Naked Science Forum
Life Sciences => Physiology & Medicine => Topic started by: cheryl j on 01/12/2014 15:00:40
-
These type of claims pop up on Facebook all the time, and I was wondering if there is any scientific basis for them.
http://www.naturalnews.com/026364_fluoride_pineal_gland_sodium.html
-
... naturalnews ...
David Gorski of ScienceBlogs called [Natural_News] "one of the most wretched hives of scum and quackery on the Internet ... Steven Novella of NeuroLogica Blog called NaturalNews "a crank alt med site that promotes every sort of medical nonsense imaginable. If it is unscientific, antiscientific, conspiracy-mongering, or downright silly, Mike Adams appears to be all for it – whatever sells the "natural" products he hawks on his site.""
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_News#Reception
-
Yeah, I'm aware of the sketchy nature of the website and those like it. But I didn't actually know if it had been legitimately studied by anyone else and couldn't really dismiss it outright. But thanks for the link. There seem to be a lot of pseudoscience posts on Facebook, that look like alarming news stories and cite some scientist with credible sounding credentials or title. I know I should just ignore them, but I'm surprised how often people I know comment "OMG! That's terrible" and the temptation to respond is irresistible.
-
Fluoride is likely to cause decreased melatonin production and to have other effects on normal pineal function, which in turn could contribute to a variety of effects in humans. (National Research Council 2006).
The references for the study are here: http://fluoridealert.org/issues/health/pineal-gland/
-
Effects of Fluoride on Sleep and Cognition:
Fluoride is a known neurotoxin that accumulates in the pineal gland, the brain structure responsible for regulating sleep via the hormone melatonin. Fluoride has also been shown to inhibit the enzyme melatonin and decrease IQ. Despite fluoride’s affects on pineal protein and enzyme activity and its association with reductions in IQ the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) allows up to 4.0ppm in drinking water (EPA.gov). The current study examined sleep patterns and cognition in 23 male rats before and after experiencing either one of five fluoride doses, tap water, or fluoride free drinking water daily for four weeks. We found that animals given fluoride spent more time sleeping than the fluoride free group, but less time sleeping than the tap water group. There was also a decrease in cognition after animals experienced the highest doses of fluoride compared to lower doses. These results confirm that fluoride in drinking water has negative effects, and fluoride’s combination with other contaminants of tap water may exacerbate these effects.
Source: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/263448655_Effects_of_Fluoride_on_Sleep_and_Cognition
-
Do you realise that the paper does not say that fluoride in tap water is a problem?
" We found that animals given fluoride spent more time sleeping than the fluoride free group, but less time sleeping than the tap water group. "
So, assuming that sleeping a lot is a problem, tap water makes them sleepier than the fluoride (even though the tap water has less fluoride in it).
So Tap water is worse than fluoride.
On the other hand if you consider sleeping a lot to be a good thing then fluoride is great because it says "animals given fluoride spent more time sleeping"
At best the paper shows that there's something, other than fluoride, in the tap water which is having an effect.
-
Declaring that fluoride is harmless is not responsible. Adding fluoride to drinking water is a public health issue.
There's sufficient evidences to assume that fluoride damages the pineal gland:
- The link between pineal gland calcification and fluoride exposure in drinking water appears likely.
- Decreased melatonin production is likely to cause sleep disorders.
- A correlation between pineal gland calcification and Alzheimer disease has been found.
Source: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17097768
-
Declaring that fluoride is harmless is not responsible. Adding fluoride to drinking water is a public health issue.
There's sufficient evidences to assume that fluoride damages the pineal gland:
- The link between pineal gland calcification and fluoride exposure in drinking water appears likely.
- Decreased melatonin production is likely to cause sleep disorders.
- A correlation between pineal gland calcification and Alzheimer disease has been found.
Source: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17097768
Nobody made that declaration did they?
It is well known that fluoride is toxic; so is water- it depends on the dose.
So the questions should be whether or not fluoridated water causes harm.
Do you have any actual evidence for that?
-
Life is toxic. There is a 100% correlation between being dead and having been alive. Kill youself before you die! But meanwhile, keep taking the fluoride, so you spend less of your waking hours with toothache.
-
Fluoride is a byproduct of aluminium wastes. I seriously doubt fluoride has any positive effects on my teeths, except perhaps fluorosis.
By allowing water fluoridation, municipalities are profiting from the developmental toxicity of fluoride on public health:
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.
Source: http://www.thelancet.com/journals/laneur/article/PIIS1474-4422%2813%2970278-3/fulltext
-
Fluoride is a byproduct of aluminium wastes. I seriously doubt fluoride has any positive effects on my teeths, except perhaps fluorosis.
