New study shows, Fluoride causes Brain Damage.

Daithi 1

In rats.

Fluoride is known to cross the blood-brain barrier and alter the structure
and function of neural tissue. There are few authoritative reports on
neurodegenerative changes in hippocampus, neocortex, cerebellum,
spinal cord and sciatic nerve in fluoride intoxication. We report the alterations
in the structure of neuronal tissue after chronic administration of
sodium fluoride (for 60days) to rats. Twelve male Wistar rats were divided
equally into two groups: one group received 20 ppm of sodium
fluoride (NaF) and the other group (which served as a control) received
tap water for 60days.
The body weights and organic somatic index of brain in the sodium fluoride
treated animals were significantly reduced, relative to the control
group. Tissue fluoride levels of hippocampus, neocortex, cerebellum,
spinal cord and sciatic nerve, all increased significantly in fluoride
treated rats. Electron microscopy of the hippocampus, neocortex, cerebellum,
spinal cord and sciatic nerve showed neurodegenerative
changes in the NaF treated group compared to controls. Axon deterioration,
myelin sheath degeneration and dark cells with scanty cytoplasm
were observed in spinal cord and sciatic nerve in the treated
group. Other distinctive morphological alterations observed were: vacuolated
swollen mitochondria in neocortex, hippocampus and cerebellum;
myelinated fibers with breaks in continuity (axon partly preserved
and partly vacuolated) in hippocampus; myelin splitting and vacuolated
schwann cell within the cerebellum and sciatic nerve respectively.
Thus, neurodegeneration was clearly evident in the hippocampus,
neocortex, cerebellum, spinal cord and sciatic nerve on fluoride exposure.

http://static.infowars.com/2011/12/i/general/2011_study-neurodegenerative_changes_from_fluoride_of_brain_spinal_cord_and_sciatic_nerve.pdf

CiaranMT

Something to note - these rats were given 20ppm of sodium fluoride. High levels of sodium fluoride for humans are 1-12ppm (in the intro).

Rats, weigh about 500g, ± 150g or so (rough estimate).

Humans weigh about 70kg, (very rough estimate).

Should be considered when weighing up the dose administered to these rats.

An equivalent dose for a human under these conditions would be about 2,800ppm (again a very rough estimate).

High levels of sodium fluoride for humans are 1-12ppm (in the intro).

All rough estimation I know, but just to put the rats' dose into perspective.

Daithi 1

With the risk of sounding stupid, what's your point ? Tiny bit of forced brain damage is ok ?

CiaranMT

Not at all, I'm just putting it in there before the anti-fluoride bandwagon rolls in and lauds this as all-encompassing proof of its detrimental effects.

nullzero

It's hard to avoid the bloody stuff try as you might.
Flouridated water for those who want it and they can pay for it. Flouride free water for the rest seems fair enough to me.
Ingestion of flouride has no benificial effect on dental health, topical application(in toothpaste etc...) can be of benefit to some and can do more harm than good to others.

I don't see that it is still taken as given by so many people that flouride is some sort of miracle remedy for the once ailing state of peoples dental health. Perhaps improved dental health practices over all comapred to years ago are what has the most benificial effect? Seems perfectly reasonable to me. If you want healthy teeth brush and floss regularly. Drinking flouridated water and having poor oral hygiene will most probably still result in your teeth developing cavities and being removed etc...

Also an important part of the abstract:

the other group (which served as a control) received tap water for 60days.

Daithi 1

nullzero wrote: »

It's hard to avoid the bloody stuff try as you might.
Flouridated water for those who want it and they can pay for it. Flouride free water for the rest seems fair enough to me.
Ingestion of flouride has no benificial effect on dental health, topical application(in toothpaste etc...) can be of benefit to some and can do more harm than good to others.

