It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
The Food & Drug Administration now requires that all fluoride toothpastes sold in the United States bear the following poison warning:
“WARNING: Keep out of reach of children under 6 years of age. If you accidentally swallow more than used for brushing, seek professional help or contact a poison control center immediately.”
The FDA warning is necessary because relatively small doses of fluoride can induce symptoms of acute fluoride toxicity (i.e., poisoning). Early symptoms of fluoride poisoning include gastrointestinal pain, nausea, vomiting, and headaches. The minimum dose that can produce these symptoms is estimated to be 0.1 to 0.3 mg/kg of fluoride (i.e., 0.1 to 0.3 milligrams of fluoride for every kilogram of bodyweight). A child weighing 10 kilograms, therefore, can suffer symptoms of acute toxicity by ingesting just 1 to 3 milligrams of fluoride in a single sitting.
As demonstrated in the table, 1 to 3 mgs of fluoride is found in just 1 to 3 grams of toothpaste (less than 3% of the tube) — including toothpaste that is marketed specifically to children with bubble-gum and fruit flavors.
originally posted by: v1rtu0s0
originally posted by: elfie
a reply to: v1rtu0s0
We don't have added fluoride in our town's water supply. I think that the amount of fluoride found in toothpaste is sufficient.
Speaking of radioactivity, when one of the wells for the water supply was found to have excessive levels of a radioactive element (through regular testing) it was shut down immediately. The naturally occurring fluoride, though, is well below acceptable levels. If a well was to exceed acceptable levels of fluoride, I'm sure they would shut it down too.
Naturally occuring fluoride is 1000x less toxic than sodium fluoride.
originally posted by: v1rtu0s0
The problem is that we aren't quantifying your "substances." I avoid those products myself, but apple juice isn't just apple juice. It could be organic, non-organic, GMO, non-GMO, or a small percentage apple juice with added sugar. It's a very generalized argument you're making.
The point isn't what's worse, some unnamed chemical or fluoride, the argument is, should we be consuming fluoride, period? Comparing it to other things that may or may not be in your food is at best a slippery slope fallacy.
originally posted by: hopenotfeariswhatweneed
sodium flouride is bad for you....anything that is a waste product from chemical fertilizers simply cannot be good...
originally posted by: Neocrusader
Erm ....you are aware tap water is fluoridated as is many bottled waters
originally posted by: Neocrusader
If you can show me where we voted for blanket fluoridation then I'll shut up
I also pay water rates , so your suggesting that I incite greater expense for a product I'm already paying for ?
I'm sorry but you've already displayed your ignorance of the subject
Imagine argueing about the choice of fluoride when you don't know your tap waters medicated with it
Now come on
a reply to: AgentShillington
From the Poison Control Center website (reproduced here in total, because I'm disgusted by the attitude of some here that adding MORE fluoride to EVERYONE'S water supply is sanctioned by ANYONE.)
Fluoride helps prevent tooth decay, strengthens tooth enamel, and reduces the harmful effects of plaque.
Medicines are involved in more than 40 percent of poisonings among children and adults. Keep these items out of children's reach:
What should I do if my child eats toothpaste with fluoride from the toothpaste tube?
Give your local poison center a call at 1-800-222-1222.
Based on the amount possibly ingested and the development of any symptoms, the center will give you advice on whether you can safely stay home or go to the ER with your child.
If you can be watched at home, they will most likely recommend that you give your child some milk.
Why? Here is the MSDS for "natural" calcium fluoride:
I agree with you on the sodium fluoride, actually.
And let's not forget this part:
Special Remarks on Chronic Effects on Humans:
May affect genetic material (mutagenic). May cause adverse reproductive effects and birth defects (teratogenic) based on animal test data.
Special Remarks on other Toxic Effects on Humans:
Acute Potential Health Effects: Skin: May cause skin irritation. Eyes: May cause eye irritation. Inhalation: Causes respiratory tract irritation. Ingestion: May cause gastrointestinal irritaiton with nausea, vomiting and diarrhea, salivation, thirst, abdominal pain, fever, labored breathing (respiratory depression, apnea, dyspnea). Exposure to fluorides may also cause disturbed color vision, hypocalcemia, hyperkalemia, and hypomagnesemia, and may result in systemic toxic effects on the heart/cardiovascular system (hypotension, tachycardia, arrhythmia, weak pulse, cardiovascular collapse), liver (hepatic enzymes increased), and kidneys (abnormal renal function, renal damage). It may also affect behavior/Central Nervous System (CNS depression - headache, dizziness, weakness, somnolence, ataxia, loss of conciousness). Other neurological symptoms of acute fluoride ingestion may include muscle weakness, difficulty speaking, fitfulness(hyperreflexia), tetany, numbness or tingling of the extremities. Chronic Potential Health Effects: Skin: Prolonged or repeated skin contact may cause dermititis. Inhalation: Prolonged or repeated inhalation may cause bronchitis, asmtha, silicosis, increase in respiratory infections, pulmonary lesions. Ingestion: Prolonged or repeated ingestion cause diseases of the blood, teeth, bones and other organs (osteosclerosis, fluorosis). (Fluorisis is characterized by vomiting, diarrhea or constipation, weakness joint stiffness, loss of appetite, anemia).
