Fluoride in tap water

jh79

weisses wrote: »

Nice .. All the Unlikely's, maybe's and maybe not remarks ohh and the usually not is brilliant

Is this peer reviewed ?




Was that investigated ?

The fact that an highly electronegative element is extremely reactive is hardly groundbreaking! Chlorine, fluorine and iodine are all halogens and have similar properties yet nobody is questioning the role of chlorine.

Every chemical's toxic effect works through some biochemical pathway unless you can show this having a clinical effect it has no bearing on fluoridation.

weisses

jh79 wrote: »

The fact that an highly electronegative element is extremely reactive is hardly groundbreaking! Chlorine, fluorine and iodine are all halogens and have similar properties yet nobody is questioning the role of chlorine.

Every chemical's toxic effect works through some biochemical pathway unless you can show this having a clinical effect it has no bearing on fluoridation.

You quote me but you are not addressing what i say afaik

alastair

weisses wrote: »

Is this peer reviewed ?

Was that investigated ?

Yes - it's peer-reviewed.

Yes - all in vivo studies relating to cancer and fluoridation were reviewed in the report:

While a broad number of cancers were represented in the included studies, osteosarcoma, bone/joint and thyroid cancers were of particular concern due to fluoride uptake by bone and thyroid. Again, no clear association between water fluoridation and increased incidence or mortality was apparent. Of eight analyses from the six studies of osteosarcoma and water fluoridation reporting variance data, none found statistically significant differences. Thyroid cancer was also considered but only two studies examined this and neither found a statistically significant association with water fluoride level.

The findings of cancer studies were mixed, with small variations on either side of no effect. Individual cancers examined were bone cancers and thyroid cancer, where once again no clear pattern of association was seen. Overall, from the research evidence presented no association was detected between water fluoridation and mortality from any cancer, or from bone or thyroid cancers specifically.

weisses

alastair wrote: »

Yes - it's peer-reviewed.

Yes - all in vivo studies relating to cancer and fluoridation were reviewed in the report:

Not relating to enzymes and fluoride I'm afraid, AFAIK the York study didn't include that

Also Im surprised with the level of bad studies done on various subjects regarding fluoridation

weisses

This,

Yes. Fluoride poisons enzymes. All the chemical reactions necessary to the life and function of the body depend on enzymes. Continuous depression of enzyme activity by fluorides produces alterations of function and symptoms of disease. Professor Hugo Theorell, Nobel Prize winner, (Medical Nobel Inst. Biochemist, Dept. of Communication to Royal Medical Board, Sweden, Mar. 1, 1958) based his opposition to fluoridation on the fact that fluoride is an established enzyme poison and potent inhibitor of many enzyme systems. His research, together with that of others in the Nobel Institute, had much to do with the unanimous ruling of Sweden's Supreme Administrative Court, Dec. 1961, that fluoridation of water supplies was not permissible under the "Swedish Health Act." (See 23-1: "Fluoride Poisons Enzymes," by Harvey Petraborg, M.D., 9/6/64).

" ... We ought to go slowly. Everybody knows fluorine and fluorides are very poisonous substances and we use them in enzyme chemistry to poison enzymes, those vital agents in the body. That is the reason things are poisoned, because the enzymes are poisoned and that is why animals and plants die." (Dr. James B. Sumner, Director of Enzyme Chemistry, Department of Biochemistry and Nutrition, Cornell University; Nobel Prize winner for his work in field of enzyme chemistry.)

The standard medical protocol in England for treating children with attention deficit disorder (ADD) is enzyme therapy.

"Fluorine is known to be an enzymatic inhibitor and interferes with metabolism of the breakdown of glucose." (Dr. Paul H. Phillips, University of Wisconsin, Department of Biochemistry.)

"There is plenty of evidence to indicate that fluorine in the amount of 1 ppm or slightly more interferes with enzyme systems and these enzyme systems are involved in the growth of bones, in the functioning of nerve tissue and so forth. It is clear that fluoridation is a calculated risk." (Dr. Robert S. Harris, (Ph.D.), Director of Nutritional Biochemistry Laboratories, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.)