I don't see that it is still taken as given by so many people that flouride is some sort of miracle remedy for the once ailing state of peoples dental health. Perhaps improved dental health practices over all comapred to years ago are what has the most benificial effect? Seems perfectly reasonable to me. If you want healthy teeth brush and floss regularly. Drinking flouridated water and having poor oral hygiene will most probably still result in your teeth developing cavities and being removed etc...

Finally !, some sense !

Was expecting one of them to say something like.. "It's only rats brains, not humans."

nullzero

King Mob wrote: »

Also an important part of the abstract:

Was said tap water taken from a tap in an area where water flouridation is in operation?
Or were you making assumptions/ filling in blanks in a less than brilliant manner?
Water flouridation is not prevelant in most countries as a rule, Ireland being an exeption of course so our perception of "tap water" and its composition would be radically different to that of a large number of people from other countries.

CiaranMT

nullzero wrote: »

Was said tap water taken from a tap in an area where water flouridation is in operation?
Or were you making assumptions/ filling in blanks in a less than brilliant manner?
Water flouridation is not prevelant in most countries as a rule, Ireland being an exeption of course so our perception of "tap water" and its composition would be radically different to that of a large number of people from other countries.

What?

Hal Emmerich

You're wasting your time OP, best look after yourself and **** everyone else on this Topic.

Daithi 1

Hal Emmerich wrote: »

You're wasting your time OP, best look after yourself and **** everyone else on this Topic.

I don't give to much of a bollox to be honest. I like some regulars around here, so this is for them.

Vindication.

nullzero

nullzero wrote: »

Was said tap water taken from a tap in an area where water flouridation is in operation?
Or were you making assumptions/ filling in blanks in a less than brilliant manner?
Water flouridation is not prevelant in most countries as a rule, Ireland being an exeption of course so our perception of "tap water" and its composition would be radically different to that of a large number of people from other countries.

Well for one, the study mentions that they measured the accumulation of fluoride in both groups.
Secondly India has a problem with high levels of fluoride from industrial and natural sources in the water supplies of several states. So I think there's more than a good chance that there's some present in the tap water.

So does the study detail the fluoride content of the tap water they use in their control?

Daithi 1

King Mob wrote: »

Well for one, the study mentions that they measured the accumulation of fluoride in both groups.
Secondly India has a problem with high levels of fluoride from industrial and natural sources in the water supplies of several states. So I think there's more than a good chance that there's some present in the tap water.

So does the study detail the fluoride content of the tap water they use in their control?

The study details..

Fluoride + Brain = not good

CiaranMT

King Mob wrote: »

So does the study detail the fluoride content of the tap water they use in their control?

It doesn't seem to say.

Interesting little piece from Wiki which links in with your bit about India above:

Water fluoridation is not practiced in India. Fluorosis is endemic in at least 20 states, including Uttaranchal, Jharkhand and Chhattisgarh. The maximum permissible limit of fluoride in drinking water in India is 1.2 mg/L, and the government has been obligated to install reverse osmosis water treatment plants to reduce fluoride levels from industrial waste and mineral deposits

Daithi 1

Daithi 1 wrote: »

The study details..

Fluoride + Brain = not good

No, it says that extremely high levels of fluoride may cause harm in the brains of rats.

By ignoring the facts that rat bodys work on slightly different chemistry than ours, that the difference in our body mass to a rat's has an effect on the dosage and that the dosage involved in the are way beyond the accepted safe dosage in any drinking supply, your vastly over simplifed statement is a misrepresentation.

Daithi 1

King Mob wrote: »

No, it says that extremely high levels of fluoride may cause harm in the brains of rats.

By ignoring the facts that rat bodys work on slightly different chemistry than ours, that the difference in our body mass to a rat's has an effect on the dosage and that the dosage involved in the are way beyond the accepted safe dosage in any drinking supply, your vastly over simplifed statement is a misrepresentation.

Daithi 1 wrote: »

Finally !, some sense !

Was expecting one of them to say something like.. "It's only rats brains, not humans."