By allowing water fluoridation, municipalities are profiting from the developmental toxicity of fluoride on public health:
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.
Source: http://www.thelancet.com/journals/laneur/article/PIIS1474-4422%2813%2970278-3/fulltext
"Fluoride is a byproduct of aluminium wastes. " Not really. Hexafluorosilicates are produced as a by product of aluminium production.
Your claim is like saying that, since manure is used as fertiliser, food is a by product of animal waste.
It's not true, it doesn't make sense.
"I seriously doubt fluoride has any positive effects on my teeths, except perhaps fluorosis. "
The real world doesn't depend on what you "seriously believe"; it goes on the evidence.
Fluorosis is not, by definition, a positive effect.
(and you might want to check on the meaning of the word "tooth" and its plural.)
"By allowing water fluoridation, municipalities are profiting from the developmental toxicity of fluoride on public health:"
How are they profiting?
How do they make money from it? Do you understand that they have to buy the fluoride?
"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."
You clearly have not got the hand of this "dose" thing have you?
Do you know why those studies were in China?
It's because parts of China have very high natural fluoride levels in the water. Those levels are high enough to be toxic.
However (and pay attention here, because you missed it last time) the dose used in tap water is much lower and is not demonstrably toxic.
So, is there any more propaganda you would like to post?
-
Do you know why those studies were in China?
It's because parts of China have very high natural fluoride levels in the water. Those levels are high enough to be toxic.
However (and pay attention here, because you missed it last time) the dose used in tap water is much lower and is not demonstrably toxic.
The real culprit of water fluoridation is not the dose per se, but the fact that fluoride accumulates into the pineal gland, leading to calcification:
In the 1990s, a British scientist, Jennifer Luke, discovered that fluoride accumulates to strikingly high levels in the pineal gland. (Luke 2001).
You might want to do a little research before claiming that verifiable scientific facts are propaganda...
-
Many things bioaccumulate, but the dose is very important. If it is going to take 150 years to get to the lethal level ( often done by feeding rats massive doses and seeing how much it takes to kill half of them in a defined short period) then you really do not need to worry.
Things like iron are toxic in high levels, but if you have a totally iron free diet you will die very fast from anaemia. Many chemicals in nature are used in the body in small amounts, too much or too little can be unhealthy in all cases.
-
Many things bioaccumulate, but the dose is very important. If it is going to take 150 years to get to the lethal level ( often done by feeding rats massive doses and seeing how much it takes to kill half of them in a defined short period) then you really do not need to worry.
Things like iron are toxic in high levels, but if you have a totally iron free diet you will die very fast from anaemia. Many chemicals in nature are used in the body in small amounts, too much or too little can be unhealthy in all cases.
Comparing sodium fluoride to iron is illogical; Iron is not a neurotoxin.
-
Potassium chloride is a neurotoxin--to much and you'll have a heart attack (they use it for this purpose in lethal injections!)
However, we also need potassium for normal neural function, and for those with high sodium levels replacing some of their intake of sodium chloride with potassium chloride leads to better health outcomes.
I should also note that potassium is radioactive, and you can easily tell the "low sodium" salt from normal table salt with a geiger counter.
But overall, we need potassium, and those suffering from high sodium do better by replacing dietary sodium with potassium...
In the same way, fluoride is toxic at fairly low doses, but at extremely low doses it is good for our teeth, and does not appear to have significant toxic effects, even in the long run!
-
In the 1990s, a British scientist, Jennifer Luke, discovered that fluoride accumulates to strikingly high levels in the pineal gland. (Luke 2001).
You might want to do a little research before claiming that verifiable scientific facts are propaganda...
You might want to stop trying to put words in my mouth.
I have agreed all along that fluoride is toxic, and I never questioned the assertion that it accumulates in the pineal gland.
And given that you say things like "The real culprit of water fluoridation is not the dose per se, but the fact that fluoride accumulates into the pineal gland, leading to calcification:" it's clear that you still haven't got the hang of a dose yet.
Doses are cumulative because (stand by for a shock here) all poisons are cumulative.
Also no poison is cumulative.
It depends on the time scale you are using.
Without specifying that, you are just waffling.
-
By the way, iron is neurotoxic
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0946672X1400073X
-
Iron may be neurotoxic in Parkinson disease, but adding sodium fluoride to drinking water is likely to decrease pineal gland production of melatonin. Water fluoridation is a public health issue. Not related to a specific disease or PD.
-
Decreased melatonin production is likely to cause sleep disorders.
Sleep Med. 2014 Nov;15(11):1426-7. doi: 10.1016/j.sleep.2014.07.008. Epub 2014 Sep 1.
Pineal gland calcification is not associated with sleep-related symptoms. A population-based study in community-dwelling elders living in Atahualpa (rural coastal Ecuador).