"From the chemical and biochemical point of view, a key finding came in 1981, when John Emsley showed that fluoride formed a strong hydrogen bond with the amide function. This certainly gives a very plausible explanation as to why this 'chemically inert' entity fluoride could cause biochemical harm. Indeed, interference with the H-bonding poses a threat to the very heart of biochemistry where so much of the structure and function of proteins and nucleic acids is dependent on hydrogen bond making and breaking. This potential disruption of H-bonds would explain fluoride's inhibition of certain enzymes and possibly its interference with DNA repair mechanisms." (See 23-2: letter by Dr. Paul Connett, Professor of Chemistry, St. Lawrence University, Canton, NY, May 26. 1999).

" ... it is known as a scientific fact that fluoride is deadly poison to enzymes, upon which all life depends." (Dr. J.J. Rae, for 20 years professor of chemistry and Ph.D. in biochemistry and organics, University of Toronto.)

"As biochemists we are aware that fluorides are enzyme inhibitors. The burden of proof is upon the Public Health Service to prove that areas fluoridated for long periods show no evidence of a greater incidence of metabolic hypo-function than the non-fluoridated areas." (Dr. H.J. Goeckel, (Ph.D.), Biochemist.)

"It is now known that such vital organs as the kidneys, thyroid, aorta (main heart artery), liver, lungs and others can be the sites of an unusually high fluoride build-up. No matter how small the amount of fluoride in the diet, a part of it tends to accumulate in the body. When the water supply is fluoridated the intake of the individual is considerably increased and the accumulation in the body increases accordingly. There is no clear-cut pattern as to the degree of retention among individuals. Further, it accumulates in certain organs in an unpredictable way. Some individuals may store up to 100 times more fluoride in certain tissue than others. This has given rise to concern over fluoride's possible role in chronic disease. Fluoride is an enzyme poison and medical authorities recognize that disturbances of the enzyme system are a cause of disease." (Dr. Jonathan Forman, M.D., world-renowned specialist in allergy, Professor-Emeritus of Ohio State University, former editor of the Ohio State Medical Journal, editor of Clinical Physiology, in statement in behalf of Medical-Dental Committee on Evaluation of Fluoridation.)

"Fluorine and fluorides act as direct cellular poisons by interfering with calcium metabolism and enzyme mechanisms." (Handbook of Poisoning: Prevention, Diagnosis and Treatment, 11th Edition, 1983.)

"Fluoride is an enzyme poison, in the same class as cyanide, oxalate, or azide ... it is capable of a very wide variety of harmful effects, even at low doses." (James B. Patrick, Ph.D., antibiotics research scientist.)

"Yes, fluoride is an (enzyme) inhibitor. You are right in the implication that when it comes to certain patients, it is important that they do not have fluoride in the water." (Dr. Harold Loe, National Institute of Dental Research, to a subcommittee of the House Appropriations Committee, 1989.)

jh79

weisses wrote: »

You quote me but you are not addressing what i say afaik

Toxicity is dose dependant , pointing out a mechanism of action is meaningless unless you can show a clinical effect.

alastair

weisses wrote: »

Not relating to enzymes and fluoride I'm afraid, AFAIK the York study didn't include that

All the cancer studies referenced in the York review relate to claimed enzyme impact - that's the supposed mechanism for causing the cancers (that aren't actually shown to have any link with water fluoridation, once studied in vivo).

weisses

alastair wrote: »

All the cancer studies referenced in the York review relate to claimed enzyme impact - that's the supposed mechanism for causing the cancers (that aren't actually shown to have any link with water fluoridation, once studied in vivo).

I thought Animals where used in those studies

jh79

weisses wrote: »

I thought Animals where used in those studies

Not sure what your getting at, but there is no research out there showing a link between cancer and fluoridation worth talking about

weisses

alastair wrote: »

Yes - it's peer-reviewed.

