JOHNC, not sure exactly what “harm statistics” you refer to…studies or citations showing that fluoride is toxic? That it can be fatal at 5-10 grams for an adult (and far less for a child?) That at higher and/or chronic doses it is definitively linked to the conditions I listed?

All of this information is indisputable and readily “proven” simply by looking at countless studies and scientific texts. In other words, it is common knowledge, easily confirmed with a simple internet (or library) search of scholarly/scientific sources. There is no need to defend those facts, imo, but feel free to share any studies you have which contradict them.

The only claims I made which might require proof are those which suggest 1. exposure to fluoride may exceed “safe” levels for many due to multiple, uncontrolled exposures and 2. it is difficult to definitively conclude “no harm” given all the uncontrolled variables in populations.

All it IS is a few citations and perfectly civil comments relevant to the discussion.

For some reason, it JUST WON’T POST.

Here goes again (in the interest of scientific curiosity and experimentation:)

JOHNC, not sure exactly what “harm statistics” you refer to…studies or citations showing that fluoride is toxic? That it can be fatal at 5-10 grams for an adult (and far less for a child?) That at higher and/or chronic doses it is definitively linked to the conditions I listed?

All of this information is indisputable and readily “proven” simply by looking at countless studies and scientific texts. In other words, it is common knowledge, easily confirmed with a simple internet (or library) search of scholarly/scientific sources. There is no need to defend those facts, imo, but feel free to share any studies you have which contradict them.

The only claims I made which might require proof are those which suggest 1. exposure to fluoride may exceed “safe” levels for many due to multiple, uncontrolled exposures and 2. it is difficult to definitively conclude “no harm” given all the uncontrolled variables in populations.

Here is a citation (from the CDC..can’t post links here, but the title is “Relevance to Public Health”) which speaks to both of those claims:

“Fluorine is the most electronegative and reactive of all elements; fluoride is the ionic form of fluorine….Populations living near industrial sources of hydrogen fluoride, including coal burning
facilities, may be exposed to higher levels of hydrogen fluoride in the air. Additionally, vegetables and fruits grown near these sources may contain higher levels of fluoride, particularly from fluoride containing dust settling on the plants….

The main health concern regarding fluoride is likely to be from excessive chronic oral
exposure in drinking water.

…Both beneficial and detrimental dental and skeletal effects have been observed in humans….excess fluoride can also result in dental fluorosis and can result in an increased prevalence of bone fractures in the elderly or skeletal fluorosis. …

The available data on the potential of fluoride to induce reproductive and/or developmental effects is inconclusive….design limitations of these studies, particularly the use of poorly matched controls, limits the usefulness of these studies…The inadequate human studies and conflicting animal studies do not allow for an assessment of the potential of fluoride to induce reproductive effects in humans. Available human studies provide suggestive evidence that exposure to elevated levels of fluoride in drinking water may decrease IQ in children; however, neither study controlled for other confounding variables…The lack of control for potential confounding variables (i.e., age, race) limits the interpretation of the total cancer study results….IARC has determined that the carcinogenicity of fluoride to humans is not classifiable…”

Another cite:

U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Services, Review of Fluoride Benefits and Risks, 1991 (note that the levels of fluoride in the water considered “safe” and “optimal” have not changed since):

Found that the exposure levels in even UNfluoridated communities, considering all the other exposures, as much as 120% ABOVE the “optimal” dosage. In fluoridated and “optimally” fluoridated communities, the percentages rose to between 500 and 600% above “optimal” dose.

In 1993, this same agency concluded, in its Toxicological Profile on Fluoride:

“Existing data indicate that subsets of the population may be unusually susceptible to the toxic effects of fluoride and its compounds. These populations include the elderly, people with deficiencies of calcium, magnesium, and/or vitamin C, and people with cardiovascular and kidney problems… Postmenopausal women and elderly men in fluoridated communities may also be at increased risk of fractures.”

I mean, there are literally THOUSANDS of studies supporting the claims I made (and sometimes I think I looked at damn near every one of them when I was doing my research, lol). Fact is, most have no interest in taking the time or effort to plow through such material (most here will not bother to read my ridiculously LOOONG posts, but they represent a minute fraction of what *I* have read in reaching my opinion/conclusion.)

