluoride concentration, which was also correlated with dental fluorosis. So the higher the fluoride exposure, the greater the average IQ deficit, and the greater the likelihood of dental fluorosis, which is very common in artificially fluoridated communities. This study was reasonably large, involving 331 children.

    3. Phyllis Mullenix is the first listed author for this study. She is a toxicologist, and did her PhD at Harvard. It is the job of toxicologists to interpret how the results of animal studies might translate to humans.
    "effects on behaviour related directly to plasma fluoride levels and the fluoride accumulation in the brain. This contradicts findings from short-term fluoride kinetic studies, which found that the adult blood-brain barrier was relatively impermeable to fluoride when whole brain fluoride levels were measured within 1 h following IV injection. Considering the brain fluoride accumulations found in this study, such impermeability does not apply to chronic exposure situations.
    Hyperactivity and cognitive deficits are generally linked with hippocampal damage"
    "Rats ingested 75-125 ppm fluoride for six weeks to attain plasma fluoride levels of 0.059-0.640 ppm. Six weeks of consuming 75 and 100 ppm fluoride produced higher plasma fluoride levels than did 125 ppm."
    "Similar plasma fluoride levels of 0.076-0.25 ppm have been found in humans ingesting 5-10 ppm fluoride in drinking water"
    "plasma fluoride levels as high as 1.44 ppm are found in children 1 h after receiving topical applications of an acidulated phosphate fluoride (1.23%) gel"
    "Because humans occasionally are exposed to high amounts of fluoride and plasma levels as high as those found in this rat study, neurotoxic risks deserve further evaluation."
    "Experience with other developmental neurotoxicants prompts expectations that changes in behavioural function will be comparable across species, especially humans and rats"
    "Substances that accumulate in brain tissue potentiate concerns about neurotoxic risks"

    4. You wrote "Possibly adverse effects from high levels of fluoride, how these levels compare to what the average human ingests is anyones [sic] guess." It is clearly stated that the sodium fluoride concentration in the drinking water of the rats was 2.1 ppm, which gives a fluoride concentration of 0.95 ppm, which is slightly lower than the nominal level for some of Australia's artificially fluoridated water supplies. The significance of studying aluminium and fluoride together is that by itself, aluminium cannot cross the blood brain barrier. Being a reactive metal, aluminium readily binds with fluoride, allowing it to cross the blood brain barrier, causing the pathological effects on brain which were seen in the study, and potentially causing Alzheimer's in humans. One source of aluminium is drinking water, because aluminium sulfate is used to clarify water. Fluoride also enhances the leaching of aluminium from pots and pans.

    http://europepmc.org/abstract/MED/7603640s
    http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...6974918890245X

    5. The International Society of Fluoride Research and its journal Fluoride were founded by George Waldbott, an allergist who was the first to document anaphylaxis from penicillin, and the first to make the link between smoking and emphysema. James Sumner, who won the Nobel Prize in Chemistry in 1946, was another early opponent of fluoridation. Two of the most prominent early promoters of fluoridation were Harold Hodge and Robert Kehoe. Harold Hodge was the senior toxicologist for the Manhattan Project, working in a new annex of the University of Rochester's Strong Memorial Hospital funded by the US Army. He oversaw fluoride, uranium, and plutonium experiments on unsuspecting patients at the hospital. This is partially documented in Pulitzer Prize winner Eileen Welsome's book The Plutonium Files, and Christopher Bryson's The Fluoride Deception. It was also investigated by President Bill Clinton's Advisory Committee on Human Radiation Experiments in the mid-1990s. Hundreds of tons of fluoride were required to produce the enriched uranium for the Manhattan Project, and thousands of workers were poisoned in the process, with some dying on the spot. Robert Kehoe was a research scientist at the industry-funded Kettering Laboratory. He did research on fluoride and lead, and was a great advocate of water fluoridation and the addition of lead to petrol.

    http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article....ticleid=303391
    http://www.mailman.columbia.edu/site...0Markowitz.pdf

    The authors of the NRC report didn't have any problem with referencing papers from Fluoride, including the Takahashi article on Down Syndrome and water fluoridation. Your statement that this study purports "to prove that younger women have a higher risk of a child with down syndrome than older women and this is due to fluoride intake" is complete nonsense. It was stated several times that older women have a higher risk. For example: "the above analysis confirmed that there might be no other factor which promotes DS so steadily and widely as the total daily intake of fluoride except aging of mothers."

