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.