If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The Lancet)   Those crazy people who are afraid of fluoride might have been right all along   (thelancet.com) divider line 130
    More: Scary, fluorides, developmental toxicity, systematic review, cognitive impairment, chemical industries  
•       •       •

13266 clicks; posted to Main » on 07 Mar 2014 at 1:40 PM (28 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



130 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2014-03-07 01:41:50 PM
Being right doesn't mean anyone will believe you.
 
2014-03-07 01:42:37 PM
BUT less cavities

I'd go to a psychiatrist any day of the week over a dentist
 
2014-03-07 01:43:05 PM
What the hell subby? This isn't a daily mail link how will I know if it is true or not now?
 
2014-03-07 01:43:11 PM
Well they use it in rat poison.

/and that's the end of the whole mess
 
2014-03-07 01:43:39 PM
www.storiesofgods.com
 
2014-03-07 01:43:55 PM

socoloco: Being right doesn't mean anyone will believe you.


silentespeaks.comHa-haaa! You are correct, sir.


/the irony
 
2014-03-07 01:44:27 PM
But chlorine is still good for you, right?
 
2014-03-07 01:44:42 PM
If only fluoride was our only worry. Obama haz drōnz!
 
2014-03-07 01:45:08 PM
PANIC.

/ha, no I won't
 
2014-03-07 01:45:37 PM
Or not. The letter in TFA doesn't say what submitter thinks it says. Also, you made Paracelsus facepalm/.
 
2014-03-07 01:46:11 PM
Its ok. I'm vaccinated against flor...

Oooh look at that big shi...

I'm.hungry.
 
2014-03-07 01:46:29 PM
Interesting.

At what concentrations and exposures?

If it is shown that current levels of exposure cause problems, we can address that.
 
2014-03-07 01:46:36 PM

Fano: Well they use it in rat poison.

/and that's the end of the whole mess


They also use Coumadin in Rat Poison. Why would they poison people with Atrial Fibrillation with it?!
 
2014-03-07 01:47:09 PM

hardinparamedic: Or not. The letter in TFA doesn't say what submitter thinks it says. Also, you made Paracelsus facepalm/.


Yeah, I got a bit confused...still am.  Did subby just post the wrong link?
 
2014-03-07 01:47:21 PM
How many people believe subby without reading the abstract for themselves?
 
2014-03-07 01:48:24 PM
Yay, neurotoxicants in the water supply! Of course, keep calling those people that ask valid questions "crazy".  Hell, even call them anti-science. That one works pretty well these days. Like the entire city of Portland, Oregon. 

/farkers
//brushing your teeth works well too
///just saiyan
 
2014-03-07 01:48:55 PM
So we are skipping having the media over-react to a single study and are doing it ourselves? Good, cut out the middleman.
 
2014-03-07 01:49:35 PM
Given our constant rate of exposure to Fluoride, it can be assumed that we're all slightly retarded, which negates this guys "study" because he's a retard too.
 
2014-03-07 01:49:36 PM
FTFA: "Since 2006, epidemiological studies have documented six additional developmental neurotoxicants-manganese, fluoride, chlorpyrifos, dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane, tetrachloroethylene, and the polybrominated diphenyl ethers."


I doubt brushing your teeth with it causes harm, but drinking it in your water all the time is stupid.


And I am convinced that it lowers IQ. It must. There has to be something literally in the water.

/judge away
 
2014-03-07 01:50:28 PM

hardinparamedic: Fano: Well they use it in rat poison.

/and that's the end of the whole mess

They also use Coumadin in Rat Poison. Why would they poison people with Atrial Fibrillation with it?!


I once trolled a patient worried about 'chemicals' by telling them what warfarin is and how you can buy it at the feed n seed
 
2014-03-07 01:50:39 PM
Fluoride's danger as a neurotoxin is not in question. The dosage at which it has harmful effects is. That's why they tell you not to brush little kid's teeth with adult toothpaste, and you aren't supposed to swallow it.

Fluoride occurs naturally in many water sources, often in much higher concentrations than the EPA allows in US drinking water.
 
2014-03-07 01:50:51 PM
When did the Lancet go free?

Also, they used the China studies, and say the following

"A meta-analysis of 27 cross-sectional studies of children exposed to fluoride in drinking water, mainly from China, suggests an average IQ decrement of about seven points in children exposed to raised fluoride concentrations.44 Confounding from other substances seemed unlikely in most of these studies. Further characterisation of the dose-response association would be desirable. "

A call for more research, which I can get behind.
 
2014-03-07 01:51:07 PM
Woooooo...a review article, with one mention of fluoride, in a table, and no reference....
 
2014-03-07 01:51:19 PM

walktoanarcade: FTFA: "Since 2006, epidemiological studies have documented six additional developmental neurotoxicants-manganese, fluoride, chlorpyrifos, dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane, tetrachloroethylene, and the polybrominated diphenyl ethers."


I doubt brushing your teeth with it causes harm, but drinking it in your water all the time is stupid.


And I am convinced that it lowers IQ. It must. There has to be something literally in the water.

/judge away


Flynn effect AWAAAAY!
 
2014-03-07 01:51:47 PM

WhoGAS: Yeah, I got a bit confused...still am.  Did subby just post the wrong link?


Something tells me that Subby was googling for trollbait and found this, and since 95% of FARkers don't have access to a medical journal clearing house, or aren't willing to pay 15 bucks to read the full article, they can make it support what they like.

SpacePirate: Yay, neurotoxicants in the water supply! Of course, keep calling those people that ask valid questions "crazy".  Hell, even call them anti-science. That one works pretty well these days. Like the entire city of Portland, Oregon. 

/farkers
//brushing your teeth works well too
///just saiyan


Except that overwhelming evidence indicates that even with proper oral hygiene, the rate of dental caries in a population is far less with proper fluoridation of a public water supply and is safe to that population.

If you have evidence that at doses of 0.7 to 1.0ppm public water fluoridation produces fluoride intoxication and neurological injury, please present it for consideration.

/Portland removing fluoridation had nothing to do with Science, and everything to do with backyard NIMBYism.
 
2014-03-07 01:52:13 PM
The fluoride part was observed in children in China. The average estimated IQ reduction was about 7 points.
I have trouble with pointing to fluroide as the direct cause of the problem, since it's going to be pretty diffuclt to separate out the other potential environmental toxins they might have also been exposed to, what with this being China and all.

Also, this paper starts pulling numbers out of their ass towards the end, where they try to equate each lost IQ point with an $18,000 reduction in lifetime earnings.  We know neurotoxicity is bad. You don't have to make extra stuff up to show how terrible it is.
 
