Posted on 11/16/2002 6:07:00 PM PST by FormerLurker
My analogy stands. The fluoride treatment (as opposed to fluoridated water, with a much lower concentration) is administered ONLY when needed, and then ONLY in measured doses. And in this case it was administered improperly.
Fluoride has cululative toxic effects
You were already forced to admit that fluoride is excreted by the kidneys, so that statement is incorrect. The fact of the matter is that fluoride blood plasma levels maintain an equlilbrium with fluoride in the bones, and the rest is excreted. It does NOT accumulate in the bones.
It is a poison, with no nutritional value whatsover.
I have 3700 studies that say you are wrong.
It destroys and/or inhibits vital cellular functions. Water is needed for life. There's a bit of a difference between the two.
Yes, but the fact reamins that fluoride maintained at the proper levels is not toxic. Just like arsenic in the water at current levels is not toxic.
Here is an online textbook on toxicology:
The beneficial and harmful effects that a chemical has on an organism depend, in part, on the amount of the chemical that gets into the organism. The total amount of a chemical that is administered to, or taken by, the organ- ism is called the dose.
The effect of a chemical depends not only on the amount of the chemical that gets into the organism but also on the resulting concentration of the chemical in the body (the amount of chemical compared with the body size), the length of exposure to the chemical, and the route of exposure.
The measure of dose in toxicology is important; a large dose of a beneficial chemical can have a harmful effect, and a small dose of a harmful chemical can have no adverse effect. In the words of the 16th-century physician Paracelsus, "All substances are poisons; there is none which is not a poison. The right dose differentiates a poison from a remedy."
Aren't you being a little melodramatic? Considering the fact that water has been fluoridated in this country for over 50 years and nobody is dropping like flies from this "horrendous poison". Which brings up and interesting question, if fluoride is such an "horrendous poison", and many communities have been drinking it for decades, why can't the researchers at the journal "Flouride" find epidemological evidence of increased death rates in communities that have fluoridated water vs those that don't?
My apologies. Most of the information is posted from memory, not cut and pasted from a website. Please give me the questioned assertions and I will attempt to give you references.
But to say I NEVER post links is wrong. Is it not?
It is NEVER needed Tom. And as it is a highly reactive toxin, lethal for a small child if swallowed, it is reckless endangerment.
You were already forced to admit that fluoride is excreted by the kidneys, so that statement is incorrect.
Obviously not ALL of it is excreted.
Fluorine Excretion and Balances in Adult Men -- intake @4-14 mg/day, absorption =94% -- 40% retained Trace Elements In Human and Animal Nutrition, U.S. Dept. of Agriculture (1987) p.378
The fact of the matter is that fluoride blood plasma levels maintain an equlilbrium with fluoride in the bones, and the rest is excreted. It does NOT accumulate in the bones.
There shouldn't be ANY fluoride in the bones. Fluoride in bones leads to skeletal fluorosis.
Skeletal fluorosis is a crippling bone disease caused by fluoride
Any fluoride ions in plasma will cause the potassium and calcium ions to bond with them, thus leading to all sorts of problems with electrolyte levels and the nervous system.
Which brings up and interesting question, if fluoride is such an "horrendous poison", and many communities have been drinking it for decades, why can't the researchers at the journal "Flouride" find epidemological evidence of increased death rates in communities that have fluoridated water vs those that don't?
A toxin needn't kill its victim in order to be a toxin. Some fates are worse than death. I've already posted enough links on that...
Ok Tom, you HARDLY ever post links. I've counted one so far..
Like I said the other day, we can go round and round on this forever. You'll never change your view, and you most certainly won't change mine. I've laid down the facts, you've laid down your opinions and those of the ADA. I think we've gone as far as we can go here...
Lethal? You are getting hysterical. First of all, we have children all over the country swallowing fluoridated water on a daily basis and not dying. And I give thousands of fluoride treatments a year (properly) to small children, as do all dentists, and haven't lost one yet.
So it isn't "lethal for a small child if swallowed".
Here is a great paper prepared for a Florida county on the issue. From the paper:
Six types of evidence support the establishment of an RDA or an AI (Adequate Intake):
1) intake of fluoride by normally healthy people is documented in the literature with no ill effects;
2) hundreds of epidemiological studies in which the clinical consequences of low fluoride intake (dental decay) were safely corrected by dietary supplementation with fluoride;
3) balance studies that measure fluoride status in relation to intake (more data needed here; see “Uncertainty,” below);
4) children who started in non-fluoridated area, received fluoridation benefits, and then were subjected to fluoride withdrawal showed an increase in dental decay;
5) extrapolation of numerous animal studies that are consistent with benefits of fluoridation;
6) a valid mechanism for mineralization and re-mineralization has been established.
Obviously not ALL of it is excreted.
Yes, but you said " Fluoride has cululative toxic effects ", with the implication that is accumulates in the tissues like lead or other heavy metals. That is NOT TRUE. You do not see levels of fluoride in the body rise over time to any great extent.