Yes - all in vivo studies relating to cancer and fluoridation were reviewed in the report:

http://www.fluoridealert.org/studies/kidney08/

Another interesting one

Not covered by the York report

jh79

weisses wrote: »

http://www.fluoridealert.org/studies/kidney08/

Another interesting one

Not covered by the York report

It says on the website they have plenty of human based studies to back their stance and then only highlight ancient animal based research?? Bizarre.

1ppm to a rat isn't the same as 1ppm to a human.

King Mob

weisses wrote: »

http://www.fluoridealert.org/studies/kidney08/

Another interesting one

Not covered by the York report

All of those studies refer to concentrations far in excess of the levels present in water supplies.

Of the ones that test 1 ppm concentration (which is not an equivalent dose to what we get as rats are a fraction of our mass), none of them make the conclusion that fluoridation is dangerous.
(And then only one was actually from recently, the others were nearly 50 years old.)

That link is nothing but a shameless scare tactic.

seanie_c

Human consumption of fluoridated water, fructose, excessive amounts of sodium from canned food, pesticides on vegetables, radioactive fish or fish containing mercury/toxic waste and chlorinated water is very nutritious and beneficial in so many ways.

King Mob

seanie_c wrote: »

...and chlorinated water is very nutritious and beneficial in so many ways.

Assuming from your tone you were being sarcastic, you disagree with the chlorination of water, correct?

seanie_c

King Mob wrote: »

Assuming from your tone you were being sarcastic, you disagree with the chlorination of water, correct?

My friend gets his water from a well.
It's not chlorinated and he's perfectly healthy.

It's present in tap water because Ireland is a poorly managed country where construction left open water mains allowing rats/cats to get stuck and generate diseases.

Humans evolved and survived hundreds of thousands..maybe even millions of years without chlorinated or fluoridated water.

My own position is that tooth decay is more a symptom of a persons diet than lack of fluoride in the water or oral hygiene.

Certain food and drink are higher in acidic content which erodes tooth enamel over time and causes various other health problems.

Acidic reflux is an obvious example of poor diet.

Those eating high alkaline diets will tend to have less problems with their bodies overall but we're not educated about this unfortunately.

It's like a cow. It eats grass but then humans thought it would be smart to feed it meat which led to CJD.

It didn't have the teeth to eat meat but some dumbass thought it would be okay anyway . . .

seanie_c

On the cow, farmers now feed it grain which again is another example of human stupidity.

Cows evolved to eat grass... not grain and certainly not meat.

But you try telling someone who marvels at modern day science ...I tell ya, man's ignorance will be the death of him.

King Mob

seanie_c wrote: »

My friend gets his water from a well.
It's not chlorinated and he's perfectly healthy.

It's present in tap water because Ireland is a poorly managed country where construction left open water mains allowing rats/cats to get stuck and generate diseases.

Humans evolved and survived hundreds of thousands..maybe even millions of years without chlorinated or fluoridated water.

My own position is that tooth decay is more a symptom of a persons diet than lack of fluoride in the water or oral hygiene.

Certain food and drink are higher in acidic content which erodes tooth enamel over time and causes various other health problems.

Acidic reflux is an obvious example of poor diet.

Those eating high alkaline diets will tend to have less problems with their bodies overall but we're not educated about this unfortunately.

It's like a cow. It eats grass but then humans thought it would be smart to feed it meat which led to CJD.

It didn't have the teeth to eat meat but some dumbass thought it would be okay anyway . . .

I don't think I could make a better fake argument to illustrate how backward and ill informed some of the arguments against fluoridation are.

So to the people who oppose fluoridation, do you likewise disagree with chlorination?
If not, how is your logic different to Seanie's?

seanie_c

King Mob wrote: »

I don't think I could make a better fake argument to illustrate how backward and ill informed some of the arguments against fluoridation are.

Of course, many people become sick and even die as a result of polluted water but this is a symptom of human stupidity, not water itself.

Water was fine until man decided it was acceptable to pollute it.
Humans have evolved without chlorination for millions of years.

Certain civilizations would have considered water and air sacred but the industrialization and slavery of humans changed this.