2014-03-07 01:52:14 PM
Another study about fluoride in China?

A meta-analysis of 27 cross-sectional studies of children exposed to fluoride in drinking water, mainly from China, suggests an average IQ decrement of about seven points in children exposed to raised fluoride concentrations.44

What do I win?
 
2014-03-07 01:53:14 PM

SpacePirate: Yay, neurotoxicants in the water supply! Of course, keep calling those people that ask valid questions "crazy".  Hell, even call them anti-science. That one works pretty well these days. Like the entire city of Portland, Oregon. 

/farkers
//brushing your teeth works well too
///just saiyan


Portland hasn't exactly been spared neurological problems despite not having fluoride in the water.
 
2014-03-07 01:53:49 PM

meat0918: At what concentrations and exposures?


400 gallons daily for 3 centuries.
 
2014-03-07 01:53:50 PM

meat0918: At what concentrations and exposures?

 
2014-03-07 01:53:56 PM

hardinparamedic: Something tells me that Subby was googling for trollbait and found this, and since 95% of FARkers don't have access to a medical journal clearing house, or aren't willing to pay 15 bucks to read the full article, they can make it support what they like.


The Lancet allows you to view this one for free!!!!!
 
2014-03-07 01:55:32 PM

meat0918: hardinparamedic: Something tells me that Subby was googling for trollbait and found this, and since 95% of FARkers don't have access to a medical journal clearing house, or aren't willing to pay 15 bucks to read the full article, they can make it support what they like.

The Lancet allows you to view this one for free!!!!!


img.fark.net

Negative, Sir.

I'll try logging into my hospital's intranet and see if I can access it through our ScienceDirect account. But it wont let you view full text.
 
2014-03-07 01:55:55 PM
At this point in history, if you don't realize that big business does not care about you as an individual then you deserve to be one of the 40% projected to get cancer.  It's not a conspiracy, it's just money focused (greedy?) people passing the blame from the top down.  In the end LEGALLY it will always be your fault you're sick.
 
2014-03-07 01:57:23 PM

skantea: At this point in history, if you don't realize that big business does not care about you as an individual then you deserve to be one of the 40% projected to get cancer.  It's not a conspiracy, it's just money focused (greedy?) people passing the blame from the top down.  In the end LEGALLY it will always be your fault you're sick.


i2.kym-cdn.com
 
2014-03-07 01:57:46 PM
But, what a great smile!
 
2014-03-07 01:58:13 PM
hardinparamedic:
/Portland removing fluoridation had nothing to do with Science, and everything to do with backyard NIMBYism.

They were stupid enough to actually do it? Goddamnitsomuch. I guess they're aiming for a dental health level of "British".
 
2014-03-07 01:58:34 PM
 
2014-03-07 02:00:47 PM
Actual study on fluoride cited in Lancet article  http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3491930/ "Children in high-fluoride areas had significantly lower IQ scores than those who lived in low-fluoride areas".

Criticism of study  http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3621182/ "a difference of 0.4 in mean IQ is clinically negligible, even though it was statistically significant"

Authors' reply to criticism  http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3621205/ "For commonly used IQ scores with a mean of 100 and an SD of 15, 0.45 SDs is equivalent to 6.75 points (rounded to 7 points)".

Feel free to draw your own conclusions about whether the claimed 7 points on an IQ score is cause for concern.
 
2014-03-07 02:01:18 PM

hardinparamedic: meat0918: hardinparamedic: Something tells me that Subby was googling for trollbait and found this, and since 95% of FARkers don't have access to a medical journal clearing house, or aren't willing to pay 15 bucks to read the full article, they can make it support what they like.

The Lancet allows you to view this one for free!!!!!

[img.fark.net image 850x736]

Negative, Sir.

I'll try logging into my hospital's intranet and see if I can access it through our ScienceDirect account. But it wont let you view full text.


See the green bit?

"This article is made available free of charge, as a service to our users."

Not all are, but this one is.
 
2014-03-07 02:02:23 PM
Which color is the fluoride?
bc_gvpc.edgesuite.net
 
2014-03-07 02:03:23 PM

meat0918: See the green bit?

"This article is made available free of charge, as a service to our users."

Not all are, but this one is.


Ahah. I need sleep.
 
2014-03-07 02:04:19 PM
Newsflash: Water is also toxic in high doses.
 
2014-03-07 02:04:26 PM

hardinparamedic: meat0918: See the green bit?

"This article is made available free of charge, as a service to our users."

Not all are, but this one is.

Ahah. I need sleep.


No worries.

I'm just really excited to have even partial access to the Lancet.
 
2014-03-07 02:04:53 PM

meat0918: Interesting.

At what concentrations and exposures?


Came here to ask the same thing.
 
2014-03-07 02:05:41 PM
TFA says nothing about fluoridated water.  The quantities of fluoride that are added to American tap water are very safe and demonstrably so.

Not added fluoride creates numerous carries, some of which can end up becoming infected teeth that must be removed.  Infections in the mouth are very dangerous since they sometimes move on to the brain and cause brain damage or death if not treated quickly.

/Farking Wichita, KS voted against adding fluoride to the water yet again.  They are a bunch of dumbasses that get their health and science information from the likes of Suzanne Somers and Jenny McCarthy.
 
2014-03-07 02:06:05 PM
They also mention manganese. Our bodies require small amounts of dietary manganese each day.

My children were given daily fluoride as children - drops then tablets - and are healthy intelligent and cavity free. Stop jumping to unfounded conclusions based on one word Subby and go back to your Daily Mail.
 
2014-03-07 02:06:20 PM
"Untested chemicals should not be presumed to be safe to brain development, and chemicals in existing use and all new chemicals must therefore be tested for developmental neurotoxicity. "

No shiat they shouldn't.

What scares me the most is that apparently they at least the article insists that they don't test chemicals for developmental neurotoxicity already.
 
2014-03-07 02:08:27 PM

ikanreed: How many people believe subby without reading the abstract for themselves?


Better yet, clicking the link to the entire article? I think fluoride is mentioned once.
 
2014-03-07 02:08:52 PM
Brain damage?  Well it would certainly explain all the city people on municipal water supplies voting democrat.

Bazinga.
 
2014-03-07 02:09:35 PM
Annnnd the damage control arrives. Once again people, because brushing your teeth and flossing is apparently too farking hard, let's run the risk of putting light amounts of neurotoxins in everyone's water, all of the time. That makes perfect sense.  