Nice timing Moby :rolleyes:

CiaranMT

CiaranMT wrote: »

It doesn't seem to say.

Interesting little piece from Wiki which links in with your bit about India above:

And after about 5 minutes of googling I found this:
http://annauniv.academia.edu/Elango/Papers/153253/Fluoride_contamination_in_groundwater_in_parts_of_Nalgonda_district_Andhra_Pradesh_India

In some areas of the same state in which the rat study was conducted, the flouride levels reached as high as 8.8 mg/l.

http://www.idosi.org/wjms/5%282%2910/4.pdf
And this one has levels in drinking water as high as 6.74 ppm.

That's compared to 0.7 ppm here in Ireland.

Daithi 1

Daithi 1 wrote: »

Nice timing Moby :rolleyes:

You don't seem to be addressing any of the points I made.

So even ignoring the fact you're simply discounting any suggestion that rat bodies have a different chemistry to human ones, I still made the point that the equivalent dose given to the rats would be far far in excess of the safe levels of fluoride in any drinking water.

Brown Bomber

Daithi 1 wrote: »

In rats.
http://static.infowars.com/2011/12/i/general/2011_study-neurodegenerative_changes_from_fluoride_of_brain_spinal_cord_and_sciatic_nerve.pdf

Brain damage?:rolleyes: Pffft! The most important thing is that the rats didn't have any cavities, obviously.

CiaranMT

Daithi 1 wrote: »

The study details..

Fluoride + Brain = not good

Potassium + Brain = not good as well, going by your logic.

Doesn't stop us eating bananas like they're going out of fashion.

Daithi 1 wrote: »

Nice timing Moby :rolleyes:

Are you going to address any point raised by myself or KM?

All we've done is point out considerations to be taken when looking at a study like this.

So far we have:

Issue of dose level being far higher than a normal level, not to mind 'high' levels.

Issue of dose level, relative to body size of the organism.

Issue of regional fluoridation levels/policies.

Care to tackle any?

CiaranMT

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Brain damage?:rolleyes: Pffft! The most important thing is that the rats didn't have any cavities, obviously.

Something I've always felt squeamish about as well (testing on lab rats etc).

Brown Bomber

CiaranMT wrote: »

Something to note - these rats were given 20ppm of sodium fluoride. High levels of sodium fluoride for humans are 1-12ppm (in the intro).

Rats, weigh about 500g, ± 150g or so (rough estimate).

Humans weigh about 70kg, (very rough estimate).

Should be considered when weighing up the dose administered to these rats.

An equivalent dose for a human under these conditions would be about 2,800ppm (again a very rough estimate).

High levels of sodium fluoride for humans are 1-12ppm (in the intro).

All rough estimation I know, but just to put the rats' dose into perspective.

New human baby 3000g apx.

I don't think many people are aware but the tap water infants ingest actually has a higher concentration of fluoride. You have to boil their water to kill off the bacteria and then let it cool naturally and this is when it happens.

CiaranMT

Brown Bomber wrote: »

New human baby 3000g apx.

I don't think many people are aware but the tap water infants ingest actually has a higher concentration of fluoride. You have to boil their water to kill off the bacteria and then let it cool naturally and this is when it happens.

As I mentioned ad nauseam in that post, it was a very, very, very rough estimate.

No doubt there's a few rugby players around that'd be twice that average :pac:

Daithi 1

And the worlds fastest backpedling award goes to... :pac:

CiaranMT wrote: »

As I mentioned ad nauseam in that post, it was a very, very, very rough estimate.

No doubt there's a few rugby players around that'd be twice that average :pac:

Daithi 1

Daithi 1 wrote: »

And the worlds fastest backpedling award goes to... :pac:

So then for babies, the equivalent dose is about 180 ppm. (Using rough math and assuming a direct scaling up.)
Or in other words 180 times the current level of fluoridation in Ireland or about
120 times the legal limit in most countries.

