It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Harvard Study Says Fluoridated Water is Causing Cognitive Disorders

page: 4
51
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 10 2014 @ 09:35 PM
link   
reply to post by Laykilla
 

Numerous times? Really? Can you provide links to the EPA documents regarding those changes?


Took me less than one second to find a link, and there are hundreds upon hundreds of them. It was also ALL OVER MSM television networks like Fox/NBC/CBS/CNN at the time.
Drinking water standards were not changed.

The updated PAGS manual is avaiable for review and comment. The President has "approved" nothing. The PAGS are not regulations. The PAGS are guidlines for use in situations when cleanup operations are carried out by authorites other than Superfund programs or other state or federal authorities. As guidelines, the PAGs do not "permit" anything. The updated PAGs do not "raise" any allowable levels. The PAGS do not address drinking water standards.
www.epa.gov...

edit on 3/10/2014 by Phage because: (no reason given)




posted on Mar, 10 2014 @ 09:35 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


Thanks!

I did a quick overview of the link and this stood out to me.


In response to the recommendation of the NRC (2006), the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) and the U.S. EPA recently announced that DHHS is proposing to change the recommended level of fluoride in drinking water to 0.7 mg/L from the currently recommended range of 0.7–1.2 mg/L, and the U.S. EPA is reviewing the maximum amount of fluoride allowed in drinking water, which currently is set at 4.0 mg/L (U.S. EPA 2011).





posted on Mar, 10 2014 @ 09:38 PM
link   

Corruption Exposed
reply to post by Phage
 


This study has nothing to do with China as Phage has incorrectly claimed.

Just saying.


Have you read the actual paper that the propaganda piece you link to is misquoting? Phage reproduced the relevant paragraph and then linked to the citation. Here is a link to the Lancet paper:

download.thelancet.com...

Flouride gets the one paragraph Phage quoted in full. It cites a metastudy done in China of populations drinking naturally elevated levels of flouride in their water. Please follow your sources all the way back if you wish to save yourself such embarrassment in the future.



posted on Mar, 10 2014 @ 09:41 PM
link   
reply to post by sheepslayer247
 

Yes. Both proposed lowerings were due to indications of increased dental fluorosis in children. The level of fluorisis being primarily minor to moderate. These are cosmetic issues (white spots on teeth) but are of some concern. I do know that some localities have lowered the artificial level to 0.7 mg/L in response.

As far as I know, DHHS and the EPA have not yet made a determination.

edit on 3/10/2014 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 10 2014 @ 09:41 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 



A recent cross-sectional study based on individual-level measure of exposures suggested that low levels of water fluoride (range, 0.24–2.84 mg/L) had significant negative associations with children’s intelligence (Ding et al. 2011).



The results suggest that fluoride may be a developmental neurotoxicant that affects brain development at exposures much below those that can cause toxicity in adults


I think I may need to re-evaluate my stance on this topic...unless I am reading this incorrectly.



posted on Mar, 10 2014 @ 09:45 PM
link   

sheepslayer247
reply to post by Laykilla
 


There is a big difference between the amount of Fluoride in toothpaste and what is put in water.

Most fluoride amounts in toothpaste is calculated by percentages. In water it is calculated by the part per million (PPM), i believe. There is a huge difference in quantity.
edit on 10-3-2014 by sheepslayer247 because: (no reason given)


I didn't say there wasn't, but why have fluoride at all in water that you swallow? It can't help teeth if it doesn't make contact with your teeth for more than fractions of a second. It certainly can't help the areas of teeth that aren't in contact with it... and most cavities happen at the top of the tooth, not the side or back of the tooth, which is the only probable place the water is going to make contact with your teeth unless you are swishing and gargling... and if the volumes are even lower than in toothpastes and mouthwashes, and they are nominal enough to "swallow" how is it helping your teeth? It'd be soooo diluted that it can't possibly help your teeth even if you swished it around and gargled it... So why is it there then?

And even if it's PPM, it accumulates over time into a lot more than what you swallow per sip. So why contaminate your body at all, when there can't possibly be any positive effects to your teeth?