It's not like there are any possible alternatives
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/can-keep-32-chemical-keep-you-cavity-fre e/
 
2014-03-07 02:10:06 PM

farknozzle: The fluoride part was observed in children in China. The average estimated IQ reduction was about 7 points.
I have trouble with pointing to fluroide as the direct cause of the problem, since it's going to be pretty diffuclt to separate out the other potential environmental toxins they might have also been exposed to, what with this being China and all.

Also, this paper starts pulling numbers out of their ass towards the end, where they try to equate each lost IQ point with an $18,000 reduction in lifetime earnings.  We know neurotoxicity is bad. You don't have to make extra stuff up to show how terrible it is.


also contains these nuggets:

Exposure to air pollution can cause neuro developmental 
delays and disorders of behavioural functions.68,69 Of the 
individual components of air pollution, carbon monoxide 
is a well-documented neurotoxicant, and indoor exposure 
to this substance has now been linked to defi cient 
neurobehavioural performance in children

Our updated literature review shows that since 2006 the 
list of recognised human neurotoxicants has expanded by 
12 chemicals, from 202 (including ethanol) to 214 (table 1 
and appendix)-that is, by about two substances per year. 
Many of these chemicals are widely used and disseminated 
extensively in the global environment. Of the newly 
identified neuro developmental toxicants, pesticides 
constitute the largest group, as was already the case in 2006.

I don't doubt the need to study the effects of most or all of these compounds.. but it appears that what these guys are fishing for is government funding for lifetime employment without having to produce any actual results for decades.
 
2014-03-07 02:10:39 PM

GORDON: Brain damage?  Well it would certainly explain all the city people on municipal water supplies voting democrat.

Bazinga.


That's true. They should vote for privatized water supplies that REALLY care about their safety, like in west virginia.
 
2014-03-07 02:12:05 PM

Fano: hardinparamedic: Fano: Well they use it in rat poison.

/and that's the end of the whole mess

They also use Coumadin in Rat Poison. Why would they poison people with Atrial Fibrillation with it?!

I once trolled a patient worried about 'chemicals' by telling them what warfarin is and how you can buy it at the feed n seed


Did you also tell them it was formerly owned by Chuck?
 
2014-03-07 02:12:07 PM

McDougal: ikanreed: How many people believe subby without reading the abstract for themselves?

Better yet, clicking the link to the entire article? I think fluoride is mentioned once more than once.


FTFM. Damned decaf.
 
2014-03-07 02:17:12 PM
It's a non-issue, since the American public drinks all of its water from polyethylene bottles.  So that they can get a belly full of yummy plasticizers and solvents.  Then those bottles can get "recycled" (snort).
 
2014-03-07 02:19:22 PM
also...

The antisocial behavior, criminal behavior, violence, 
and substance abuse that seem to result from early-life 
exposures to some neurotoxic chemicals result in 
increased needs for special educational services, 
institutionalisation, and even incarceration. In the USA, 
the murder rate fell sharply 20 years after the removal of 
lead from petrol,102 a finding consistent with the idea that
exposure to lead in early life is a powerful determinant of
behavior decades later.  Although poorly quantified,
such behavioral and social consequences of of neuro-
developmental toxicity are potentially very costly.
 
2014-03-07 02:20:12 PM

simkatu: TFA says nothing about fluoridated water.


From TFA: "A meta-analysis of 27 cross-sectional studies of children exposed to fluoride in drinking water, mainly from China, suggests an average IQ decrement of about seven points in children exposed to raised fluoride concentrations. "
 
2014-03-07 02:21:29 PM
The original issue wasn't the floride itself. It was establishing the precedent that the government had a right to mass medicate the masses. For other purposes, perhaps. Suppressing fertility. Making the population more passive so they're easily managed, and so forth.

/has a well
//in the country
///no traces of discarded phrarms in *my* water
 
2014-03-07 02:23:10 PM
Seven IQ points is the difference between "getting something" and not "getting something."

That's why it's literally a waste of time to talk to most people...because most people are drinking more water than ever before because it's cheaper and always available.

*bad idea moment*

Make municipal water cost a fortune! Freedom and safety! derp
 
2014-03-07 02:23:17 PM

noitsnot: It's a non-issue, since the American public drinks all of its water from polyethylene bottles.  So that they can get a belly full of yummy plasticizers and solvents.  Then those bottles can get "recycled" (snort).


I know people in Michigan that drink bottled water to escape fluoride.

That water is bottled in a city that fluoridates it's water.

Not to mention that cities situated on a river that fluoridate their water end up passing on the fluoride to anyone downstream.
 
2014-03-07 02:29:09 PM

McDougal: simkatu: TFA says nothing about fluoridated water.

From TFA: "A meta-analysis of 27 cross-sectional studies of children exposed to fluoride in drinking water, mainly from China, suggests an average IQ decrement of about seven points in children exposed to raised fluoride concentrations. "


from the study referenced.

Although acute fluoride poisoning may be neurotoxic to adults, most of the epidemiological information available on associations with children's neurodevelopment is from China, where fluoride generally occurs in drinking water as a natural contaminant, and the concentration depends on local geological conditions.
Opportunities for epidemiological studies depend on the existence of comparable population groups exposed to different levels of fluoride from drinking water. Such circumstances are difficult to find in many industrialized countries, because fluoride concentrations in community water are usually no higher than 1 mg/L, even when fluoride is added to water supplies as a public health measure to reduce tooth decay. Multiple epidemiological studies of developmental fluoride neurotoxicity were conducted in China because of the high fluoride concentrations that are substantially above 1 mg/L in well water in many rural communities, although microbiologically safe water has been accessible to many rural households as a result of the recent 5-year plan (2001-2005) by the Chinese government

just saying...
 
2014-03-07 02:32:00 PM

correct horse battery staple: Actual study on fluoride cited in Lancet article  http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3491930/ "Children in high-fluoride areas had significantly lower IQ scores than those who lived in low-fluoride areas".

Criticism of study  http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3621182/ "a difference of 0.4 in mean IQ is clinically negligible, even though it was statistically significant"

Authors' reply to criticism  http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3621205/ "For commonly used IQ scores with a mean of 100 and an SD of 15, 0.45 SDs is equivalent to 6.75 points (rounded to 7 points)".

Feel free to draw your own conclusions about whether the claimed 7 points on an IQ score is cause for concern.



Fark needs more posters like this guy.
 
2014-03-07 02:33:19 PM
meant to include this part...