Ultimately, all I ask is that I (and others) be given the CHOICE when it comes to being dosed with a potentially/actually toxic medication, and not treated like livestock too stupid for their own good. I have what I consider to be valid objections to chronic fluoride exposure through my drinking/cooking water. And I’m about as far from a Tea Partier as you can get! Hey, even a stopped clock is right twice a day, you know? ;)

Fun fact for the day: fluoride is classified as an “unapproved new drug” by the FDA and a “contaminant” by the EPA.

OK, in the meantime, let me try to post this (also long, so probably won’t appear either…:) :

Here’s an interesting one (peer-reviewed and even from a University!) which deals with something similar to my comments re’ the interplay between fluoride and arsenic. This one looks at aluminum (another common exposure from water, cooking utensils, industrial pollution) in combination with fluoride:

Varner JA, Jensen KF, Horvath W, Isaacson RL, Chronic administration of aluminum-fluoride or sodium-fluoride to rats in drinking water: alterations in neuronal and cerebrovascular integrity. Brain Res 1998 Feb 16;784(1-2):284-98

This study describes alterations in the nervous system resulting from chronic administration of the fluoroaluminum complex (AlF3) or equivalent levels of fluoride (F) in the form of sodium-fluoride (NaF). Twenty seven adult male Long-Evans rats were administered one of three treatments for 52 weeks: the control group was administered double distilled deionized drinking water (ddw). The aluminum-treated group received ddw with 0.5 ppm AlF3 and the NaF group received ddw with 2.1 ppm NaF containing the equivalent amount of F as in the AlF3 ddw. Tissue aluminum (Al) levels of brain, liver and kidney were assessed with the Direct Current Plasma (DCP) technique and its distribution assessed with Morin histochemistry. Histological sections of brain were stained with hematoxylin & eosin (H&E), Cresyl violet, Bielschowsky silver stain, or immunohistochemically for beta-amyloid, amyloid A, and IgM. No differences were found between the body weights of rats in the different treatment groups although more rats died in the AlF3 group than in the control group. The Al levels in samples of brain and kidney were higher in both the AlF3 and NaF groups relative to controls. The effects of the two treatments on cerebrovascular and neuronal integrity were qualitatively and quantitatively different. These alterations were greater in animals in the AlF3 group than in the NaF group and greater in the NaF group than in controls. Copyright 1998 Elsevier Science B.V.

Psychology Department, Binghamton University, Binghamton, NY, USA.

Now, a translation/elaboration of their findings:

A 52-week study of the factors that enhance or inhibit the bioavailability of aluminum and its effects on the nervous system was published in 1998 in the Journal of Brain Research. According to the report, the equivalent of fluoridated drinking water in terms of elemental fluorine levels had an impact on brain tissue similar to the pathological changes found in humans with Alzheimer’s and other forms of dementia.

The introduction to the report noted, “One of their most remarkable findings was that animals administered the lowest dose of aluminum-fluoride (0.5 ppm) exhibited a greater susceptibility to illness and a higher incidence of mortality than the animals administered the higher levels (5 ppm, 50 ppm) of aluminum [without the fluoride].

“While the small amount of aluminum-fluoride in the drinking water of rats required for neurotoxic effects is surprising, perhaps even more surprising are the neurological results of the sodium-fluoride at the dose given in the present study (2.1 ppm) [the amount used to achieve 1 ppm of elemental fluorine used in fluoridation].

“In most reports of chronic fluoride toxicity, the data provided are usually limited to weight loss, dental and skeletal changes, indicators of carcinogenesis, and damage to soft tissues.
“Fluoride has diverse actions on a variety of cellular and physiological functions, including the inhibition of a variety of enzymes, a corrosive action in acid mediums, hypocalcemia [low blood calcium], hyperkalemia [excess blood potassium], and possibly cerebral impairment.”

