Fluoride update re IQ

weisses · 13-03-2015 08:24PM

Not regarding IQ this time but ADHD

http://www.ehjournal.net/content/14/1/17/abstract

Keep pouring it into the water-system guys ... we all be grand :rolleyes:

13-03-2015 09:57PM

weisses wrote: »

Not regarding IQ this time but ADHD

http://www.ehjournal.net/content/14/1/17/abstract

Keep pouring it into the water-system guys ... we all be grand :rolleyes:

The journal has an impact factor of 2.7 so lets not get too excited.

So unless I'm mistaken during a period when fluoridation was on the increase there happened to be a corresponding increase in the diagnosis of ADHD. A condition that could be considered relatively new, in terms of diagnosis, and would be expected to rise as it becomes more recognizable similar to autism which probably has seen a similar rise. Nothing here links the two.

The authors also highlight the limitations of the study in the discussion.

weisses · 13-03-2015 10:36PM

This peer reviewed study concludes

In summary, this study has empirically demonstrated an association between more widespread exposure to fluoridated water and increased ADHD prevalence in U.S. children and adolescents, even after controlling for SES. The findings suggest that fluoridated water may be an environmental risk factor for ADHD. Population studies designed to examine possible mechanisms, patterns and levels of exposure, covariates and moderators of this relationship are warranted.

I don't get exited Im just posting another credible source reporting the possible adverse effects of fluoride

I value their finding more then your opinion

weisses · 13-03-2015 10:39PM

Another interesting one

Grandjean hopes that more studies can be done on the potential health effects of water fluoridation. “I’ve worked in this field long enough to know that with time, we have found that lead, mercury, and pesticides were more toxic than we originally thought. I am not willing to sit here and say, okay, let’s expose the next generation’s brains and just hope for the best.”

http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/features/a-call-for-reducing-fluoride-levels-in-drinking-water/

weisses · 13-03-2015 10:51PM

Ohh Now it messes up the thyroid as well

Lead investigator Prof Stephen Peckham, from the University of Kent, United Kingdom, told Medscape Medical News: "I think the results clearly demonstrate an increased risk of hypothyroidism associated with areas of [high] water fluoridation." The study also "raises questions about the safety of community fluoridation,

http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/840873ell

13-03-2015 11:23PM

weisses wrote: »

Another interesting one

http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/features/a-call-for-reducing-fluoride-levels-in-drinking-water/

He still hasn't managed to show adverse effects at the levels involved try as he might. His latest paper is behind a pay wall bit i did link to a blog that discussed it.

13-03-2015 11:25PM

weisses wrote: »

This peer reviewed study concludes

I don't get exited Im just posting another credible source reporting the possible adverse effects of fluoride

I value their finding more then your opinion

Have you read the paper in its entirety?

13-03-2015 11:25PM

weisses wrote: »

Ohh Now it messes up the thyroid as well

http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/840873ell

Link not working

13-03-2015 11:30PM

jh79 wrote: »

Grandjean et al have produced another study trying to link fluoride to lower IQ.

http://braindrain.dk/2014/12/mottled-fluoride-debate/

Have not got access to the full paper but these blogs have a lot of info on the paper.

https://openparachute.wordpress.com/2014/12/21/special-pleading-by-phillipe-grandjean-onf-fluoride/

https://openparachute.wordpress.com/2014/11/16/severe-dental-fluorosis-the-real-cause-of-iq-deficits/

These blogs discuss his latest paper

13-03-2015 11:50PM

weisses wrote: »

This peer reviewed study concludes

I don't get exited Im just posting another credible source reporting the possible adverse effects of fluoride

I value their finding more then your opinion

Out of interest how did you come to the conclusion that it was a credible source? I never heard of the journal before so just googled its impact factor.

weisses · 14-03-2015 08:01AM

jh79 wrote: »

Link not working

http://www.webmd.com/women/news/20150225/fluoride-in-drinking-water-tied-to-higher-rates-of-underactive-thyroid

this ?

weisses · 14-03-2015 08:17AM

jh79 wrote: »

Out of interest how did you come to the conclusion that it was a credible source? I never heard of the journal before so just googled its impact factor.

It was peer reviewed ....

... The Grandjean links you posted are discussed to death here ... I posted a more general discussion he had about lowering the fluoride in the US

Couple of years ago everyone was shouting that the levels adapted then where perfectly safe ...and now they want to bring them further down... Soooo what will it be in 10 years from now with all the new studies showing/suggesting the ill effects of fluoride in the water.

weisses · 14-03-2015 08:20AM

jh79 wrote: »

He still hasn't managed to show adverse effects at the levels involved try as he might. His latest paper is behind a pay wall bit i did link to a blog that discussed it.

Well he made some good points to get this fella behind his ridiculous ideas

Howard Pollick, who appeared with Grandjean on Radio Boston and is chair of the Fluoridation Advisory Committee at the California Dental Association Foundation, agreed with Grandjean that the HHS proposal to reduce fluoride levels is a good one

14-03-2015 08:34AM

weisses wrote: »

Well he made some good points to get this fella behind his ridiculous ideas

So the Irish level is the optimal based on current research? They are proposing a reduction to 0.7 in the US.

14-03-2015 08:36AM

weisses wrote: »

It was peer reviewed ....

... The Grandjean links you posted are discussed to death here ... I posted a more general discussion he had about lowering the fluoride in the US

Couple of years ago everyone was shouting that the levels adapted then where perfectly safe ...and now they want to bring them further down... Soooo what will it be in 10 years from now with all the new studies showing/suggesting the ill effects of fluoride in the water.