The exposed groups had access to drinking water with fluoride concentrations up to 11.5 mg/L (Wang SX et al. 2007); thus, in many cases concentrations were above the levels recommended (0.7-1.2 mg/L; DHHS) or allowed in public drinking water (4.0 mg/L; U.S. EPA) in the United States ().
 
2014-03-07 02:33:32 PM

meat0918: Interesting.

At what concentrations and exposures?

If it is shown that current levels of exposure cause problems, we can address that.


What are you going to say?  "Hello, how are you?"

i48.tinypic.com
 
2014-03-07 02:41:58 PM
I used to swallow my toothpaste when I was a kid, and I have an IQ in the 160's.

I'm not sure why a kid with an IQ in the 160's would swallow toothpaste, but even we geniuses screw up sometimes, and I'm way too crazy and unfocused to do a study.
 
2014-03-07 02:44:47 PM
Ah, yes, the Lancet.  The fine folks who brought us the legitimization of "vaccines cause autism".   I wonder if the guy who ran this study has some new formula to replace the plastic they're using now or something (the guy who did the autism study had a new preservative for vaccines to sell).

The Lancet has retracted more than a well-used DC-3.
 
2014-03-07 02:45:22 PM
This thread is farking GOLD for figuring out whose a moron.
 
2014-03-07 02:46:38 PM

Tigger: This thread is farking GOLD for figuring out whose who's a moron.



Fixed that for you.
 
2014-03-07 02:49:41 PM

correct horse battery staple: Actual study on fluoride cited in Lancet article  http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3491930/ "Children in high-fluoride areas had significantly lower IQ scores than those who lived in low-fluoride areas".

Criticism of study  http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3621182/ "a difference of 0.4 in mean IQ is clinically negligible, even though it was statistically significant"

Authors' reply to criticism  http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3621205/ "For commonly used IQ scores with a mean of 100 and an SD of 15, 0.45 SDs is equivalent to 6.75 points (rounded to 7 points)".

Feel free to draw your own conclusions about whether the claimed 7 points on an IQ score is cause for concern.


It should also be noted that the case also only looked into cases where the fluoride levels are way higher than the levels used in municipal waters - specifically, it looked into children in China where the water is naturally polluted with extremely high levels of dissolved fluoride.
 
2014-03-07 02:54:09 PM

walktoanarcade: Tigger: This thread is farking GOLD for figuring out whose who's a moron.


Fixed that for you.


that's the.... never mind.
 
2014-03-07 02:55:24 PM

Tigger: walktoanarcade: Tigger: This thread is farking GOLD for figuring out whose who's a moron.


Fixed that for you.

that's the.... never mind.


Are you actually going for the LOLitrollyou.jpg defence?


/sure
//nice try
 
2014-03-07 02:56:44 PM

meat0918: Interesting.

At what concentrations and exposures?

If it is shown that current levels of exposure cause problems, we can address that.


Well someone would have to read past the abstract then. Ain't nobody got time fo dat.
 
2014-03-07 02:59:17 PM
Be afraid, be very afraid - it's just a flush away, it's just a flush away... `cocktails, anyone?'

http://www.epa.gov/ppcp/basic2.html

Oh, animal model research of the effects of the actual levels of any particular agent (or combination of agents) that constitutes the exposure over time (impact on development of neural tubes for example)?  Whar's the money?

With so many `special (Chem Corp.political contributors/big employers in Cong. District) interests' lined up on one side, and the other side beating their alarm drums & weaving conspiracies and predicting the third eye of doom owing to picograms per liter of this or that (vanishing point of credibility)?

/"don't drink the water and don't breath the air" your pal, Tom Lehrer
 
2014-03-07 03:01:12 PM
28 y/o and still not a single cavity.

And our family is somewhat crazy anyway.

/i still fail to see any downside.
 
2014-03-07 03:03:33 PM
Crazy?

Not so sure what's crazy about not wanting crap added to your drinking water, subs.
 
2014-03-07 03:04:57 PM

Sofa King Smart: also...

The antisocial behavior, criminal behavior, violence, 
and substance abuse that seem to result from early-life 
exposures to some neurotoxic chemicals result in 
increased needs for special educational services, 
institutionalisation, and even incarceration. In the USA, 
the murder rate fell sharply 20 years after the removal of 
lead from petrol,102 a finding consistent with the idea that
exposure to lead in early life is a powerful determinant of
behavior decades later.  Although poorly quantified,
such behavioral and social consequences of of neuro-
developmental toxicity are potentially very costly.


Btu I've been told those reductions in crime were the consequence of Roe v. Wade decreasing the number of unwanted pregnancies...

/farking correlation is not causation, how does it work????
 
2014-03-07 03:09:27 PM
Shut up and eat your dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane.
 
2014-03-07 03:11:42 PM
FT Summary of the Article: Since 2006, epidemiological studies have documented six additional developmental neurotoxicants-manganese, fluoride, chlorpyrifos, dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane, tetrachloroethylene, and the polybrominated diphenyl ethers.

I'm with the people who say "At what molarity/molality?"
 
2014-03-07 03:22:40 PM

HoratioGates: I used to swallow my toothpaste when I was a kid, and I have an IQ in the 160's.

I'm not sure why a kid with an IQ in the 160's would swallow toothpaste, but even we geniuses screw up sometimes, and I'm way too crazy and unfocused to do a study.


Imagine how smart you'd be if you weren't mentally retarded!
 
2014-03-07 03:29:30 PM

walktoanarcade: FTFA: "Since 2006, epidemiological studies have documented six additional developmental neurotoxicants-manganese, fluoride, chlorpyrifos, dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane, tetrachloroethylene, and the polybrominated diphenyl ethers."


I doubt brushing your teeth with it causes harm, but drinking it in your water all the time is stupid.


And I am convinced that it lowers IQ. It must. There has to be something literally in the water.

/judge away


Im dumb as post and I never drink water or brush my teeth.
 
2014-03-07 03:34:20 PM
Florida should be spelled Flourida
 
2014-03-07 03:36:14 PM

walktoanarcade: Tigger: walktoanarcade: Tigger: This thread is farking GOLD for figuring out whose who's a moron.


Fixed that for you.

that's the.... never mind.

Are you actually going for the LOLitrollyou.jpg defence?


/sure
//nice try


I wasn't going for anything. lighten up francis.
 
2014-03-07 03:43:36 PM

skantea: At this point in history, if you don't realize that big business does not care about you as an individual then you deserve to be one of the 40% projected to get cancer.  It's not a conspiracy, it's just money focused (greedy?) people passing the blame from the top down.  In the end LEGALLY it will always be your fault you're sick.