Daithi 1

King Mob wrote: »

So then for babies, the equivalent dose is about 180 ppm. (Using rough math and assuming a direct scaling up.)
Or in other words 180 times the current level of fluoridation in Ireland or about
120 times the legal limit in most countries.

Can you estimate the cut off point too ?

How much fluoride do you suspect is enough, but to so much, that it causes a baby brain damage ?

Brown Bomber

CiaranMT wrote: »

As I mentioned ad nauseam in that post, it was a very, very, very rough estimate.

No doubt there's a few rugby players around that'd be twice that average :pac:

Yeah, but to be fair that works both ways too. Some babies are born much smaller than the average. This boxer for example was only the size of a big rat when he was born.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Forbes_%28boxer%29

Daithi 1

Daithi 1 wrote: »

Can you estimate the cut off point too ?

How much fluoride do you suspect is enough, but to so much, that it causes a baby brain damage ?

I don't understand the question or point you're trying to make.

We know that the upper limit to levels allowed in most places is about 1.5 ppm (compared to the 20 ppm in the study). and that's not even close to a lethal dose.

Brown Bomber

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Yeah, but to be fair that works both ways too. Some babies are born much smaller than the average. This boxer for example was only the size of a big rat when he was born.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Forbes_%28boxer%29

So then if we go all the way to the very very end of the bell curve, we still find that the dose given to the rats is 20 times greater than the highest safe level that would possibly be given to a premature baby.
(that's making the assumption that they would give tap water to a premature baby in the first place.)

But if we to use premature babies to determine what we cannot safely drink...

pacquiao

Something crucial people are forgetting.
Fluoride concentrates in water when it is boiled. we all drink plenty of coffee or tea, etc.

RoboClam

Daithi 1 wrote: »

Can you estimate the cut off point too ?

How much fluoride do you suspect is enough, but to so much, that it causes a baby brain damage ?

Yeah that's why it's not a particularly good study which is not published in a particularly good paper (EDIT: I can't even access the homepage of the journal itself right now and also can't find any real info on it, not a good sign). They only did one experiment using microscopy which is slightly more subjective and less definitive then other tests which could look at RNA/protein level expression. Tests like this are usually used to bolster other results you get usually, not an entire paper.

A dose dependent study would have been far more interesting (For example, some rats should have been administered 2ppm, while others were given 6, then some 10 etc). This would show the "cut off point", because all the study currently shows is that a lot of something can have detrimental effects, which is hardly surprising.

CiaranMT

Daithi 1 wrote: »

And the worlds fastest backpedling award goes to... :pac:

You think that's backpedalling?

Been able to come up with anything to address the points raised so far, by the way?

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Yeah, but to be fair that works both ways too. Some babies are born much smaller than the average. This boxer for example was only the size of a big rat when he was born.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Forbes_%28boxer%29

My original point RE bodyweight was just to point out the glaring difference between rats and humans, which would have to be factored in when drawing any shaky conclusion and applying it to the human setting.

Hence the repeated use of 'in general', 'estimate', etc.

I'm sure there've been many rats bigger than newborn children!

pacquiao wrote: »

Something crucial people are forgetting.
Fluoride concentrates in water when it is boiled. we all drink plenty of coffee or tea, etc.

BB mentioned it previously.

CiaranMT

RoboClam wrote: »

Yeah that's why it's not a particularly good study which is not published in a particularly good paper (EDIT: I can't even access the homepage of the journal itself right now and also can't find any real info on it, not a good sign). They only did one experiment using microscopy which is slightly more subjective and less definitive then other tests which could look at RNA/protein level expression. Tests like this are usually used to bolster other results you get usually, not an entire paper.

A dose dependent study would have been far more interesting (For example, some rats should have been administered 2ppm, while others were given 6, then some 10 etc). This would show the "cut off point", because all the study currently shows is that a lot of something can have detrimental effects, which is hardly surprising.

Some good points raised.