This is not even complicated to understand. If you drink water, and don't swish it around your teeth, and you swallow it as it enters your mouth, and doesn't even make contact with all your teeth, how can it help your teeth? Especially so, when ingesting it into your stomach has absolutely zero effect on your teeth?

So the question is, why do they want it in your water supply if it effectively does nothing?

I'd rather not swallow poison, I'd rather YOU not swallow poison, especially when the "positives" are impossible.

You can prove this with an experiment, get a funnel, some wooden teeth, paint the teeth white. Put the teeth in a balloon, position the funnel as the throat, forcibly inject turpentine into the mouth you've just created, fill it to the max, and let it drain out, check the paint on the teeth. You'll notice really quick, that the only place the paint was removed was the places that had prolonged exposure to the turpentine. Now notice, that in this experiment, the mouth will be over full, and it still doesn't remove all the paint on the teeth, and keep in mind, that when people drink water, they do not fill their mouth even close to maximum capacity, now tell me how that's going to strengthen your teeth?

It can't. It's impossible, because the fluid with the acting agent isn't making solid contact with the teeth. Therefor the entire premise is false, which makes ALL supporting evidence propaganda, as it's incorrect, even if in principle it *COULD* have positive effects, in reality, it doesn't, because in the practical application, it's not even making contact with your teeth...
edit on 10-3-2014 by Laykilla because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 10 2014 @ 09:47 PM
link   
reply to post by Laykilla
 


Just hold on. I'm sharing parts that I found in the link provided and would like to get opinions before we go much further.

I am not beyond admitting that I may be wrong, but I'd hate to be the one misunderstanding the info.

Take a look at what I have posted so far.



posted on Mar, 10 2014 @ 09:48 PM
link   
reply to post by DJW001
 


That he did but the overall point of the OP is that fluoride is unhealthy for human consumptions and can cause health issues. Just because it was done in china doesnt make the effect any less real...and as I have shown one of the traits of fluorde in humans is that it lingers in the body being absorbed into the skeletal structure and soft tissue. So sure maybe the people of china get a little higher dosage but that only speeds the inevitably of the same disorders appearing in our population. Hey its not like if it was done then found out that the government would allow it to come out that they poisoned us all...I mean seriously can you see it...oops sorry guys we kinda poisoned you all...jeez



posted on Mar, 10 2014 @ 09:59 PM
link   

Although reports from the World Health Organization and national agencies have generally focused on beneficial effects of fluoride (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 1999; Petersen and Lennon 2004), the NRC report examined the potential adverse effects of fluoride at 2–4 mg/L in drinking water and not the benefits or potential risks that may occur when fluoride is added to public water supplies at lower concentrations (0.7–1.2 mg/L) (NRC 2006).


ehp.niehs.nih.gov...

So the study, while it touches on the possibility of fluoridated drinking water being bad for children, does not make a definitive statement either way.

In my uneducated opinion, this does not look good for the pro-fluoridation folks and I will have to agree that perhaps even low-dose fluoride may be detrimental.



posted on Mar, 10 2014 @ 10:08 PM
link   
reply to post by sheepslayer247
 


That's a point I'd like to make sure sticks...even their own studies only focus on its dental effects and not what happens to whats ingested. They're obviously ignoring the obvious implications of a poisonous substance building up in your body. As the paper I linked on page 2 or 3 clearly states thats one area they encouraged more study of because it was an area of uncertainty. Now who puts a substance in your water then fights to keep it there when that substance is a poison when ingested and is not proven to or even atempted to be proven fairly if at all to be be safe.
edit on 10-3-2014 by RickyD because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 10 2014 @ 10:13 PM
link   

sheepslayer247

Although reports from the World Health Organization and national agencies have generally focused on beneficial effects of fluoride (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 1999; Petersen and Lennon 2004), the NRC report examined the potential adverse effects of fluoride at 2–4 mg/L in drinking water and not the benefits or potential risks that may occur when fluoride is added to public water supplies at lower concentrations (0.7–1.2 mg/L) (NRC 2006).


ehp.niehs.nih.gov...

So the study, while it touches on the possibility of fluoridated drinking water being bad for children, does not make a definitive statement either way.

In my uneducated opinion, this does not look good for the pro-fluoridation folks and I will have to agree that perhaps even low-dose fluoride may be detrimental.