    6. Here's the abstract: "Large temporal reductions in tooth decay, which cannot be attributed fluoridation, have been observed in both unfluoridated and fluoridated areas of at least eight developed countries over the past thirty years. It is now time for a scientific re-examination of the alleged enormous benefits of fluoridation." The author, Mark Diesendorf, is basically saying that the observed reductions in tooth decay cannot be explained by water fluoridation or other sources of fluoride. He found that the downward trend started in the 1930s, before the introduction of water fluoridation and other fluoride treatments, for a start: hence the title "The mystery of declining tooth decay". At the time he was working at the Australian National University, and he is now an Associate Professor and Deputy Director of the Institute of Environmental Studies at the University of New South Wales, and an Editorial Board Member of Fluoride. The article was published in Nature, which is one of the world's top science journals.

    7. It was clearly stated that the children tested were not iodine deficient, so their thyroid hormone derangements can't be attributed to that. There are "issues" with "fluoride from non drinking water sources" everywhere, not just in India, and the authors didn't indicate that there were any especially notable sources in the area studied. AK Susheela is one of the top fluoride toxicity experts in the world, so she should know. Some of the children in the control groups, with fluoride levels in drinking water below that of artificially fluoridated water and without dental fluorosis, had blood and urine fluoride levels above the upper limit. At the very least, this study indicates yet again that there is no safety margin in the practice of artificial water fluoridation. Iodine deficiency is common in Australia, which increases the risk.

    8. I counted 28 low-dose endocrine disruptors, nearly all of which do not occur in nature. From the paper: "For decades, studies of endocrine-disrupting chemicals (EDCs) have challenged traditional concepts in toxicology, in particular the dogma of "the dose makes the poison," because EDCs can have effects at low doses that are not predicted by effects at higher doses.… we explore nonmonotonic dose-response curves, defined as a nonlinear relationship between dose and affect where the slope of the curve changes sign somewhere within the range of doses examined." This is relevant, because it further undermines the idea that the fluoride doses of people subjected to fluoridation are safe.

    9. In the NRC report it says "A relatively large hospital-based case-control study of osteosarcoma and fluoride exposure is underway at the Harvard School of Public Health and is expected to be published in the summer of 2006. That study will be an important addition to the fluoride database, because it will have exposure information on residence histories, water consumption, and assays of bone and toenails." The results are in, and it was found that boys who are exposed to fluoridated water between the ages of six and eight are at greatly increased risk of developing osteosarcoma, which is often fatal. This is consistent with an earlier study on rats which found osteosarcoma in male rats exposed to fluoride. William Marcus, who was a senior toxicologist at the US EPA, speaks in the documentary Fluoridegate about how rats very rarely get osteosarcoma, because they live quite short lives and there isn't enough time for it to develop. Elise Bassin, author of the Harvard study, concluded that more research is needed because she is a real scientist, who is careful not to make exaggerated claims, unlike the charlatans who promote fluoridation. The fact remains that the weight of evidence is in favour of fluoridation causing an increased incidence of osteosarcoma in males.

    10. "Given the assumption that fluoride uptake represents dynamic atherosclerotic calcification, we would expect that fluoride uptake occurs at the stage before the formation of detectable calcium deposition."
    "Fluoride uptake either overlaps with calcification or locates adjacent to the detectable calcium deposits, suggesting that fluoride uptake and detectable calcification represent different stages of the atherosclerotic process."
    "These results further support the fact that higher fluoride uptake in coronary arteries indicates increased cardiovascular risk."
    It is known that excess fluoride causes the calcification of tissues such as ligaments, the pineal gland, and the interosseous membrane of the forearm. It is likely that fluoride also causes the calcification of arteries, causing heart disease.

    11. This article was actually published by the New Zealand Medical Journal, as I have already said. Apart from publishing original papers, Fluoride also reprints abstracts from other journals. The author is Geoffrey E. Smith, a dental surgeon who was working at the University of Melbourne at the time. He took small bone samples from patients after tooth extractions and tested the fluoride concentrations, which were found to be much higher on average in patients with RSI than in those without. Those with RSI also had deficient magnesium and excessive fluoride dietary intakes. After increasing magnesium and decreasing fluoride intakes, eight out of twelve RSI sufferers had experienced marked relief in their symptoms after six weeks. My joint problems could be described as RSI, and skeletal fluorosis is known to be exacerbated by repetitive strain. Apart from fluoride avoidance, magnesium supplementation has helped me more than any other treatment I've tried. Magnesium binds to fluoride, and magnesium fluoride has low water solubility.