Always refreshing to have a scientific-minded input around here

RoboClam

CiaranMT wrote: »

Some good points raised.

Always refreshing to have a scientific-minded input around here

I usually only respond to stuff like this, because It's not an ambiguous topic!

Peanut

pacquiao wrote: »

Something crucial people are forgetting.
Fluoride concentrates in water when it is boiled. we all drink plenty of coffee or tea, etc.

There's also a lot of fluoride in tea itself. According to this, average fluoride content of brewed black tea would be 1.45 ppm compared to an Irish tap water fluoridation level of .7 ppm.

Still, you can't really draw conclusions from this as there are many hidden variables not addressed - form of fluoride present, human effects vs. animal tests, frequency of ingestion, other affecting factors from diet, individual constitution, susceptibilty etc..

ed2hands

Flouride=Neurotoxin

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21255877

CiaranMT

^ Well known.

It's the form of fluoride which is crucial.

hooradiation

ed2hands wrote: »

Flouride=Neurotoxin

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21255877

Here's something that claims to be the translated version of the full paper, take that with as much salt as you feel like.

What's left out of the abstract is this bit.

The objective of this review is to publicize information on the toxic potential of F and its effects on the nervous system, with special emphasis on populations exposed to the consumption of this mineral whose concentration is outside the official standard.

(Emphasis mine)

And also the full conclusion

F is a chemical element found in high concentrations in the Earth's crust. In many of the countries where the main source of drinking water is of hydrothermal origin, the concentration of F surpasses the level allowed by the corresponding official standard. So far the reported work poses interesting disputes about the role that desempe˜na the F in health. However, there are data to prove that F has toxic effects on the central nervous system, which depends on the dose administered, the age and exposure at the same time. We recommend considering the geographical location of a given population and the quality of the water consumed to take preventive measures for use in localities where fluoride concentration is greater than 0.7 mg /l, avoiding the consumption of drinking water, fluoridated salt and the use of toothpastes and articles containing F.

Which makes this a tad more complex than Flouride=Neurotoxin.
It would seem that the axiom of "the dose makes the poison" holds true.

Brown Bomber

King Mob wrote: »

So then if we go all the way to the very very end of the bell curve, we still find that the dose given to the rats is 20 times greater than the highest safe level that would possibly be given to a premature baby.
(that's making the assumption that they would give tap water to a premature baby in the first place.)

I just think if you run a cost-benefit analysis it doesn't make sense to add fluoride to the water.

I think it's completely unethical to force medicate anyone. And for what? Avoiding dental cavities. Something that can be done through regular dental hygiene. Put the money spend on fluoride and fluoridation into educating kids on the importance of mouthwash, problem solved with no putting chemicals that cause brain damage in rats albeit it in a higher dose into the water supply.

King Mob wrote: »

But if we to use premature babies to determine what we cannot safely drink...

And why shouldn't we? They are as much an equal member of society as you or me.

It's ludicrous that they are being fed with water that could potentially harm their developing brains (amongst other things) so they won't get cavities when they don't even have any teeth.

Brown Bomber

Brown Bomber wrote: »

I just think if you run a cost-benefit analysis it doesn't make sense to add fluoride to the water.

Great, do you have such an analysis?

Brown Bomber wrote: »

I think it's completely unethical to force medicate anyone.

And I think it's unethical to misrepresent papers and use sensationalist language...
But hey...

Brown Bomber wrote: »

And why shouldn't we? They are as much an equal member of society as you or me.

It's ludicrous that they are being fed with water that could potentially harm their developing brains (amongst other things) so they won't get cavities when they don't even have any teeth.

Because for one they require different stuff from us anyway.
If we are to use super premature babies as a bench mark then we'd have to ban full fat milk, soft drinks, alcohol...