There shouldn't be ANY fluoride in the bones. Fluoride in bones leads to skeletal fluorosis.
Considering you have admitted that there are areas of the country with fluoride levels around 1ppm (albeit from the "natural" CaF), that is a useless statement. In addition, skeletal fluorosis is only seen in areas where the natural fluoride levels are over 4ppm. Lower levels of fluoride are actually associated with higher bone mass.
Any fluoride ions in plasma will cause the potassium and calcium ions to bond with them, thus leading to all sorts of problems with electrolyte levels and the nervous system.
Once again, with fluoride ions being a natural feature of most water, this is not a problem at normal concentrations.
A toxin needn't kill its victim in order to be a toxin. Some fates are worse than death. I've already posted enough links on that...
I'm sorry, but I've seen no epidemologial studies looking at disease rates, hip fractures, or skeletal fluorosis, comparing areas with high and low fluoride levels.
If fluoride is as toxic as you say, these disease rates should be easy to see.
I also noticed that many of your studies are from the journal Fluoride. Besides being on Quackwatch's list of journals to avoid, the paper I referenced above found some problems with it:
For example one study (Chlubek et al., 1998) attempted to assess the fluoride levels of maternal plasma, and the marginal- and central-placentas of 30 pregnant women, ages ranging from 19 to 40 years old, living in an area with relatively low water and air fluoride (fluorine) content. They concluded that the placenta could accumulate fluoride in healthy women who are exposed in pregnancy to relatively low fluoride concentrations in water and in the air. However, an examination of their data show that in Table 1 and Table 2, they shift units between “mM/L” (a meaningless unit: it should be either mmol/L or mM) and mg fluoride/g of tissue ash (a unit that is not comparable to exposure data in their publication) makes their findings meaningless, and makes one wonder whether these workers are competent in elementary chemistry. Moreover, their study included no controls that are critical to interpreting the results as they intended.
As of 1977, scientists had published approximately 35,000 papers over the preceding 30 years verifying the efficacy and safety of water fluoridation (reviewed by Richmond, 1985).
35,000 papers? Wow, that a lot of evidence.
And you are slowly poisoning them.
So it isn't "lethal for a small child if swallowed".
I've already shown you that it is. It is quite a reckless statement to make that it isn't lethal, or at least potentially lethal.
From You Have the Right to Know
Only July 21, 1990, Chuck Filippini took his 8 year old daughter to the dentist who received a fluoride treatment at 11:00 A.M. Two hours later, she went into a seizure. Two to three days later, she died.These cases are not unusual. Surveys show that over 6% of the children receiving fluoride treatments at the dental office complained of side-effects, including nauseaand vomiting, either immediately or within one hour following treatment.
From UK Government review of fluoridation goes online amid controversy
The National Toxicology Program (NTP) studied fluoride for 13 years and found evidence that fluoride causes bone cancer in lab rats. A prestigious senior official from the US Public Health Service, experienced in the prestigious art of writing scientific reviews, rewrote the NTP report to make it appear that the evidence that fluoride is carcinogenic is equivocal instead of definitive.5 William Marcus, Ph.D. senior toxicologist in the EPA Office of Drinking Water, blew the whistle on this cover up. When he examined the original data of the experiment, Dr. Marcus found that there was clear evidence that fluoride causes cancer and that the results had been deliberately downgraded by the reviewer. Marcus publicly stated that there could be more than 10,000 avoidable fluoride-related deaths per year.7 For this, Dr. Marcus was fired in 1990. Dr Marcus sued. In 1992, the EPA was ordered by the court to rehire him and pay back pay, legal expenses and $50,000 in damages. "EPA appealed, but the appeal was turned down in 1994 by Secretary of Labor, Robert B. Reich who accused EPA of firing Dr. Marcus in retaliation for speaking his mind in public. Reich found among other things that EPA had shredded important evidence that would have supported Dr. Marcus in court. The original trial proceedings also show that EPA employees who wanted to testify on behalf of Dr. Marcus were threatened by their own management. EPA officials also forged some of his time cards, and then accused him of misusing his official time."8
From Fluoride: Keep It Out of Bottled Water
It's hard to believe such a pro-fluoride stance: This year, FDA mandated that fluoridated toothpaste must display a warning that reads: "If you swallow more than the amount for brushing, contact a poison control center immediately." The mandate was prompted by more than 11,000 calls a year to poison control centers and three fluoride-related deaths.
From the 1991 Physicians' Desk Reference
The 1991 Physicians' Desk Reference cautions : "Dental Fluorosis [mottling] may result from exceeding the recommended dose. In hypersensitive individuals, fluorides occasionally cause skin eruptions such as atopic dermatitis, eczema or urticaria, gastric distress, headache, and weaknesshave also been reported. These hypersensitive reactions usually disappear promptly after discontinuation of the fluoride. In rare cases, a delay in the eruption of teeth has been reported."
I find it highly interesting that the very conditions that cause adverse reactions to the smallpox vaccine are due to fluoride.
