Originally posted by nunya13
Originally posted by UdonNiedtuno
What the researchers from Harvard actually said was that this data can't be used to extrapolate effects in the U.S. because most all water supplies
are fluoridated at 0.7-1.2 ppm and this study compared 2 water supplies with fluoride levels of 0.3 ppm and 2.3 ppm (roughly) so you can't use that to
determine what a level of 1.2 ppm might do. WHICH IS SCIENTIFICALLY CORRECT!
If fluoride has a cumulative affect on the body and cannot be eliminated from it naturally, then i would think that they could use the data to
extrapolate what half as much fluoride exposure would do to Americans.
Unfortunately that isn't really the way this type of science works. You would need a study designed specifically to investigate dose-dependent
response. For example, going from 0.8 to 1.2 ppm might cause a decrease of 5 IQ points, you could describe as the rate -12.5 IQ points per ppm of
fluoride. From 3 ppm to 7 ppm you might see 20 IQ points lost, this would equate to -5 IQ points per ppm of fluoride. And from 0.5 to 2 ppm you might
see 10 IQ points lost, equating to -6.7 IQ points per ppm of fluoride. This is an example of a non-linear dose response. Using this data you cannot,
for example, accurately predict what the effect of 2 ppm vs 4 ppm might be. This is why they can't simply say "the difference between 0.8 and 2.4 is
15 IQ points (or -9.38 IQ points per ppm Fluoride), therefore the difference between 0.8 and 1.2 ppm will be 3.75 IQ points (-9.38 IQ points per
It just doesn't work that way, which is what they were saying. They DID NOT say there was no effect, or that it didn't effect americans, which is what
the inflammatory language of the thread and the natural news article used to elicit a specific response from the crowd.
It is more than obvious (as mentioned in my previous post
) that there are
NUMEROUS issues with ingestion of fluoride, that no one has a good handle (available to the public) of what the real effects are at the levels to
which we are exposed, and that it should, without a doubt, NOT be added to public water supplies!
But stop the moronic fear-mongering (both sides) and name-calling (HYPOCRITE: see 'moronic' reference 12 words ago) and everyone will come out
It is a very effective tactic to provide your opponents with claims so far fetched and un-provable so as to make them look like they are total
lunatics. Then the masses will happily follow what you, the side appearing more calm, cool and collected, have to say. Stop taking the bait.
Research the precautionary principle, and use that to calmly illustrate to those in your community why it shouldn't be in our water. If everyone who
was anti-fluoride did that we would all be farther ahead.
Don't be chicken little...no one really likes it, and it is an ineffective motivating tool.
edit on 27-9-2012 by UdonNiedtuno because: (no