But then there's the fact that this is based on the incorrect, unsupported premise that Fluoride is harmful in doses present in tap water.
The study that was posted refers to doses given to rats that are far in excess (nearly 20 times greater) of any acceptable level in any drinking water (and this is before we scale the dose up for a the fact that even the most premature baby is larger than rats.)

Brown Bomber

Can you honestly say beyond a shadow of a doubt that fluoride, present in the drinking water used to mix a premature baby's formula couldn't possibly damage their brain in some way? That there is zero risk?

Brown Bomber

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Can you honestly say beyond a shadow of a doubt that fluoride, present in the drinking water used to mix a premature baby's formula couldn't possibly damage their brain in some way? That there is zero risk?

Now you're just being plain dishonest here.
No, I can't say it beyond a shadow of a doubt.
But there is no evidence to show that it is dangerous in any way for newborn babies and there's plenty to show that it isn't.

So it's about as non-zero a risk as drinking any water.
You can't say for certainty that tap water will always be safe and pure...

So I asked if you had any cost/benefit studies about fluoridation and made points about how the study cannot be compared to effects on human drinking safe levels.
Any comment on these points?

ed2hands

Twenty-three human studies that report an association of lowered IQ with fluoride exposure:


http://www.fluoridealert.org/caseagainstfluoride-appendices.html

hooradiation

ed2hands wrote: »

Twenty-three human studies that report an association of lowered IQ with fluoride exposure:


http://www.fluoridealert.org/caseagainstfluoride-appendices.html

What level of fluoride exposure though?
Lets see

of the twenty three links there, I count twelve that use the phrase "high flouride" in the title, so we can guess right away, and two more with the phrase "Coal Burning-Related Fluoride Poisoning" in the title, making looking at those somewhat redundant, leaving nine to look at.

So lets have a look at this one then
RESEARCH ON THE EFFECTS OF FLUORIDE ON CHILD INTELLECTUAL DEVELOPMENT UNDER DIFFERENT ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS

Which, if we look at it in more detail, is a bit more complex that is first presented
firstly the conclusion

When fluoride and iodine levels are outside of national standards for drinking water are present in the same area and ingested together, the harmful effects of fluoride are more pronounced, and the resulting damage compounded. However, the damage caused independently by either high
or low iodine is greater than that caused by fluoride. (2) In both the control and endemic areas, environmental factors such as education and child-rearing showed a direct influence on intellectual development

And how much outside the Chinese national standards were these areas?
Well according to table 1 in that pdf.
the high fluoride only group was 2.9 mg/l which is 190% above standard.
the high fluoride/low iodine was 2.85mg/l which is 185% above standard.

So, we're not talking about the dosages here in Ireland we're talking about exceptionally high dosages of fluoride in the drinking water.

So, yes, high dosages of fluoride can be harmful, and especially in these provinces in china where the water is naturally high in fluoride, but I am stumped as to how this relates to the situation here with very low levels of fluoride artificially added to the water.

ed2hands

Brown Bomber wrote: »

It's ludicrous that they are being fed with water that could potentially harm their developing brains (amongst other things) so they won't get cavities when they don't even have any teeth.

This.

ed2hands

King Mob wrote: »

But there is no evidence to show that it is dangerous in any way for newborn babies and there's plenty to show that it isn't.

Indeed!

Fluoridated water is no longer recommended for babies. In November of 2006, the American Dental Association (ADA) advised that parents should avoid giving babies fluoridated water (3). Other dental researchers have made similar recommendations over the past decade (4). Babies exposed to fluoride are at high risk of developing dental fluorosis - a permanent tooth defect caused by fluoride damaging the cells which form the teeth (5). Other tissues in the body may also be affected by early-life exposures to fluoride. According to a recent review published in the medical journal The Lancet, fluoride may damage the developing brain, causing learning deficits and other problems (6).
http://www.fluoridealert.org/fluoride-facts.aspx

King Mob wrote: »

So it's about as non-zero a risk as drinking any water.