Well the one and ONLY proposed benefit to fluoridating water is to prevent cavities by strengthening tooth enamel... but how much time does the fluoride need to be in contact with the enamel to have any kind of chemical reaction with it?

This has never been stated.

Also, at what point is the fluoride too diluted to have beneficial effects to the enamel?

This has also never been stated.

Also, how much water makes contact with your teeth when you drink? Not very much, and it certainly doesn't make contact with all your teeth, or even, every part of any tooth, unless you swish it around.

Also, how much time does the water make contact with your teeth when drinking in a practical way? Fractions of a second. There is nothing to hold the water in place, so any place that gets touched by the water, is going to only be touched by the water for micro seconds.

So the premise that it's good for your teeth is completely fallacious and has NEVER been supported, because there has never been a study that answered the above questions. There hasn't been, because if there was, it would be concluded that it's impossible for the enamel to benefit from that limited of exposure to such a diluted acting agent contained in treated water, and that even if there was, it still wouldn't be encapsulating your teeth completely, which means the effects would be extremely limited in terms of beneficial gains, not enough to outweigh the negatives of actually swallowing this acting agent.

So therefor, it's concluded that the fluoridation of water is a real case of government propaganda, which means there is an ulterior motive for attempting to co-opt people to willfully swallow this acting agent.

I've posted this argument in every single fluoridation thread I've ever participated in, and nobody has ever addressed the real practical application's potential to be beneficial. It's like they don't care. A study can say that "x" amount of fluoride will strengthen enamel, but under what application -- it most certainly isn't by swallowing it, or by drinking it, it might be by swishing it, but if that's the case, why is it in our drinking water, that we aren't regularly swishing with?

We drink drinking water, we might swish with it up to 3 times a day, but most people are swishing it to wash the mouthwash out of their mouth, they aren't swishing it as if it IS mouthwash. The other 99% of the time we are interacting with this drinking water, we are drinking it, or showering it in. Neither application has any benefits of the added active agent.

Therefor; it serves as a disadvantage rather than an advantage in almost all practical uses.
edit on 10-3-2014 by Laykilla because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 10 2014 @ 10:18 PM
link   
reply to post by sheepslayer247
 


I think I may need to re-evaluate my stance on this topic...unless I am reading this incorrectly.
That's a study I hadn't seen before. It compares urine fluoride levels and fluorosis "ratings" to IQ.

Table 2 shows these results:
Children with "Normal" flourosis showed a mean of urine flouride of 0.80 mg/l and a mean IQ of 104.07.
Children with "Questionable", "Very Mild", and "Moderate" (the highest level) fluorosis showed generally increasing urine levels (with the exception of "very mild" which was a bit lower than that of "questionable').

But what seems odd is that children with "mild" (second most severe rating) fluorosis showed a mean IQ level 1.96 points higher than that of those with "normal" (the lowest rating) flourosis. The mean urine level for the "mild" category was 1.31. That's 63% higher fluoride concentration, yet the group showed a higher average IQ.

The "mild" category. The second to highest level of fluoride, showed the highest average intelligence.

Seems a strange conclusion to say that fluoride affects the intelligence of children negatively based on this data. Actually, looking at the data, it seems hard to say there is much connection at all.
cof-cof.ca...< br />

edit on 3/10/2014 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 10 2014 @ 10:20 PM
link   
Look, I can agree with what guys are saying. Fluoridation may be bad...they really don't know and it appears as though Phage's link may contradict what he was saying.

If I was wrong in my previous statements, I was wrong.

But if one of you fantastic members would have read his link earlier, this would have all been done and over with...correct?

Regardless of how feel or think, we must look at facts and forget about our emotional knee-jerk responses. I say that because this thread seemed to veer from the real topic and became about other members.

Do your research before you dig in too far and even though we like to be right all of the time, it takes balls to admit when you are wrong.



posted on Mar, 10 2014 @ 10:23 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


I'm still trying to digest it all Phage. This is well beyond my expertise. But I think it's safe to be curious as to the safety of water fluoridation and it's potential effects.

At one time we were told is was ok to smoke cigarettes. Maybe this falls in to that category.



posted on Mar, 10 2014 @ 10:28 PM
link   

sheepslayer247
Look, I can agree with what guys are saying. Fluoridation may be bad...they really don't know and it appears as though Phage's link may contradict what he was saying.