Neuropsychopharmacology. 1999 Dec;21(6):765-72.
A new concept for melatonin deficit: on pineal calcification and melatonin excretion.
Kunz D1, Schmitz S, Mahlberg R, Mohr A, Stöter C, Wolf KJ, Herrmann WM.
Even though exogenous melatonin has proven to influence sleep and circadian parameters, low endogenous melatonin is not related to sleep disturbances
-
You might want to do a little research before claiming that verifiable scientific facts are propaganda...
In the 1990s, a British scientist, Jennifer Luke, discovered that fluoride accumulates to strikingly high levels in the pineal gland. (Luke 2001).
Did you just cite a thesis as "verifiable scientific fact"?
The author administered supraphysiological doses of fluoride to prepubescent gerbils in an effort to evaluate the effects on pineal physiology during early development. Not exactly relevant to this discussion.
-
There's sufficient evidences to assume that fluoride damages the pineal gland:
Granted there's no need for fluoride in tap water. Likewise there's no reason to be drinking tap water in the first place..... but where's the evidence that fluoride [from tap water exposure] damages pineal physiology by any notable degree?
-
The references for the study are here: http://fluoridealert.org/issues/health/pineal-gland/
Those citations were good for a laugh.
-
but where's the evidence that fluoride [from tap water exposure] damages pineal physiology by any notable degree?
"25) Fluoride affects the pineal gland. Studies by Jennifer Luke (2001) show that fluoride accumulates in the human pineal gland to very high levels. In her Ph.D. thesis, Luke has also shown in animal studies that fluoride reduces melatonin production and leads to an earlier onset of puberty (Luke 1997). Consistent with Luke’s findings, one of the earliest fluoridation trials in the U.S. (Schlesinger 1956) reported that on average young girls in the fluoridated community reached menstruation 5 months earlier than girls in the non-fluoridated community. Inexplicably, no fluoridating country has attempted to reproduce either Luke’s or Schlesinger’s findings or examine the issue any further."
Source: http://fluoridealert.org/articles/50-reasons/
There's probably deep political reasons in supporting water fluoridation. However I think that Luke Ph.D thesis is accurate in finding an association between fluoride exposure and pineal gland calcification.
"The HF pups received 2.3 ug F/g BW/day from birth until 24 days whereafter HF and LF groups received food containing 37 and 7 mg F/kg respectively and distilled water."
Not exactly "supraphysiological doses" - considering the uncontrolled dose/levels of fluoride in tap water.
Source: http://www.slweb.org/luke-1997.html
-
Fluoride deposition in the aged human pineal gland.
PubMed: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11275672?dopt=Abstract
"There was a positive correlation between pineal F and pineal Ca (r = 0.73, p<0.02) but no correlation between pineal F and bone F. By old age, the pineal gland has readily accumulated F and its F/Ca ratio is higher than bone."
-
...adding sodium fluoride to drinking water is likely to decrease pineal gland production of melatonin.
http://xkcd.com/285/
-
"The HF pups received 2.3 ug F/g BW/day from birth until 24 days"
OK, there's 70 Kg of me or 70,000 grams, so the same dose would be 70,000 *3.2µg
That's 0.161 grams or 161milligrams
And water is fuoridated to the extent of about 1 miligram per litre.
So, you are assuming I drink roughly twice my bodyweight in water very day.
"whereafter HF and LF groups received food containing 37 and 7 mg F/kg respectively and distilled water."
So that's something like 7 to 37 times more than they put in the water.
Do you understand why we are dismissing you as uninformed and/ or uneducated?
-
There's probably deep political reasons in supporting water fluoridation.
I really don't care.... tap water sucks anyways.
-
I think that Luke Ph.D thesis is accurate in finding an association between fluoride exposure and pineal gland calcification.
Funny.... that's not what I got out of this thesis:
"The purpose was to discover whether fluoride (F) accumulates in the pineal gland and thereby affects pineal physiology during early development."
"In conclusion, F inhibits pineal MT synthesis in gerbils up until the time of sexual maturation."
-
Not exactly "supraphysiological doses" - considering the uncontrolled dose/levels of fluoride in tap water.
rofl.... The fluoride content of tap water is regulated at 0.7 mg/L to 1.2 mg/L.
"Solutions were made up containing 50.8, 152.5, and 254.2 mg NaF in 100 ml water for use in weeks 1, 2 and 3 respectively.
From day 1 until weaning at day 24, HF pups received 10 ul of the appropriate NaF solution orally by Gilson pipette (3 times/day, 5 days/week)."
If I start seeing newborns chugging 1-gallon jugs of tap water.... I might start getting concerned.