So 3.2 BILLION people on the planet are going to get cancer?
 
2014-03-07 03:43:36 PM

Sofa King Smart: meant to include this part...

The exposed groups had access to drinking water with fluoride concentrations up to 11.5 mg/L (Wang SX et al. 2007); thus, in many cases concentrations were above the levels recommended (0.7-1.2 mg/L; DHHS) or allowed in public drinking water (4.0 mg/L; U.S. EPA) in the United States ().


Gah, you beat me to it.  No I did all that reading for nothing.
 
2014-03-07 03:43:45 PM

reggaejunkiejew: HoratioGates: I used to swallow my toothpaste when I was a kid, and I have an IQ in the 160's.

I'm not sure why a kid with an IQ in the 160's would swallow toothpaste, but even we geniuses screw up sometimes, and I'm way too crazy and unfocused to do a study.

Imagine how smart you'd be if you weren't mentally retarded!


He'd have to robotrip to ever be able to interact with society. I think he's happier as a naturally handicapped person.
 
2014-03-07 03:48:11 PM

Tigger: walktoanarcade: Tigger: walktoanarcade: Tigger: This thread is farking GOLD for figuring out whose who's a moron.


Fixed that for you.

that's the.... never mind.

Are you actually going for the LOLitrollyou.jpg defence?


/sure
//nice try

I wasn't going for anything. lighten up francis.


I may have been convinced of that had you not further replied and simply let it go. :) In fact, I was leaning that way in a bit of reflection, but again I see I was second guessing myself.
 
2014-03-07 03:49:36 PM

Omis: walktoanarcade: FTFA: "Since 2006, epidemiological studies have documented six additional developmental neurotoxicants-manganese, fluoride, chlorpyrifos, dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane, tetrachloroethylene, and the polybrominated diphenyl ethers."


I doubt brushing your teeth with it causes harm, but drinking it in your water all the time is stupid.


And I am convinced that it lowers IQ. It must. There has to be something literally in the water.

/judge away

Im dumb as post and I never drink water or brush my teeth.


I worsh mahself wid a rag onasstic
 
2014-03-07 03:56:26 PM

pkellmey: Newsflash: Water is also toxic in high doses.


static.fjcdn.com
 
2014-03-07 04:04:07 PM
I may be laying my money on manganese, if I lay money on anything.

i90.photobucket.com
 
2014-03-07 04:04:51 PM
Nonsense. I ate toothpaste as a child and jam biscuit hadron brastrap.
 
2014-03-07 04:14:37 PM
Sodium flouride is a hazardous byproduct of aluminum manufacturing. If we don't add it to the water, aluminum prices will go up.
 
2014-03-07 04:19:23 PM

Russ1642: meat0918: Interesting.

At what concentrations and exposures?

If it is shown that current levels of exposure cause problems, we can address that.

Well someone would have to read past the abstract then. Ain't nobody got time fo dat.


They actually would have to read the study this study cited, which I admittedly didn't because I assumed that while I have access to this one, I do not have access to the other.

Thankfully, others in this thread have access, and we know the answer is in the neighborhood of 11.5mg/L, where US municipal water supplies are on the order of 0.7mg/L to 1.2mg/L(about 10 times lower than the amount in the studied areas of China), with the upper limit established by the EPA at 4.0 mg/L
 
2014-03-07 04:32:33 PM
FTFA:
To control the pandemic of developmental neurotoxicity, we propose a global prevention strategy. Untested chemicals should not be presumed to be safe to brain development, and chemicals in existing use and all new chemicals must therefore be tested for developmental neurotoxicity. To coordinate these efforts and to accelerate translation of science into prevention, we propose the urgent formation of a new international clearinghouse.

Seriously? A pandemic?  And IFUTAC, the authors are saying that all chemicals (and remember, almost everything is made up of chemicals - people, rocks, cheese, Soylent Green, water, air, food, boogers) need to be tested for neurotoxicity. I think this is akin to setting up an enterprise to count all the grains of sand on all the beaches in the world, or check every human being for every possible ailment - an infinite amount of research, taking an infinite amount of time, providing someone infinite employment.
 
2014-03-07 04:35:13 PM

SpacePirate: Annnnd the damage control arrives. Once again people, because brushing your teeth and flossing is apparently too farking hard, let's run the risk of putting light amounts of neurotoxins in everyone's water, all of the time. That makes perfect sense.  

It's not like there are any possible alternatives
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/can-keep-32-chemical-keep-you-cavity-fre e/


But this alternative (Keep 32) is a chemical! It could be neurotoxin! Which is the whole point of the original article.
 
2014-03-07 04:36:22 PM

Nesher: FTFA:
To control the pandemic of developmental neurotoxicity, we propose a global prevention strategy. Untested chemicals should not be presumed to be safe to brain development, and chemicals in existing use and all new chemicals must therefore be tested for developmental neurotoxicity. To coordinate these efforts and to accelerate translation of science into prevention, we propose the urgent formation of a new international clearinghouse.

Seriously? A pandemic?  And IFUTAC, the authors are saying that all chemicals (and remember, almost everything is made up of chemicals - people, rocks, cheese, Soylent Green, water, air, food, boogers) need to be tested for neurotoxicity. I think this is akin to setting up an enterprise to count all the grains of sand on all the beaches in the world, or check every human being for every possible ailment - an infinite amount of research, taking an infinite amount of time, providing someone infinite employment.


We've been looking for an answer on how to gainfully employ the bulk of humanity now that mechanical devices have usurped the bulk of tasks humans once did, and I think you've found it.
 
2014-03-07 04:37:39 PM

meat0918: We've been looking for an answer on how to gainfully employ the bulk of humanity now that mechanical devices have usurped the bulk of tasks humans once did, and I think you've found it.


beats fighting the bugs
 
2014-03-07 04:38:19 PM

hammettman: I may be laying my money on manganese, if I lay money on anything.

[i90.photobucket.com image 200x200]


Dammit - couldn't find a good link to the pic and gave up.  Thanks for perservering!

/Chinch bugs
 
2014-03-07 04:38:44 PM
Fluorine...

Why so electronegative?
 
2014-03-07 04:38:49 PM
Those crazy people who are afraid of fluoride might have been right all along

Well, they were still crazy to be running around saying it was the Commies putting fluoride in our water.  It was the capitalists.
 
2014-03-07 04:38:50 PM

SovietCanuckistan: Shut up and eat your dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane.


Fortunately, many countries recognized the danger and banned DDT a long time ago. According to Wikipedia, though, it's still used in India and North Korea.
 
2014-03-07 04:57:21 PM

Reverend J: Woooooo...a review article, with one mention of fluoride, in a table, and no reference....


The fluoride reference actually doesn't propose a causative relationship, it's another meta-study that just notes that people in high-fluoride (10+ mg/L) areas correlate to something like a 0.1 to 0.4 SD drop in the 95% confidence interval (which is a pretty broad interval by meta-study standards... not their fault, as they mention the levels of Fl they're talking about are extremely uncommon, but that's still shaky).

We're talking about people exposed to an order of magnitude higher dosage than is legal to drink in even the most forgiving of US states, an fairly small observed decrease of an infamously unreliable/shaky metric, no real control of educational variances, and the base data being Chinese studies (which are often discarded out-of-hand by scientific journals, some of the included ones in the meta study raise a lot of red flags, though, again, you kinda have to work with what you can get when you're talking about finding populations with 10mg/L of Fl, rather uncommon).

So, yeah.  When TFA mentions high Fl- exposure, it's talking about something entirely different from water system fluoridation and it's also talking about a speculative review that hasn't been experimentally verified... by which i mean experimental verification has found it  doesn't actually happen.  The study itself just says it's raising a potential flag for another study to maybe have something to look at... those studies were done, and it was found that there wasn't an issue.  Welcome to science, everybody.  The fact that a study says something, and the study is valid, doesn't mean the something is actually necessarily the case.
 
2014-03-07 05:10:41 PM
Yeah. And monkeys might also fly out of my butt.
 
2014-03-07 05:13:40 PM

ZZ9 Plural Z Alpha: Another study about fluoride in China?

A meta-analysis of 27 cross-sectional studies of children exposed to fluoride in drinking water, mainly from China, suggests an average IQ decrement of about seven points in children exposed to raised fluoride concentrations.44

What do I win?


Have you ever read about it? In China, fluoride occurs naturally in high does in the water. These fluoride people are so nutty that try think the Chinese government poisons the water intentionally with those high doses.
 
2014-03-07 05:19:31 PM

McDougal: simkatu: TFA says nothing about fluoridated water.

From TFA: "A meta-analysis of 27 cross-sectional studies of children exposed to fluoride in drinking water, mainly from China, suggests an average IQ decrement of about seven points in children exposed to raised fluoride concentrations. "


That is not fluoridated water.  That is water that is naturally containing large amounts of fluoride that isn't properly treated to remove the excess contaminant.   Fluoridated water in the U.S. is done in amounts many orders of magnitude smaller, amounts that have been demonstrated to be safe. We have known for a long time that very high doses of fluoride are bad. We have also known for a very long time that the amounts of fluoride that are used in US drinking supplies are very safe and actually improves the health of the population.
 
2014-03-07 05:21:43 PM
yea those crazy people such as just about all of the EU that has banned it's use in drinking water.
 
2014-03-07 05:23:20 PM
I'm a dentist. This topic has been studied to death over decades and decades. And the research still comes to the same conclusion. In appropriate doses, fluoride stops dental caries and is safe. Don't believe me or the hundreds upon hundreds of studies done by scientists the world over? Maybe you'd believe the people who have naturally occurring fluoride in their water supply? (that's how dentistry first made the link between fluoride and caries) Nah, you'd go on believing whatever half-cocked cockamamie conspiracy suits your fancy. And that's your right. But don't you go messin' with my farkin' water supply.
 
2014-03-07 05:33:26 PM
This seems more like a lit review than an actual research article (they are just looking at existing research), and something strikes me as pretty lazy about an 8 page lit review, even if it does have 100+ references.  The fact that concentrations/dosage aren't listed anywhere strikes me as pretty lousy writing as well.

Also, according to TFA lead was determined to be a neurotoxin in 2006??? What?  People have known that for decades.
 
2014-03-07 05:42:10 PM

fredmcmurray: In appropriate doses, fluoride stops dental caries and is safe.


What's an appropriate amount of water to drink? You may only drink a couple glasses, but guys fighting wildfires drink several gallons a day. Medicating water with anything toxic is as dumb an idea as they come.
 
2014-03-07 05:56:05 PM

Jim_Callahan: Reverend J: Woooooo...a review article, with one mention of fluoride, in a table, and no reference....

The fluoride reference actually doesn't propose a causative relationship, it's another meta-study that just notes that people in high-fluoride (10+ mg/L) areas correlate to something like a 0.1 to 0.4 SD drop in the 95% confidence interval (which is a pretty broad interval by meta-study standards... not their fault, as they mention the levels of Fl they're talking about are extremely uncommon, but that's still shaky).

We're talking about people exposed to an order of magnitude higher dosage than is legal to drink in even the most forgiving of US states, an fairly small observed decrease of an infamously unreliable/shaky metric, no real control of educational variances, and the base data being Chinese studies (which are often discarded out-of-hand by scientific journals, some of the included ones in the meta study raise a lot of red flags, though, again, you kinda have to work with what you can get when you're talking about finding populations with 10mg/L of Fl, rather uncommon).

So, yeah.  When TFA mentions high Fl- exposure, it's talking about something entirely different from water system fluoridation and it's also talking about a speculative review that hasn't been experimentally verified... by which i mean experimental verification has found it  doesn't actually happen.  The study itself just says it's raising a potential flag for another study to maybe have something to look at... those studies were done, and it was found that there wasn't an issue.  Welcome to science, everybody.  The fact that a study says something, and the study is valid, doesn't mean the something is actually necessarily the case.


Thank you.

Normally, I'd sit this one out and enjoy my popcorn, but, yeah, that's exactly the point of the study. The misinterpretation or misapplication of a study's results to reinforce bias is a real issue - it's always nice to see a rational explanation & clarification.

Now, to sit back and watch the "THEY'RE ADULTERATING THE WATER!" chuckleheads come out in force and froth...
 
2014-03-07 06:00:29 PM

Triumph: fredmcmurray: In appropriate doses, fluoride stops dental caries and is safe.

What's an appropriate amount of water to drink? You may only drink a couple glasses, but guys fighting wildfires drink several gallons a day. Medicating water with anything toxic is as dumb an idea as they come.


Thankfully for the saner of us, these things are handled quite well, and such variations are more than accounted for, and idiots like you aren't in charge.  Noticeable negative effects start appearing in the percentage range.  Tooth treatment happens in the parts-per-million range.
 
