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.
Originally posted by SyphonX
reply to post by Maslo
Well it goes on to conclude that sodium fluoride intake may be associated with an increased cardiovascular risk. Yet that's the problem with most official "fluoride studies" isn't it? All the results are compartmentalized and they'll say "not enough risk here", "not enough risk there", but it's separated into neat little packages. When they say "tap levels are safe" for instance, they don't take into account the fact that everything produced and sold for consumption in America is manufactured with the same tap supplies we drink.
Therefore, it's fairly obvious you exceed "safe dosage" because it's in your bread, it's in your juice, it's in your medicine... anything that is produced with the same tap water, will have sodium fluoride in it. Then you whip fluoridated toothpaste in your mouth to top it all off, a rather extreme amount of intake on the 'broad spectrum', in my humble opinion.
Even this study fails to take this into account, and they only apply the test to the mentioned drugs.edit on 17-1-2012 by SyphonX because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by Bisman
i am having trouble finding toothpaste+mouthwash without fluoride
i live in MN, US.
any brands you guys wanna throw at me, im listening
i have been good at not drinking tap, but i still cook my food with tap, and i even want to cut down on that
Originally posted by dtrock78
That is wrong. Almost all manufacturing and production facilities have onsite industrial supply wells so they DON'T have to use public water for cost purposes.
Additionally, there would be a clear corelation between heart diseases and fluorinated water supply users, which there is not. Most suburban and rural potable water supplies are supplied via well water straight from the ground.
Originally posted by dtrock78
Well that's my point, Syphon.
If there were any kind of correlations between ingesting soluble flouride and health effects, be it psychological, heart, cardiovascular, pineal gland, etc etc it would be blatantly obvious.
Unless you live in a city, or a highly developed suburb, you likely are drinking straight groundwater from a well. So all the people that would be on "public" water would have a markedly higher incidence rate of (name the disease).
Despite what some of the people on this site imply, not everyone that works in the cancer and health industry is "in" on some grand scheme to poison our own population. There are very extensive studies completed annually (mostly at university level) that look at any and every coorelation you can think of - "Do people that microwave their food have higher cancer rates? Do red meat eaters have higher %'s of thyroid cancer? Etc, etc"
Something that would be as clear cut as this would be a slam dunk for a post-Doc
Originally posted by NeoVain
reply to post by kokoro
that is exactly what it is taking about when it points to a correlation between calcification and uptake of fluoride. The fluoride is taken up by the calcification within the artery wall (that is exactly what heart disease is). Then the MRI, or Ct or whatever method used can identify where the calcifications are by where the image is lit up.
More literal legerdemain. How about you actually point to the stuff in the article that you try to "explain" instead of coming up with vague preconceptions based on preconceived assumptions all the time? Even better, why don´t you go pester the author of the article, i noticed he already have 3348 facebook subscriber to that article. Shouldn´t you be concerned he is spreading the "false" message? But of course he gets no flags or stars, so why should you care right?
Cardiovascular disease remains the leading cause of morbidity and mortality in the world 1. The major pathophysiologic change of cardiovascular disease is atherosclerosis in critical arteries. Atherosclerosis is a slow, progressive, and cumulative process that results in atheromatous plaque formation in vascular walls and eventually leads to narrowing of the arterial lumen, occlusion, or aneurysm formation. The development of atherosclerotic plaque is characterized by subendothelial fatty material accumulation, a chronic inflammatory process, and vascular calcification
Coronary calcification can be measured by computed tomography (CT) studies and is one of the most important predictors of future cardiovascular events. The level of coronary artery calcium can also help to reclassify asymptomatic individuals into high-risk or low-risk categories
. Recently, Derlin et al. 12 reported the feasibility of sodium [18F]fluoride PET/CT for imaging atherosclerotic calcification in major arteries , including carotid, aorta, iliac, and femoral arteries. They also found that the mineral deposition in the carotid plaque detected by sodium [18F]fluoride PET/CT significantly correlates with atherogenic risk factors
Recently, several studies have demonstrated the feasibility of FDG-PET/CT in detecting plaque inflammation in coronary arteries 15–22. Nevertheless, fluoride PET/CT active mineral deposition, which represents the distinct pathophysiologic process of atherosclerosis
The FDG uptake and fluoride uptake of atherosclerotic plaques could have complementary roles in evaluating the cardiovascular risk of patients. The combination of sodium [18F]fluoride PET and CT is a promising imaging modality that provides both metabolic and anatomic information in evaluating vascular calcification
. Combined anatomic and metabolic imaging with sodium [18F]fluoride PET/CT offers a promising, noninvasive method to evaluate atherosclerosis.
Originally posted by SubSurge
WTF I've never heard of this before!
Anyway I am a skeptic to anything I hear, I will look into this myself and if its true then we need to email our congressmen and tell as many people about it as possible because I've never heard of this before and I always read the headlines on the news...
The results of this study show that the children living in high fluoride areas have lower IQs than the children from the non-endemic area. Also, there were many more children from the endemic area with an IQ score ranking of below the borderline low level as compared to the control; in the endemic area, there were 18 such subject, or 30% of the total, while in the non-endemic area there were only 7, or a rate of 11.5%. The difference between the two groups is significant.
The findings of neurological effects in fluoride-exposed humans is consistent with, and strengthened by, recent findings from over 40 animal studies published since 1992. As with the studies on humans, the studies on animals have reported an impairment in learning and memory prorcesses among the fluoride-treated groups.