Your belief in mandatory Fluoridation/chlorination is like believing humans couldn't exist without phosphates to fertilize crops....it's silly.

You've lost your way as a human being, but you're certainly not alone.

So to the people who oppose fluoridation, do you likewise disagree with chlorination?
If not, how is your logic different to Seanie's?

First, ask yourself why water needs to be fluoridated/chlorinated.
Is it because of nature or is it because of human ignorance?

Humans pursued industrialization which is leading to the destruction of the planet. That's why humans need fluoridated/chlorinated water, to compensate for stupidity.

During the construction boom in Ireland, poor regulations on construction sites led to an increase in sickness among people drinking tap water.

The pipes leading to the water mains invited animals which got stuck and died.

The problem isn't with water, it's with humans and their stupidity.
As I said, my friend gets water from a well and he's perfectly fine.

The main reason for tooth decay is primarily a dietary issue, it has absolutely nothing to do with water itself.

alastair

seanie_c wrote: »

It's present in tap water because Ireland is a poorly managed country where construction left open water mains allowing rats/cats to get stuck and generate diseases.

Those stuck Irish cats and rats must have seriously put the frighteners up the rest of the world to lead to such ubiquitous use of water chlorination!

alastair

seanie_c wrote: »

Of course, many people become sick and even die as a result of polluted water but this is a symptom of human stupidity, not water itself.

Water was fine until man decided it was acceptable to pollute it.
Humans have evolved without chlorination for millions of years.

Evolution is grand, but didn't protect humans from dying from un-disinfected water. The ongoing largest cause of death to this day for humans? Water borne disease.

Honestly. Did you think this through?

http://www.voanews.com/content/a-13-2005-03-17-voa34-67381152/274768.html

seanie_c

alastair wrote: »

Those stuck Irish cats and rats must have seriously put the frighteners up the rest of the world to lead to such ubiquitous use of water chlorination!

You don't drink tap water.

alastair

seanie_c wrote: »

The main reason for tooth decay is primarily a dietary issue, it has absolutely nothing to do with water itself.

No-one claimed water caused tooth decay. Poor diet and dental hygiene cause tooth decay. In the absence of change in those two areas, fluoride helps stop tooth decay.

alastair

seanie_c wrote: »

You don't drink tap water.

Oh but I do.

seanie_c

alastair wrote:

Evolution is grand, but didn't protect humans from dying from un-disinfected water. The ongoing largest cause of death to this day for humans? Water borne disease.

Honestly. Did you think this through?

Chlorinated water won't save humans from their own stupidity either.

seanie_c

alastair wrote: »

Oh but I do.

Really? You live in Dublin and drink tap water?
Do you expect me to believe that?

alastair

seanie_c wrote: »

Chlorinated water won't save humans from their own stupidity either.

So, you'd be in the 'let millions more die annually, because humankind is stupid' camp? Interesting.

alastair

seanie_c wrote: »

Really? You live in Dublin and drink tap water?
Do you expect me to believe that?

Highly implausible I know, but there you go. I've been known to shower in it too.

King Mob

seanie_c wrote: »

Water was fine until man decided it was acceptable to pollute it.
Humans have evolved without chlorination for millions of years.

And for millions of years humans had shorter lifespans and were more prone to water borne diseases.

seanie_c wrote: »

The pipes leading to the water mains invited animals which got stuck and died.

That's not the only reason why we need to chlorinate water.
You are really just proving my points for me and embarrassing the people objecting to fluoridation.

seanie_c wrote: »

The problem isn't with water, it's with humans and their stupidity.
As I said, my friend gets water from a well and he's perfectly fine.

Every single person I know drinks tap water. They are all fine.
So that's a few hundred examples to your one example...

seanie_c

alastair wrote: »

Highly implausible I know, but there you go. I've been known to shower in it too.

Showering in chlorinated water isn't the same as drinking it.

alastair

seanie_c wrote: »

Showering in chlorinated water isn't the same as drinking it.

You know, I'd never noticed that distinction. I must have been drinking too much of that devil's tap water. :rolleyes: