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: Fluoride Lowers Children’s Intelligence By 7 IQ Points

page: 2
5
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 11 2014 @ 07:18 PM
link   
reply to post by fractal2
 


For me, the question of fluoride safety is irrelevant. I think that we should all be a little upset with the fact that we are being medicated against our will. If a person thinks that fluoride will protect their teeth better than good hygiene or diet then they can go buy the pills.




posted on Feb, 11 2014 @ 07:23 PM
link   
reply to post by Witness2008
 

It's a public health issue. If a community thinks it's in their best interest to have their water chlorinated, it should be. Those who don't want chlorinated water can buy their water instead of drinking tap water.

If a community thinks it's in their best interest to have their water fluoridated, it should be. Those who don't want fluoridated water can buy their water instead of drinking tap water.

Turn it around. With naturally fluoridated water supplies, do you think that everyone should have to pay the added expense to have it defluoridated because some don't want fluoride in their water?
edit on 2/11/2014 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 11 2014 @ 07:27 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


I wonder how many communities actually had a say in whether their water should be fluoridated? Sanitation and orderliness are community efforts that benefit everyone. Medications are not a "one size fits all" kinda thing. Health issues are very individual.



posted on Feb, 11 2014 @ 07:42 PM
link   
reply to post by fractal2
 


Ehh, what's a measly 7 points? It might be worth having good teeth over.



posted on Feb, 11 2014 @ 07:45 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


Alright. Here are some to the contrary.

Places that ceased water fluoridation:
Canada, Finland, Germany, Cuba respectively.

“The prevalence of caries decreased over time in the fluoridation-ended community while remaining unchanged in the fluoridated community.”
SOURCE: Maupome G, Clark DC, Levy SM, Berkowitz J. (2001). Patterns of dental caries following the cessation of water fluoridation. Community Dentistry and Oral Epidemiology 29: 37-47.

“The fact that no increase in caries was found in Kuopio despite discontinuation of water fluoridation and decrease in preventive procedures suggests that not all of these measures were necessary for each child.”
SOURCE: Seppa L, Karkkainen S, Hausen H. (2000). Caries Trends 1992-1998 in Two Low-Fluoride Finnish Towns Formerly with and without Fluoridation. Caries Research 34: 462-468.

“In contrast to the anticipated increase in dental caries following the cessation of water fluoridation in the cities Chemnitz and Plauen, a significant fall in caries prevalence was observed.”
SOURCE: Kunzel W, Fischer T, Lorenz R, Bruhmann S. (2000). Decline of caries prevalence after the cessation of water fluoridation in the former East Germany. Community Dentistry and Oral Epidemiology 28: 382-9.

“In 1997, following the cessation of drinking water fluoridation, in contrast to an expected rise in caries prevalence, DMFT and DMFS values remained at a low level for the 6- to 9-year-olds and appeared to decrease for the 10/11-year-olds. In the 12/13-year-olds, there was a significant decrease, while the percentage of caries-free children of this age group had increased…”
SOURCE: Kunzel W, Fischer T. (2000). Caries prevalence after cessation of water fluoridation in La Salud, Cuba. Caries Research 34: 20-5.

In your words. Does this indicate a lack of effectiveness to you?
edit on 11-2-2014 by Lucid Lunacy because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 11 2014 @ 07:46 PM
link   

AlphaHawk
reply to post by fractal2
 


If you take all the figures supplied by the study and calculate the average, it works out to be around 9mg/L

So, the study basically implies it takes over 9mg/L of fluoride in your water to lose an average of 7 IQ points.

Hardly a fair indication of what's in "normal" drinking water.


There are hundreds of counties in the US with fluoride concentrations of 2.5mg/L and above. Six of the studies reviewed by Harvard were in areas with fluoride concentrations of less than 2.5mg/L. So while there isn't an exact match to the US fluoride levels it really is a lot less far off than others have interpreted. In fact if the study shows anything its that fluoride may be a candidate for being filtered out in somewhat typical levels.

I didn't count but it looks like a third of places in the US have fluoride levels similar to six of the locations in the study of fluoride levels at the various locations in China. Please note that 1ppm is approximately 1mg/L.
Source: www.fluoridealert.org...

The Harvard study is at: ehp.niehs.nih.gov... Harvard was only one of very many people involved in the study if you look through the list of those involved.
edit on 11-2-2014 by fractal2 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 11 2014 @ 07:52 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 



If a community thinks it's in their best interest to have their water fluoridated, it should be. Those who don't want fluoridated water can buy their water instead of drinking tap water.

Since it's a medical treatment what are your thoughts on the importance of calibrating dosage. Not everyone consumes water in accordance to these averages. Some consume a lot of water. Especially during rigorous fitness training.

Your point about communities wanting the fluoridated water. You surely are not saying everyone in a given community gave it a green light? Not even taking into account those that oppose it, I've met plenty of people that didn't even know their water was fluoridated to begin with. So what becomes of informed consent? Yet another thing normally important in medical treatment. They should buy water bottles from the store? That's an economic burden for them.
edit on 11-2-2014 by Lucid Lunacy because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 11 2014 @ 08:10 PM
link   
I know a whole lot of people who grew up with fluoridated water and I can't imagine them being much brighter than they already are. While I wouldn't take the pills it has never been a big issue for me. Did these studies rule out other things in the water (this is China known for its high lead in water).

If I had it my way I would find a way to add some minerals to my water as I don't get them all through the foods I eat - and some vitamin D in colder climates. I really don't think people put this in there to harm us. Tap water is nasty by default since it has to be sanitized. I'm more worried about chlorine and the occasional fishy smell than I am fluoride.



posted on Feb, 11 2014 @ 08:24 PM
link   
reply to post by Lucid Lunacy
 


Since it's a medical treatment what are your thoughts on the importance of calibrating dosage. Not everyone consumes water in accordance to these averages. Some consume a lot of water. Especially during rigorous fitness training.
It's a water treatment, not a medical treatment. It's not dissimilar to the use of chlorination as a water treatment. Chlorination helps to prevent parasitic and bacterial disease, fluoridation helps to prevent dental disease.

Treatment standards take variables like you mention into account. But it seems to me that those in fitness training drink bottled water (or "enhanced" water) rather than tap water anyway. That is an assumption on my part though.
 


You surely are not saying everyone in a given community gave it a green light?
Not at all. I'm talking more in terms of voting. I think this is a good application for a democratic approach since it is a public health issue and in particular a community health issue.


So what becomes of informed consent?
Informed consent concerns research, not water treatment. But by putting it to a vote it would tend to encourage discussion and thus knowledge about the issue. And, along with the vote, would come implied consent. The community has given consent, by remaining a part of the community you have given implied consent.
 



They should buy water bottles from the store? That's an economic burden for them.
If their community decides it should be done, yes, it would be. Fluoridation is not the only community decision that could have that effect. But the expense would be offset a bit by the tap water they don't drink.

edit on 2/11/2014 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 11 2014 @ 08:31 PM
link   

Phage
reply to post by Witness2008
 

It's a public health issue. If a community thinks it's in their best interest to have their water chlorinated, it should be. Those who don't want chlorinated water can buy their water instead of drinking tap water.

If a community thinks it's in their best interest to have their water fluoridated, it should be. Those who don't want fluoridated water can buy their water instead of drinking tap water.

Turn it around. With naturally fluoridated water supplies, do you think that everyone should have to pay the added expense to have it defluoridated because some don't want fluoride in their water?
edit on 2/11/2014 by Phage because: (no reason given)


Whole communities in the uk went to court because they didn't want it in their water supply.
The courts decision? "Its not illegal so your having it"

Why not have this the other way around phage. If people want fluoride let them buy bottled water that has it already added, that way people can choose!
Putting it in the water supply makes it very difficult for people to choose, especialy the elderly who may not be able to get out.



posted on Feb, 11 2014 @ 08:34 PM
link   
reply to post by VoidHawk
 


Whole communities in the uk went to court because they didn't want it in their water supply.
The courts decision? "Its not illegal so your having it"
I said it should be a community decision, didn't I?



Why not have this the other way around phage. If people want fluoride let them buy bottled water that has it already added, that way people can choose!
That doesn't make any sense. You can chose whether or not you are going to use either source, however you look at it.


Putting it in the water supply makes it very difficult for people to choose, especialy the elderly who may not be able to get out.
So, how do they get their groceries?



posted on Feb, 11 2014 @ 08:50 PM
link   
reply to post by Lucid Lunacy
 

Your first citation:

Our results suggest a complicated pattern of disease following cessation of fluoridation. Multiple sources of fluoride besides water fluoridation have made it more difficult to detect changes in the epidemiological profile of a population with generally low caries experience, and living in an affluent setting with widely accessible dental services. There are, however, subtle differences in caries and caries treatment experience between children living in fluoridated and fluoridation-ended areas.
Doesn't seem very definitive.


Your second:

“The fact that no increase in caries was found in Kuopio despite discontinuation of water fluoridation and decrease in preventive procedures suggests that not all of these measures were necessary for each child.”
Yes. Some children have stronger teeth than others. Unfortunately you don't know that until the caries start showing up.

Next:

While the data provided additional support for the established fact of a caries reduction brought about by the fluoridation of drinking water (48% on average), it has also provided further support for the contention that caries prevalence may continue to fall after the reduction of fluoride concentration in the water supply from about 1 ppm to below 0.2 ppm F.


Next:

Between 1973 and 1982 the mean DMFT had decreased by 71.4%, the mean DMFS by 73. 3% and the percentage of caries-free children had increased from 26. 3 to 61.6%.
This is after fluoridation began. Sounds pretty effective to me. Didn't you say this?

That and fluoride has only shown to be effective against dental caries topically. That alone should raise an eyebrow.

edit on 2/11/2014 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 11 2014 @ 08:55 PM
link   

Putting it in the water supply makes it very difficult for people to choose, especialy the elderly who may not be able to get out.



Phage
So, how do they get their groceries?


Carrying bottled water is heavy even for a fit person, for the elderly it would be impossible, unless of course you think they should have to make daily shopping trips so that they can choose not to drink it?

Most people clean their teeth twice per day with tooth paste that contains fluoride. There is no need whatsoever to add it to the water supply.
When its in the water 99.999999% is swallowed, the tiny amount that would be in contact with the teeth is so small its pointless.
However, according to cdc reports 40% of US school children have fluorosis of the teeth caused by ingesting to much fluoride!



posted on Feb, 11 2014 @ 09:23 PM
link   
reply to post by VoidHawk
 


Carrying bottled water is heavy even for a fit person, for the elderly it would be impossible, unless of course you think they should have to make daily shopping trips so that they can choose not to drink it?
Now you're just being silly with your "what about the old people?" There's this new invention called the wheel. I have a cart in my trunk that I carry my groceries into my house with (when I have a large load). They're pretty common I notice, in particular among the elderly.


Most people clean their teeth twice per day with tooth paste that contains fluoride. There is no need whatsoever to add it to the water supply.

When its in the water 99.999999% is swallowed, the tiny amount that would be in contact with the teeth is so small its pointless.
Please refer to this post and the post above which addresses some studies provided by LucidLunacy. It's quite clear that fluoridated water reduces dental disease.
www.abovetopsecret.com...



However, according to cdc reports 40% of US school children have fluorosis of the teeth caused by ingesting to much fluoride!
Not exactly. Between 1999 and 2004 41% of children aged 12-15 were diagnosed with fluorosis. The majority fell into the "very mild" category: Very mild: Small opaque paper-white areas are scattered over the tooth surface, but do not involve as much as 25% of the surface.

Some aspects of the study itself have also been called into question:

The ADA recognizes the EPA’s desire to locate and use a study from a time period when water was the major, if not only, significant source of fluoride. And we recognize the value of the Dean study6 from a number of perspectives. However, the choice of Dean’s study may be problematic due to uncertainties associated with the study (analytical testing method/lack of fluoride exposure histories/lack of cultural diversity of participants).
www.cdc.gov...

Now, I guess you could say that the ADA just wants to promote fluoridation for some reason other than the fact that it works, but I can't think of one.

edit on 2/11/2014 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 11 2014 @ 09:32 PM
link   
reply to post by fractal2
 


yep good post
add the drinking water to the floride based anti depressants and we be lockin them schools down...
hey dumbing them down was so yesterday



posted on Feb, 11 2014 @ 09:37 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


hey Phage the increase in dental health is directly related to flouride not to the latest new tooth paste, brush, floss, or pr habit aimed at improved cleaning technique?



posted on Feb, 11 2014 @ 09:42 PM
link   
reply to post by Danbones
 

Seems to be related to both. According to the studies.



posted on Feb, 11 2014 @ 09:59 PM
link   
We all know that and no one has to buy flouride in toothpastes, take the treatment from the dentist, and they can put a reverse osmosis filter on their water as well. Don't buy bottled. And watch what is in juice. Just found out that alot of the fillers of narcotic for mentally ill is also flouride, and medicines. So on top of that, DETOX regularly.

Manhatten studies and nuclear atmospheric testings also lowered SAT scores of school children by many points.

Get the pattern yet?

They're very threatened by awake intelligent people. And I also think very jealous for they're interbred psychopaths, and have genetic flaws from inbreeding.
edit on 11-2-2014 by Unity_99 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 11 2014 @ 10:02 PM
link   
No one should be putting chlorine in water either. But MMS is a much safer thing to put in the water, its stable unlike chlorine and not cancer causing but curing disease in low levels.

Also reverse osmosis filters!!! Very good stuff!!!

I don't want any of my food or water poisoned.
edit on 11-2-2014 by Unity_99 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 11 2014 @ 10:19 PM
link   
It seems to me that evolution will favor the most intelligent people - the ones that don't drink the poison water or take the poison drugs or the poison vaccinations.



new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join