Incorrect.

jargon buster

The fact that people spend their lives arguing on internet forums is prof positive that we all have or brains fried with either flouride or subliminal TV messages.
Im off to eat a tube of toothpaste so I can bring my intelligence level down enough to get involved in the debate about flouride.

ed2hands

jargon buster wrote: »

The fact that people spend their lives arguing on internet forums is prof positive that we all have or brains fried with either flouride or subliminal TV messages.
Im off to eat a tube of toothpaste so I can bring my intelligence level down enough to get involved in the debate about flouride.

Idiotic.

jargon buster

Idiotic.

Yup, that was my point.
The people who missed it have maybe had too much flouride.

ed2hands

ed2hands wrote: »

Indeed!

Fluoridated water is no longer recommended for babies. In November of 2006, the American Dental Association (ADA) advised that parents should avoid giving babies fluoridated water (3). Other dental researchers have made similar recommendations over the past decade (4). Babies exposed to fluoride are at high risk of developing dental fluorosis - a permanent tooth defect caused by fluoride damaging the cells which form the teeth (5). Other tissues in the body may also be affected by early-life exposures to fluoride. According to a recent review published in the medical journal The Lancet, fluoride may damage the developing brain, causing learning deficits and other problems (6).
http://www.fluoridealert.org/fluoride-facts.aspx

Incorrect.

Actually if you read the link that is posted to back up that claim the ADA make a very different statement.
They do not at any point say that drinking water alone causes fluorsis or that parents should ever give their babies fluoridated water.
In fact it simply states that babies have a lower recommended daily allowance and that by using some products they could be going over that allowance.
It in fact says:

Essentially, the ADA supports the pediatricians’ recommendations on the benefits of breast feeding and notes that using ready-to-feed formula for bottle-fed babies will keep their fluoride intake under IOM limits. If using a product that needs to be reconstituted, parents and caregivers should consider using water that has no or low levels of fluoride.

Furthermore the site you're copy pasting from says that:
Fluorsis a permanent tooth defect caused by fluoride damaging the cells which form the teeth.
Which sounds very scary indeed. But isn't an accurate description of the condition.

However dental fluorsis is not the same as brain damage, as you guys have been claiming.
Also that quote you posted is yet again another example of misrepresentation.
Chasing up the paper given in the references:
http://www.env-health.org/IMG/pdf/06tl9094page.pdf
We find it has this to say about fluoride:

Fluoride can cause neurotoxicity in laboratory animals,89 but is not shown in the panel as a substance proven to be neurotoxic in man. It exists in drinking water as a natural contaminant, but the concentration is dependent on local geological circumstances.

It then lists the results of other studies but says:

The reports did not thoroughly consider possible confounders, but do suggest that further in-depth studies be undertaken.

So why if you are genuinely so opposed to fluoridation, do you have to resort to using misrepresentations and scare tactics?

ed2hands

King Mob wrote: »

Actually if you read the link that is posted to back up that claim the ADA make a very different statement.

A very different statement?


ADA:
"Fluoridated water is no longer recommended for babies.
http://www.fluoridealert.org/fluoride-facts.aspx"

King MobQuote:
"It in fact says:
Essentially, the ADA supports the pediatricians’ recommendations on the benefits of breast feeding and notes that using ready-to-feed formula for bottle-fed babies will keep their fluoride intake under IOM limits. If using a product that needs to be reconstituted, parents and caregivers should consider using water that has no or low levels of fluoride."

King Mob wrote: »

However dental fluorsis is not the same as brain damage, as you guys have been claiming.

Where?

King Mob wrote: »

So why if you are genuinely so opposed to fluoridation, do you have to resort to using misrepresentations and scare tactics?

Misrepresentations?
Scare tactics?
Where?

King Mob wrote: »

But there is no evidence to show that it is dangerous in any way for newborn babies and there's plenty to show that it isn't.

Wrong.

I think it's unethical to misrepresent and use sensationalist language.
Now you're just being plain dishonest here.