    12.The sentence you quoted was the author's assessment of other people's opinions, whereas the opinions I quoted clearly belong to the author himself. It doesn't matter how you try to spin it, because the article makes it abundantly clear that the author is opposed to water fluoridation. Your quote also refers to fluorine in general, not water fluoridation, which is important since "It is noteworthy that effect of fluoride is only topical, on teeth enamel." In other words, there is no benefit from fluoride ingestion. To say "It does not conclude that there is no scientific reason to fluoridate" is misleading, because as the title "Ethics of Artificial Water Fluoridation in Australia" clearly indicates, it is an article about ethics, not science. To say it "does not conclude any of the things that Steve has mentioned previously" is dishonest, because even though the discussion of health consequences is brief, the author's opinion is that there are "significant adverse economic and health consequences, such as cost of artificial fluoridation, aesthetic and psychological effects of dental fluorosis and a likelihood of higher risks of bone fractures and hypothyroidism".

    13. One of the authors is Robert Carton, who was a senior scientist at the US EPA, and President of the EPA union of scientists. He has a whole lot more substance than you do, dear.

    14. This also concerns EU legislation and regulations, not just the UK. The statement "It is concluded that the status quo rests on the legal fiction that fluoridated water does not constitute a medication" clearly indicates that the idea that fluoridated water is not a medication, which is the stated opinion of some on this thread, is a lie.

    15. The link works for me. The author of the article is Stephen Peckham, who is Professor of Health Policy at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine.

  18. #150
    Pegasus's Avatar
    Pegasus is offline and all that the Lorax left here in this mess was a small pile of rocks with the one word...UNLESS
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    14,650
    Thanks
    1,738
    Thanked
    1,738
    Reviews
    2
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 postsAmber Star - 2,000 postsAmethyst Star - 5,000 postsEmerald Star - 10,000 posts
    It's getting late, and I have work tomorrow, so may not be able to give the same time to this that DJNette gave it last week, till Tuesday.

    But please don't lump us into "partners in crime" if we applaud the time that DJNette gave to looking into your links when she answered your post last week.

    I will endeavour to look into all of your links and will answer them all individually (as I said - maybe not till Tuesday), but we all think for ourselves and are capable of researching and giving considered criticism.

    I am a fulltime mother with two young children and two step children who also happens to work part time but also gives time to canteen duty, sports (I just finished coaching my daughter's tball team), taking my children out, educating them, making sure that the house is clean, the washing is done etc etc.....

    I won't bore you with further details, but feel a bit insulted that you lump the people who question your sources as "partners in crime" with someone that took the time to look into your links you put up.

    As others have said - this is a parenting forum and the majority of things which are discussed on here are parenting issues. If you are a parent you may understand the time constraints which are placed upon some of us. Most of us, do not post just in one area (which you seem to do) which is why when someone just posts in one area it stands out and seems odd when most of us are here to discuss issues which affect our children and our raising of them.

    Given that I have a tertiary degree and know the ins and outs of research - I feel qualified to look at your links with criticism.

    Furthermore, I am happy to spend some time to look up further research which may balance this out.

    I am certainly not disregarding others who do not have tertiary degrees to do the same, however, for some unexplained reason thought you may benefit from knowing that most of us here on this forum do not blindly accept things which we are shown, nor do we disregard things shown to us on this forum.

    I love the way that many members here show a propensity to learn and give their own experiences and information to allow others to learn.

    The only question I have here is regarding why your only area you seem to post here is regarding this one topic. As parents there are so many issues which need to be considered in the best interests of our children. I am curious as to why you only have posted on Fluoride when there are so many other issues which impact how our children grow? Would you care to share why you seem to have such a special interest in such a specialised area Steve? I've shared a fair bit of my background as have others.

    As I have said - I will now leave this thread until I can give it considered time and I am able to seriously read the links you have posted.

  19. The Following User Says Thank You to Pegasus For This Useful Post:

    Mod-DJ Nette  (18-03-2013)


 

Similar Threads

  1. when did u start using fluoride toothpaste?
    By SoThisIsLove in forum General Parenting Tips, Advice & Chat
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 30-11-2012, 10:29
  2. Replies: 5
    Last Post: 20-03-2012, 07:15
  3. Added Fluoride to water linked to infertility
    By posative in forum Conception & Fertility General Chat
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 27-01-2012, 14:24

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

FEATURED SUPPORTER
GymbaROOGymbaROO offers activities for babies & toddlers in a fun learning centre, focussing on developmental education. ...
REVIEWS
"Made bed time less anxious"
by Meld85
My Little Heart Whisbear - the Humming Bear reviews ›
"Wonderful natural Aussie made product!"
by Mrstwr
Baby U Goat Milk Moisturiser reviews ›
"Replaced good quality with cheap tight nappies"
by Kris
Coles Comfy Bots Nappies reviews ›

ADVERTISEMENT