Because of fluorosis nothing else. Minor cosmetic imperfections.

14-03-2015 08:59AM

Given that the average Irish person drinks 4 cups of tea a day should you not be targeting tea consumers if public health is a genuine concern of yours?

4 cups of the majors brands is 5mg of fluoride according to some.

Ending fluoridation would possibly only reduce intake by roughly a tenth of that figure, 0.4mg, for the equivalent volume.

Do you think tea should come with some sort of health warnings from the fsa?

weisses · 14-03-2015 09:22AM

jh79 wrote: »

So the Irish level is the optimal based on current research? They are proposing a reduction to 0.7 in the US.

I don't agree with that as all my previous posts would tell you ...

If you would have asked this 10 years ago the "recommended" levels would have been higher and where presumed safe as well

weisses · 14-03-2015 09:25AM

jh79 wrote: »

Because of fluorosis nothing else. Minor cosmetic imperfections.

Yeah

ADHD

Thyroid issues

Nothing cosmetic about that

Why are you not addressing the valid research I quoted here ?

14-03-2015 09:31AM

weisses wrote: »

I don't agree with that as all my previous posts would tell you ...

If you would have asked this 10 years ago the "recommended" levels would have been higher and where presumed safe as well

But your omitting one important point, the older levels are still not associated with any serious adverse effects even after 60 odd years.

They were reduced to combat fluorosis , a positive indicator of the effectiveness of fluoridation (less cariers) but also a cause of some minor cosmetic damage.

Fluoride levels of 1.2 and 0.7 are just as safe as natural levels bar minor cosmetic flecking of teeth

14-03-2015 09:32AM

Whats your opinion on the safety of tea?

weisses · 14-03-2015 09:37AM

jh79 wrote: »

Given that the average Irish person drinks 4 cups of tea a day should you not be targeting tea consumers if public health is a genuine concern of yours?

4 cups of the majors brands is 5mg of fluoride according to some.

Ending fluoridation would possibly only reduce intake by roughly a tenth of that figure, 0.4mg, for the equivalent volume.

Do you think tea should come with some sort of health warnings from the fsa?

Done to Death as well ..... You could easily CHOOSE NOT to drink Tea ..

And if its that obvious some tea's contain high levels of fluoride then yes it should be on the Package

I did ask you here many times what the total fluoride intake would be per day for an average Irish person ... It is way more then the so called " safe optimal 0'7ppm"

weisses · 14-03-2015 09:42AM

jh79 wrote: »

But your omitting one important point, the older levels are still not associated with any serious adverse effects even after 60 odd years.

They were reduced to combat fluorosis , a positive indicator of the effectiveness of fluoridation (less cariers) but also a cause of some minor cosmetic damage.

Fluoride levels of 1.2 and 0.7 are just as safe as natural levels bar minor cosmetic flecking of teeth

It was you who stated on another thread fluorosis is not an issue with the recommended levels .... not at 1 ppm anyway ... and now all of a sudden you follow the party line stating they reduced it from 1 to 0.7 only to combat fluorosis ?

14-03-2015 09:57AM

weisses wrote: »

Done to Death as well ..... You could easily CHOOSE NOT to drink Tea ..

And if its that obvious some tea's contain high levels of fluoride then yes it should be on the Package

I did ask you here many times what the total fluoride intake would be per day for an average Irish person ... It is way more then the so called " safe optimal 0'7ppm"

0.7 is the optimal level for water fluoridation not for total intake.

I have also pointed out that given water fluoridation is not the greatest contributor to fluoride intake then the slight reduction we are talking about is pointless.

14-03-2015 10:02AM

weisses wrote: »

It was you who stated on another thread fluorosis is not an issue with the recommended levels .... not at 1 ppm anyway ... and now all of a sudden you follow the party line stating they reduced it from 1 to 0.7 only to combat fluorosis ?

Its not an issue fluorosis is considered an issue at 1.2 and above.

Remember also earlier in this thread that it was pointed out that as fluorosis increases cariers decrease. The only negative is cosmetic damage.

Any reasonable person would agree that fluorosis is not an issue of any real importance.

weisses · 14-03-2015 10:14AM

So can I conclude you actually agree with the Findings regarding Thyroid issues and ADHD and the link to fluoride ?

14-03-2015 10:19AM

weisses wrote: »

So can I conclude you actually agree with the Findings regarding Thyroid issues and ADHD and the link to fluoride ?

Haven't read the thyroid one yet and I've already given my opinion on the ADHD.

The ADHA shows a casual correlation between the two. The PHD student who wrote it downplays its significance in the discussion .

14-03-2015 10:23AM

Can i ask you a question regarding the common argument about uncontrolled dose?

weisses · 14-03-2015 11:06AM

jh79 wrote: »

The ADHA shows a casual correlation between the two. The PHD student who wrote it downplays its significance in the discussion .

Where in this paper did they do that ?

http://www.ehjournal.net/content/pdf/s12940-015-0003-1.pdf

14-03-2015 11:37AM

weisses wrote: »

Where in this paper did they do that ?

http://www.ehjournal.net/content/pdf/s12940-015-0003-1.pdf

There is a section on the study design limitations in the discusssion.

14-03-2015 11:50AM

The paper only has a simple comparison of a v b no firm conclusions can be draw from it.

Out of interest is diagnosis rate of ADHD static in areas without fluoridation?

Fluoride update re IQ

Comments