The authors summarize, “Chronic administration of aluminum-fluoride and sodium-fluoride in the drinking water of rats resulted in distinct morphological alterations of the brain, including the effects on neurons and cerebrovasculature.”

Commentary:
The fluoride/aluminum association is of particular importance as it relates to Alzheimer’s Disease. Aluminum by itself is not readily absorbed by the body. However, fluoride ions combine with aluminum to form aluminum fluoride, which is absorbed by the body. In the body, the aluminum eventually combines with oxygen to form aluminum oxide or alumina. Protein bound to alumina in afflicted brains forms the plaques and tangles characteristic of Alzheimer’s disease.

There are several other well-done studies supporting the above findings.

JOHNC, not sure exactly what “harm statistics” you refer to…studies or citations showing that fluoride is toxic? That it can be fatal at 5-10 grams for an adult (and far less for a child?) That at higher and/or chronic doses it is definitively linked to the conditions I listed?

All of this information is indisputable and readily “proven” simply by looking at countless studies and scientific texts. In other words, it is common knowledge, easily confirmed with a simple internet (or library) search of scholarly/scientific sources. There is no need to defend those facts, imo, but feel free to share any studies you have which contradict them.

The only claims I made which might require proof are those which suggest 1. exposure to fluoride may exceed “safe” levels for many due to multiple, uncontrolled exposures and 2. it is difficult to definitively conclude “no harm” given all the uncontrolled variables in populations.

Here is a citation (from the CDC..can’t post links here, but the title is “Relevance to Public Health”) which speaks to both of those claims:

“Fluorine is the most electronegative and reactive of all elements; fluoride is the ionic form of fluorine….Populations living near industrial sources of hydrogen fluoride, including coal burning
facilities, may be exposed to higher levels of hydrogen fluoride in the air. Additionally, vegetables and fruits grown near these sources may contain higher levels of fluoride, particularly from fluoride containing dust settling on the plants….

The main health concern regarding fluoride is likely to be from excessive chronic oral
exposure in drinking water.

…Both beneficial and detrimental dental and skeletal effects have been observed in humans….excess fluoride can also result in dental fluorosis and can result in an increased prevalence of bone fractures in the elderly or skeletal fluorosis. …

The available data on the potential of fluoride to induce reproductive and/or developmental effects is inconclusive….design limitations of these studies, particularly the use of poorly matched controls, limits the usefulness of these studies…The inadequate human studies and conflicting animal studies do not allow for an assessment of the potential of fluoride to induce reproductive effects in humans. Available human studies provide suggestive evidence that exposure to elevated levels of fluoride in drinking water may decrease IQ in children; however, neither study controlled for other confounding variables…The lack of control for potential confounding variables (i.e., age, race) limits the interpretation of the total cancer study results….IARC has determined that the carcinogenicity of fluoride to humans is not classifiable…”

Another cite:

U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Services, Review of Fluoride Benefits and Risks, 1991 (note that the levels of fluoride in the water considered “safe” and “optimal” have not changed since):

Found that the exposure levels in even UNfluoridated communities, considering all the other exposures, as much as 120% ABOVE the “optimal” dosage. In fluoridated and “optimally” fluoridated communities, the percentages rose to between 500 and 600% above “optimal” dose.

In 1993, this same agency concluded, in its Toxicological Profile on Fluoride:

“Existing data indicate that subsets of the population may be unusually susceptible to the toxic effects of fluoride and its compounds. These populations include the elderly, people with deficiencies of calcium, magnesium, and/or vitamin C, and people with cardiovascular and kidney problems… Postmenopausal women and elderly men in fluoridated communities may also be at increased risk of fractures.”

I mean, there are literally THOUSANDS of studies supporting the claims I made (and sometimes I think I looked at damn near every one of them when I was doing my research, lol). Fact is, most have no interest in taking the time or effort to plow through such material (most here will not bother to read my ridiculously LOOONG posts, but they represent a minute fraction of what *I* have read in reaching my opinion/conclusion.)