2014-03-07 06:02:26 PM

meat0918: Russ1642: meat0918: Interesting.

At what concentrations and exposures?

If it is shown that current levels of exposure cause problems, we can address that.

Well someone would have to read past the abstract then. Ain't nobody got time fo dat.

They actually would have to read the study this study cited, which I admittedly didn't because I assumed that while I have access to this one, I do not have access to the other.

Thankfully, others in this thread have access, and we know the answer is in the neighborhood of 11.5mg/L, where US municipal water supplies are on the order of 0.7mg/L to 1.2mg/L(about 10 times lower than the amount in the studied areas of China), with the upper limit established by the EPA at 4.0 mg/L


Thanks.
 
2014-03-07 06:13:35 PM

walktoanarcade: FTFA: "Since 2006, epidemiological studies have documented six additional developmental neurotoxicants-manganese, fluoride, chlorpyrifos, dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane, tetrachloroethylene, and the polybrominated diphenyl ethers."


I doubt brushing your teeth with it causes harm, but drinking it in your water all the time is stupid.


And I am convinced that it lowers IQ. It must. There has to be something literally in the water.

/judge away


Well I already have you tagged as a moron from some previous posting...

Repeating bad science on fluoride does not make it true.
 
2014-03-07 06:17:11 PM

Necronic: This seems more like a lit review than an actual research article (they are just looking at existing research), and something strikes me as pretty lazy about an 8 page lit review, even if it does have 100+ references.  The fact that concentrations/dosage aren't listed anywhere strikes me as pretty lousy writing as well.

Also, according to TFA lead was determined to be a neurotoxin in 2006??? What?  People have known that for decades.


At least in regard to fluoride, the lead author of this "review" only cites one source - his own widely criticized previous article. He of course takes it at face value.
 
2014-03-07 06:21:00 PM

hardinparamedic: meat0918: hardinparamedic: Something tells me that Subby was googling for trollbait and found this, and since 95% of FARkers don't have access to a medical journal clearing house, or aren't willing to pay 15 bucks to read the full article, they can make it support what they like.

The Lancet allows you to view this one for free!!!!!

[img.fark.net image 850x736]

Negative, Sir.

I'll try logging into my hospital's intranet and see if I can access it through our ScienceDirect account. But it wont let you view full text.


I'm on the network of a major US university, and I get the same message when I click Full Text. However, clicking PDF brings up the full PDF.
 
2014-03-07 06:25:29 PM

ikanreed: Thankfully for the saner of us, these things are handled quite well, and such variations are more than accounted for, and idiots like you aren't in charge


What else is on your list for medicating the water supply Dr. Sane? Aspirin maybe? A little prozac?
 
2014-03-07 06:31:09 PM

Triumph: ikanreed: Thankfully for the saner of us, these things are handled quite well, and such variations are more than accounted for, and idiots like you aren't in charge

What else is on your list for medicating the water supply Dr. Sane? Aspirin maybe? A little prozac?


That is actually the only valid criticism I find regarding fluoride in the water.

Is it really within the governments purview to medicate the population?

For vaccines, I say yes, with medical exceptions the only out.

Fluoridation... I'm less sure of.
 
2014-03-07 06:31:18 PM

Enigmamf: hardinparamedic: meat0918: hardinparamedic: Something tells me that Subby was googling for trollbait and found this, and since 95% of FARkers don't have access to a medical journal clearing house, or aren't willing to pay 15 bucks to read the full article, they can make it support what they like.

The Lancet allows you to view this one for free!!!!!

[img.fark.net image 850x736]

Negative, Sir.

I'll try logging into my hospital's intranet and see if I can access it through our ScienceDirect account. But it wont let you view full text.

I'm on the network of a major US university, and I get the same message when I click Full Text. However, clicking PDF brings up the full PDF.


The PDF is apparently available for anyone to download, but you can probably get the full text as a webpage by logging in. Might be a simple mistake with permissions or browser cookies, unless it was intentional.
 
2014-03-07 06:32:03 PM

Triumph: ikanreed: Thankfully for the saner of us, these things are handled quite well, and such variations are more than accounted for, and idiots like you aren't in charge

What else is on your list for medicating the water supply Dr. Sane? Aspirin maybe? A little prozac?


Yes, because those would be dealing with a matter of public health, right?  You think that because things are done for reasons, we also want to do things for no reason?
 
2014-03-07 06:38:29 PM

fredmcmurray: I'm a dentist. This topic has been studied to death over decades and decades. And the research still comes to the same conclusion. In appropriate doses, fluoride stops dental caries and is safe. Don't believe me or the hundreds upon hundreds of studies done by scientists the world over? Maybe you'd believe the people who have naturally occurring fluoride in their water supply? (that's how dentistry first made the link between fluoride and caries) Nah, you'd go on believing whatever half-cocked cockamamie conspiracy suits your fancy. And that's your right. But don't you go messin' with my farkin' water supply.


Question: How come dentists can't just call cavities "cavities"? Why do you have to go and call them things like "caries"?
 
2014-03-07 06:40:28 PM

Katolu: skantea: At this point in history, if you don't realize that big business does not care about you as an individual then you deserve to be one of the 40% projected to get cancer.  It's not a conspiracy, it's just money focused (greedy?) people passing the blame from the top down.  In the end LEGALLY it will always be your fault you're sick.

So 3.2 BILLION people on the planet are going to get cancer?


Scientists don't count non-westerners.  But I'm sure you don't care either way.
 
2014-03-07 07:03:43 PM

12monkeys: fredmcmurray: I'm a dentist. This topic has been studied to death over decades and decades. And the research still comes to the same conclusion. In appropriate doses, fluoride stops dental caries and is safe. Don't believe me or the hundreds upon hundreds of studies done by scientists the world over? Maybe you'd believe the people who have naturally occurring fluoride in their water supply? (that's how dentistry first made the link between fluoride and caries) Nah, you'd go on believing whatever half-cocked cockamamie conspiracy suits your fancy. And that's your right. But don't you go messin' with my farkin' water supply.

Question: How come dentists can't just call cavities "cavities"? Why do you have to go and call them things like "caries"?


Doctors love that Latin.
 
2014-03-07 08:07:49 PM

fredmcmurray: I'm a dentist. This topic has been studied to death over decades and decades. And the research still comes to the same conclusion. In appropriate doses, fluoride stops dental caries and is safe. Don't believe me or the hundreds upon hundreds of studies done by scientists the world over? Maybe you'd believe the people who have naturally occurring fluoride in their water supply? (that's how dentistry first made the link between fluoride and caries) Nah, you'd go on believing whatever half-cocked cockamamie conspiracy suits your fancy. And that's your right. But don't you go messin' with my farkin' water supply.