Severe over-exposure can produce lung damage, choking, unconsciousness or death.
originally posted by: XL5
I think this is about the costs of removing the fluoride, not that people want it in there. Its probably tap water that was put through a cheap filter.
Much of the original proof that fluoride is "safe" for humans in low doses was generated by A-bomb program scientists, who had been secretly ordered to provide "evidence useful in litigation" against defense contractors for fluoride injury to citizens. The first lawsuits against the U.S. A-bomb program were not over radiation, but over fluoride damage, the documents reveal.
Human studies were required. Bomb program researchers played a leading role in the design and implementation of the most extensive U.S. study of the health effects of fluoridating public drinking water - conducted in Newburgh, New York from 1945 to 1956. Then, in a classified operation code-named "Program F," they secretly gathered and analysed blood and tissue samples from Newburgh citizens, with the cooperation of State Health Department personnel.
The original "secret" version - obtained by these reporters - of a 1948 study published by Program F scientists in the Journal of the American Dental Association shows that evidence of the adverse health effects from fluoride was censored by the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) - considered the most powerful of Cold War agencies - for reasons of national security.
"Information was buried," concludes Dr. Phyllis Mullenix, former head of toxicology at Forsyth Dental Center in Boston, and now a critic of fluoridation. Animal studies Mullenix and co-workers conducted at Forsyth in the early 1990's indicated that fluoride was a powerful central nervous system (CNS) toxin, and might adversely affect human brain functioning, even at low doses. (New epidemiological evidence from China adds support, showing a correlation between low-dose fluoride exposure and diminished I.Q. in children.) Mullenix's results were published in 1995, in a reputable peer-reviewed scientific journal.
During her investigation, Mullenix was astonished to discover there had been virtually no previous U.S. studies of fluoride's effects on the human brain. Then, her application for a grant to continue her CNS research was turned down by the U.S. National Institutes of Health (NIH), where an NIH panel, she says, flatly told her that "fluoride does not have central nervous system effects."
Declassified documents of the U.S. atomic-bomb program indicate otherwise. An April 29, 1944 Manhattan Project memo reports: "Clinical evidence suggests that uranium hexafluoride may have a rather marked central nervous system effect.... It seems most likely that the F [code for fluoride] component rather than the T [code for uranium] is the causative factor."
My investigations of the neurotoxicity of fluoride started in 1987. Using a new computer pattern recognition system capable of a sensitivity and objectivity other behavioral measures did not possess, we studied an animal model first developed for the study of dental fluorosis. Frankly, we expected to find nothing. The results from the first experiment we thought must be wrong, so we kept repeating the study with more animals, different doses, sexes, ages and methods of administration. Like quicksand, every effort we made sank us further into the realization that brain function was impacted by fluoride. Scientific integrity dictated that we publish our results (2,3), but employed at a dental research institution made us weak in the knees to do so.
In our 1995 paper (2), we reported that brain function was vulnerable to fluoride, that the effects on behavior depended on the age at exposure and that fluoride accumulated in brain tissues. Rats exposed as adults displayed behavior-specific changes typical of cognitive deficits, whereas rats exposed prenatally had dispersed behaviors typical of hyperactivity. Brain histology was not examined, but the behavioral changes were consistent with those seen when hippocampal development is interrupted and memory problems emerge. Overall, we concluded that the rat study flagged potential for motor dysfunction, IQ deficits and/or learning disabilities in humans.
These criticisms are without merit because our doses in rats produce a level of fluoride in the plasma equivalent to that found in humans drinking 5- 10 ppm fluoride in water, or humans receiving some treatments for osteoporosis. This plasma level is exceeded ten times over one hour after children receive topical applications of some dental fluoride gels.
Soon after our study was published, we learned of two epidemiology studies from China showing IQ deficits in children over-exposed to fluoride via drinking water or soot from burning coal (4,5). Next, we found a literature review that assembled case reports spanning 60 years on neurological effects in humans exposed to fluoride (6). A common theme in these reports was that fluoride exposure impaired memory and concentration and that it caused lethargy, headache, depression and confusion. The depression is not something to ignore because suicide occurs more frequently than expected in populations of fluoride workers (7).
Weanlings received drinking water containing 0, 75, 100, or 125 ppm F for 6 or 20 weeks, and 3 month-old adults received water containing 100 ppm F for 6 weeks.
Holy crap. That's a lot of fluoride! You might find that level in a private well but not in a public water system.
These criticisms are without merit because our doses in rats produce a level of fluoride in the plasma equivalent to that found in humans drinking 5- 10 ppm fluoride in water, or humans receiving some treatments for osteoporosis.