Ultimately, all I ask is that I (and others) be given the CHOICE when it comes to being dosed with a potentially/actually toxic medication, and not treated like livestock too stupid for their own good. I have what I consider to be valid objections to chronic fluoride exposure through my drinking/cooking water. And I’m about as far from a Tea Partier as you can get! Hey, even a stopped clock is right twice a day, you know? ;)

Fun fact for the day: fluoride is classified as an “unapproved new drug” by the FDA and a “contaminant” by the EPA.

JOHNC, not sure exactly what “harm statistics” you refer to…studies or citations showing that fluoride is toxic? That it can be fatal at 5-10 grams for an adult (and far less for a child?) That at higher and/or chronic doses it is definitively linked to the conditions I listed?

All of this information is indisputable and readily “proven” simply by looking at countless studies and scientific texts. In other words, it is common knowledge, easily confirmed with a simple internet (or library) search of scholarly/scientific sources. There is no need to defend those facts, imo, but feel free to share any studies you have which contradict them.

The only claims I made which might require proof are those which suggest 1. exposure to fluoride may exceed “safe” levels for many due to multiple, uncontrolled exposures and 2. it is difficult to definitively conclude “no harm” given all the uncontrolled variables in populations.

Here is a citation (from the CDC..can’t post links here, but the title is “Relevance to Public Health”) which speaks to both of those claims:

“Fluorine is the most electronegative and reactive of all elements; fluoride is the ionic form of fluorine….Populations living near industrial sources of hydrogen fluoride, including coal burning
facilities, may be exposed to higher levels of hydrogen fluoride in the air. Additionally, vegetables and fruits grown near these sources may contain higher levels of fluoride, particularly from fluoride containing dust settling on the plants….

The main health concern regarding fluoride is likely to be from excessive chronic oral
exposure in drinking water.

…Both beneficial and detrimental dental and skeletal effects have been observed in humans….excess fluoride can also result in dental fluorosis and can result in an increased prevalence of bone fractures in the elderly or skeletal fluorosis. …

The available data on the potential of fluoride to induce reproductive and/or developmental effects is inconclusive….design limitations of these studies, particularly the use of poorly matched controls, limits the usefulness of these studies…The inadequate human studies and conflicting animal studies do not allow for an assessment of the potential of fluoride to induce reproductive effects in humans. Available human studies provide suggestive evidence that exposure to elevated levels of fluoride in drinking water may decrease IQ in children; however, neither study controlled for other confounding variables…The lack of control for potential confounding variables (i.e., age, race) limits the interpretation of the total cancer study results….IARC has determined that the carcinogenicity of fluoride to humans is not classifiable…”

Another cite:

U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Services, Review of Fluoride Benefits and Risks, 1991 (note that the levels of fluoride in the water considered “safe” and “optimal” have not changed since):

Found that the exposure levels in even UNfluoridated communities, considering all the other exposures, as much as 120% ABOVE the “optimal” dosage. In fluoridated and “optimally” fluoridated communities, the percentages rose to between 500 and 600% above “optimal” dose.

In 1993, this same agency concluded, in its Toxicological Profile on Fluoride:

“Existing data indicate that subsets of the population may be unusually susceptible to the toxic effects of fluoride and its compounds. These populations include the elderly, people with deficiencies of calcium, magnesium, and/or vitamin C, and people with cardiovascular and kidney problems… Postmenopausal women and elderly men in fluoridated communities may also be at increased risk of fractures.”

I mean, there are literally THOUSANDS of studies supporting the claims I made (and sometimes I think I looked at damn near every one of them when I was doing my research, lol). Fact is, most have no interest in taking the time or effort to plow through such material (most here will not bother to read my ridiculously LOOONG posts, but they represent a minute fraction of what *I* have read in reaching my opinion/conclusion.)

Ultimately, all I ask is that I (and others) be given the CHOICE when it comes to being dosed with a potentially/actually toxic medication, and not treated like livestock too stupid for their own good. I have what I consider to be valid objections to chronic fluoride exposure through my drinking/cooking water. And I’m about as far from a Tea Partier as you can get! Hey, even a stopped clock is right twice a day, you know? ;)

Fun fact for the day: fluoride is classified as an “unapproved new drug” by the FDA and a “contaminant” by the EPA.