The man says as he vouches for messin' with everybody else's farkin' water supply.

Add it to your own water if you want to medicate your teeth, let the rest of us have our relatively normal H2O.

/And fark all the chlorline too, for that matter
//It dries out my hair, yo
 
2014-03-07 09:03:15 PM

tonygotskilz: What scares me the most is that apparently they at least the article insists that they don't test chemicals for developmental neurotoxicity already.


1. There are way too many chemicals to actually do that.

2. There are severe ethical dilemmas concerning testing drugs or chemicals on babies or pregnant women due to the lack of ability to give consent.  Animal models can be used, but conclusions found in animal models are only sometimes applicable to humans.  That would be particularly true for neural development, which is an area where humans in some ways are particularly different from other mammals.
 
2014-03-07 09:03:34 PM
The real danger is the dihydrogen monoxide. It's an industrial solvent and a fire retardant. WHAT IS IT DOING IN OUR CHILDREN'S DRINKING WATER?!?
 
2014-03-07 09:14:17 PM

socoloco: Being right doesn't mean anyone will believe you.


Even the shiat your dentist gives you says very clearly "do not swallow. If swallowed, contact the poison control center."

And yes, I read that off my prescription fluoride my dentist gave me last week.

OTOH, I'm pretty sure the levels in water supplies are just a teensy bit lower than the levels in a tube of the prescription stuff. Still, I'm pretty sure they were fluoridating water long before every kid on the planet was being diagnosed with ADD/ADHD for, you know, being a normal kid. I bet the crazies' microwaves and smart meters beamed signals into their heads telling them all about how the gub'mint is using fluoridated water to poison them.
 
2014-03-07 10:23:15 PM

meat0918: 12monkeys: fredmcmurray: I'm a dentist. This topic has been studied to death over decades and decades. And the research still comes to the same conclusion. In appropriate doses, fluoride stops dental caries and is safe. Don't believe me or the hundreds upon hundreds of studies done by scientists the world over? Maybe you'd believe the people who have naturally occurring fluoride in their water supply? (that's how dentistry first made the link between fluoride and caries) Nah, you'd go on believing whatever half-cocked cockamamie conspiracy suits your fancy. And that's your right. But don't you go messin' with my farkin' water supply.

Question: How come dentists can't just call cavities "cavities"? Why do you have to go and call them things like "caries"?

Doctors love that Latin.


The word "cavity" originates from Latin, but its literal definition is an empty space. The word "caries" refers to decay and rotting, so I'm guessing this would be the more accurate terminology for the dental condition.

/not a dentist
 
2014-03-07 11:00:29 PM
Fluoride was used by the Nazis for the concentration camp prisoners.  Seems this natural element is very good at keeping human beings
in a sheep-like state.   Maybe anyone here has ever wondered how those prisoners seemed so subdued and in a state of fatalism, even
as they stood in neat, orderly lines as they were being executed with a gunshot to the back of the head.

Fluoride never leaves the human body, and in fact, it accumulates in the bones.  Insomnia in late life is a symptom of this condition.

Here is another fact:  human bodies are easily found even when buried several feet deep in the earth, because the fluoride is detectable.

Chlorine in the drinking water is the bigger problem in my book.  That is no different from drinking bleach.

This is why i personally drink only well water.  Sure there is arsenic, lead and other elements present, but it is better than being a damn sheep.
 
2014-03-07 11:10:32 PM

jsmilky: Fluoride was used by the Nazis for the concentration camp prisoners.  Seems this natural element is very good at keeping human beings
in a sheep-like state.   Maybe anyone here has ever wondered how those prisoners seemed so subdued and in a state of fatalism, even
as they stood in neat, orderly lines as they were being executed with a gunshot to the back of the head.

Fluoride never leaves the human body, and in fact, it accumulates in the bones.  Insomnia in late life is a symptom of this condition.

Here is another fact:  human bodies are easily found even when buried several feet deep in the earth, because the fluoride is detectable.

Chlorine in the drinking water is the bigger problem in my book.  That is no different from drinking bleach.

This is why i personally drink only well water.  Sure there is arsenic, lead and other elements present, but it is better than being a damn sheep.


Any more room under that bridge?
 
2014-03-07 11:51:32 PM

FormlessOne: Jim_Callahan: Reverend J: Woooooo...a review article, with one mention of fluoride, in a table, and no reference....

The fluoride reference actually doesn't propose a causative relationship, it's another meta-study that just notes that people in high-fluoride (10+ mg/L) areas correlate to something like a 0.1 to 0.4 SD drop in the 95% confidence interval (which is a pretty broad interval by meta-study standards... not their fault, as they mention the levels of Fl they're talking about are extremely uncommon, but that's still shaky).

We're talking about people exposed to an order of magnitude higher dosage than is legal to drink in even the most forgiving of US states, an fairly small observed decrease of an infamously unreliable/shaky metric, no real control of educational variances, and the base data being Chinese studies (which are often discarded out-of-hand by scientific journals, some of the included ones in the meta study raise a lot of red flags, though, again, you kinda have to work with what you can get when you're talking about finding populations with 10mg/L of Fl, rather uncommon).

So, yeah.  When TFA mentions high Fl- exposure, it's talking about something entirely different from water system fluoridation and it's also talking about a speculative review that hasn't been experimentally verified... by which i mean experimental verification has found it  doesn't actually happen.  The study itself just says it's raising a potential flag for another study to maybe have something to look at... those studies were done, and it was found that there wasn't an issue.  Welcome to science, everybody.  The fact that a study says something, and the study is valid, doesn't mean the something is actually necessarily the case.

Thank you.

Normally, I'd sit this one out and enjoy my popcorn, but, yeah, that's exactly the point of the study. The misinterpretation or misapplication of a study's results to reinforce bias is a real issue - it's always nice to see a ration ...


They need to make a visit to historic Mineral Wells Texas, and it's water with trace amounts of lithium, no wait they may want to avoid that naturally occurring fluoride in the water too
 
2014-03-07 11:53:29 PM

Triumph: ikanreed: Thankfully for the saner of us, these things are handled quite well, and such variations are more than accounted for, and idiots like you aren't in charge

What else is on your list for medicating the water supply Dr. Sane? Aspirin maybe? A little prozac?


How about water that comes out of the ground pre medicated?


http://drinkcrazywater.com/cw/
 
Displayed 130 of 130 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report