Who Should NOT Receive the Smallpox Vaccine?
Yes, but you said " Fluoride has cululative toxic effects ", with the implication that is accumulates in the tissues like lead or other heavy metals. That is NOT TRUE. You do not see levels of fluoride in the body rise over time to any great extent.
Contrary to what TomB has to say, it DOES accumulate in the body, and is even MORE toxic that lead..
From You Have the Right to Know
Make no mistake about it: fluoride is poison . According to the 1984 issue of Clinical Toxicology of Commercial Products (Williams & Wilkins), it is more poisonous than lead and just slightly less poisonous than arsenic . It has been used as a pesticide for the control of mice, rats, and other small pests. In 1991, the Akron (OH) Regional Poison Center reported that "Death has been reported following ingestion of 16 milligrams per kilogram of fluoride." In other words, one-hundreth (1/100) of an ounce of fluoride could kill a 10 pound child and one-tenth(1/10) of an ounce could kill a 100 pound adult.
Considering you have admitted that there are areas of the country with fluoride levels around 1ppm (albeit from the "natural" CaF), that is a useless statement. In addition, skeletal fluorosis is only seen in areas where the natural fluoride levels are over 4ppm. Lower levels of fluoride are actually associated with higher bone mass.
You obviously have conviently forgotten all of the facts I've provided that demonstrates that the food, water, and even the air that we breath are polluted with fluoride. The average intake is at least 4-8 mg of fluoride each day, higher than that for people who happen to live in fluoridated water districts that don't monitor their water as they should..
From FLUORIDATION: A 50 YEAR OLD BLUNDER AND COVER-UP
According to the National Research Council fluorosis affects 8 to 51% and sometimes as many as 80% of the children growing up in areas where drinking water contains one part per million (1 ppm) fluoride. Fluoride also can have a deleterious effect on bone growth and cause premature joint and ligament aging. The visible damage to tooth surfaces results in mottled, brittle teeth that are prone to fracture and may cost many thousands of dollars to cosmetically repair.
Once again, with fluoride ions being a natural feature of most water, this is not a problem at normal concentrations.
And again Tom, you try to confuse the issue between NATURAL calcium fluoride and ARTIFICIAL fluoride compounds. You have a rather short memory. Are you brushing your teeth with that 5000 ppm stuff?
I'm sorry, but I've seen no epidemologial studies looking at disease rates, hip fractures, or skeletal fluorosis, comparing areas with high and low fluoride levels.
Again Tom, I HAVE posted volumes of information and links on that. You DO appear to be suffering from fluoride intoxication...
From Fluoride in drinking water increases the risk of hip fractures in women
Fluoride in drinking water increases the risk of hip fractures in women, according to an October 1999 American Journal of Epidemiology study. This corroborates several studies revealing a positive fluoride/hip fracture association. Furthermore, other studies dismissing a fluoride/fracture link may be flawed because they weren't gender or hip-fracture specific, report authors Kurttio, et al. A recent Lancet study showing no fluoridation/hip fracture link was not gender specific between high and low fluoride areas.
In 1990 a large national survey of hip fracture rates published in the Journal of the American Medical Association found a dramatic link between fluoridated water and the frequency of hip fracture.11 This study closely followed a report in the New England Journal of Medicine which found that attempts to treat osteoporosis with fluoride actually increased the disease and resulted in increased bone fractures.12
I also noticed that many of your studies are from the journal Fluoride. Besides being on Quackwatch's list of journals to avoid, the paper I referenced above found some problems with it:
And those who made those statements are themselves guilty of quackery, and are more than likely funded by the ADA.
To promote a known poison as some sort of nutrient to the American public and to convince them that they NEED to ingest poison to attain good health is the ULTIMATE quackery. It is unimaginable that there are those who would even ALLOW adults and children to consume such hazardous material, never mind RECOMMEND and in fact FORCE them to.
Here's a bit of history on the topic.
You also fail to remember that I've posted a MASSIVE amount of information on this topic OTHER than what is available from the Fluoride Journal.
Let me just remind you that there are QUITE a few esteemed voices that are opposed to fluoridation and the use of fluoride in GENERAL.
Notable Quotes from Scientists and Medical Organizations Opposing fluoridation
Pure bunk.
No, as it really wouldn't help. The Coke you drink, the salad you eat, the meal you have for dinner, ALL have fluorides in amounts more than you'd want to consume. Water filters MIGHT decrease the effects, but not ALL...
Ions: The Body's Electrical Energy Source
Your comparison of salt to bleach is absurd, as bleach is SODIUM HYPOCHLORITE, which uses the CHLORITE ION, ClO2-.
Sodium chlorite (NaClO2) is a poison, whereas sodium chloride (NaCl) is what we sprinkle on our food.
Safety data for sodium chlorite
Your junk science arguments are falling apart by the minute...
Don't forget toothpaste, pretty much any and all foods, as well as the air we breath. Tobacco has fluorides as well.
Extremelely valid and thought provoking observations..
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.