FTR, that was not “inuendo” or an unsupported “claim” made by me; it was the conclusion of a peer-reviewed study which I cited (one of many like it, ftr).

What YOU offer is anecdotal inuendo (and FTR, most older adults who lose their teeth do so due to GUM disease, not cavities. Improvements to and ACCESS to dental care have contributed greatly to dental health in older Americans in the last few generations…many of that generation you speak of grew up in the Great Depression and suffered both malnutrition and lack of access to regular dental care. )

All of this information is indisputable and readily “proven” simply by looking at countless studies and scientific texts. In other words, it is common knowledge, easily confirmed with a simple internet (or library) search of scholarly/scientific sources. There is no need to defend those facts, imo, but feel free to share any studies you have which contradict them.

The only claims I made which might require proof are those which suggest 1. exposure to fluoride may exceed “safe” levels for many due to multiple, uncontrolled exposures and 2. it is difficult to definatively conclude “no harm” given all the uncontrolled variables in populations.

Here is a citation (from the CDC..can’t post links here, but the title is “Relevence to Public Health”) which speaks to thoseboth of those claims:

“Fluorine is the most electronegative and reactive of all elements; fluoride is the ionic form of fluorine….Populations living near industrial sources of hydrogen fluoride, including coal burning
facilities, may be exposed to higher levels of hydrogen fluoride in the air. Additionally, vegetables and fruits grown near these sources may contain higher levels of fluoride, particularly from fluoride containing dust settling on the plants….

The main health concern regarding fluoride is likely to be from excessive chronic oral
exposure in drinking water.

…Both beneficial and detrimental dental and skeletal effects have been observed in humans….excess fluoride can also result in dental fluorosis and can result in an increased prevalence of bone fractures in the elderly or skeletal fluorosis. …

The available data on the potential of fluoride to induce reproductive and/or developmental effects is inconclusive….design limitations of these studies, particularly the use of poorly matched controls, limits the usefulness of these studies…The inadequate human studies and conflicting animal studies do not allow for an assessment of the potential of fluoride to induce reproductive effects in humans. Available human studies provide suggestive evidence that exposure to elevated levels of fluoride in drinking water may decrease IQ in children; however, neither study controlled for other confounding variables…The lack of control for potential confounding variables (i.e., age, race) limits the interpretation of the total cancer study results….IARC has determined that the carcinogenicity of fluoride to humans is not classifiable…”

Another cite:

U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Services, Review of Fluoride Benefits and Risks, 1991 (note that the levels of fluoride in the water considered “safe” and “optimal” have not changed since):

Found exposure levels in even UNfluoridated communities, considering all the other exposures, as much as 120% ABOVE the “optimal” dosage. In fluoridated and “optimally” fluoridated communities, the percentages rose to between 500 and 600% above “optimal” dose.

In 1993, this same agency concluded, in its Toxicological Profile on Fluoride:

“Existing data indicate that subsets of the population may be unusually susceptible to the toxic effects of fluoride and its compounds. These populations include the elderly, people with deficiencies of calcium, magnesium, and/or vitamin C, and people with cardiovascular and kidney problems… Postmenopausal women and elderly men in fluoridated communities may also be at increased risk of fractures.”

I mean, there are literally THOUSANDS of studies supporting the claims I made (and sometimes I think I looked at damn near every one of them when I was doing my research, lol). Fact is, most have no interest in taking the time or effort to plow through such material (most here will not bother to read my ridiculously LOOONG posts, but they represent a minute fraction of what *I* have read in reaching my opinion/conclusion.)

Ultimately, all I ask is that I (and others) be given the CHOICE when it comes to being dosed with a potentially/actually toxic medication, and not treated like livestock too stupid for their own good. I have what I consider to be valid objections to chronic fluoride exposure through my drinking/cooking water. And I’m about as far from a Tea Partier as you can get! Hey, even a stopped clock is right twice a day, you know? ;)

Fun fact for the day: fluoride is classified as an “unapproved new drug” by the FDA and a “contaminant” by the EPA.