If I was wrong in my previous statements, I was wrong.

But if one of you fantastic members would have read his link earlier, this would have all been done and over with...correct?

Regardless of how feel or think, we must look at facts and forget about our emotional knee-jerk responses. I say that because this thread seemed to veer from the real topic and became about other members.

Do your research before you dig in too far and even though we like to be right all of the time, it takes balls to admit when you are wrong.


Calm down brother; I'm not attacking you, and I could careless what ANY links say about the study of fluoride in drinking water, because they are ALL FLAWED studies for the reason I posted above.

My only point is, if they can't prove that it's a positive, and it's ambiguous in nature, than how do they get off dumping it in peoples water supply?

How do people even have the right to vote for a chemical additive that people haven't properly studied the effects of? Prove conclusively that drinking water with fluoride additives actually strengthen enamel. I don't care if fluoride itself CAN strengthen enamel, prove to me that the delivery system, drinking and ingesting it, strengthens enamel.

NO STUDY ON EARTH has done this, because it cannot be done.

Notice Phage won't even touch my argument. It's because he knows it can't be defeated.
edit on 10-3-2014 by Laykilla because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 10 2014 @ 10:28 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


This is from your link.


Overall, our study suggested that low levels of fluoride exposure in drinking water had negative effects on children’s intelligence and dental health.



Thus, these findings may have policy implications for a country like China to put more effort on the water improving and defluoridation projects to alleviate toxic- ity of long-term effects of fluoride exposure to local residents and their offspring



edit on 10-3-2014 by sheepslayer247 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 10 2014 @ 10:34 PM
link   
reply to post by Laykilla
 


You forgot to add proof that a build up of a toxic chemical in your body isn't more harmful than helpful.



posted on Mar, 10 2014 @ 10:38 PM
link   

sheepslayer247
reply to post by Phage
 


This is from your link.


Overall, our study suggested that low levels of fluoride exposure in drinking water had negative effects on children’s intelligence and dental health.



Thus, these findings may have policy implications for a country like China to put more effort on the water improving and defluoridation projects to alleviate toxic- ity of long-term effects of fluoride exposure to local residents and their offspring



edit on 10-3-2014 by sheepslayer247 because: (no reason given)


That would be; because according to that obviously flawed study, high levels of fluoride exposure in drinking water had "positive" effects on children's intelligence.

Which is why even Phage said, this study is flawed and inconclusive, because there was no "Control" in the experiment.

I.E.

They would have had to be testing children with zero exposure to fluoride, get their base IQ's before fluoride exposure, as a control, then expose them all to different levels of fluoride, and rate their IQ's against themselves, instead of against each other. And even this would be inconclusive without establishing an IQ test result average. Meaning they would have to be IQ tested around 20 times each before, and 20 times each after, and then compare the averages against each other. Why? Because you can take an IQ test, and come out at 130, then take it again, and be issued different questions, and come out at 115, and then take it again, and be issued again a series of different questions and come out at 145. Intelligent Quotients are not static, and very much can vary between "takes."

This study ignored the scientific method, which makes it flawed. Like all fluoride studies in existence. Also, none of them put the delivery system of drinking fluoridated water under the scrutiny of the scientific method. If they did that, it would invalidate the need for any other studies, because it would show that the delivery method makes it impossible for the fluoride to have any effect on the enamel of teeth, which means the entire goal behind the propaganda is to convince people to ingest it into their bodies.
edit on 10-3-2014 by Laykilla because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 10 2014 @ 10:39 PM
link   
reply to post by Laykilla
 


The problem is that these studies may not be as flawed as you think. After reading through much of the material provided, it does, in fact, seem that the conclusions they come up with is that fluoride may be detrimental.

It's not conclusive by any means, but it does suggest very strongly.

What I am saying is that if you wish to refute someone's assertions, take the time to read the material they present to refute your's.

Making it personal, as in attacking the member disagreeing with you, is not the way it should be done....and you know exactly what I am talking about.



posted on Mar, 10 2014 @ 10:53 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



new topics

top topics



 
51
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join