Naked Science Forum
Life Sciences => Physiology & Medicine => Topic started by: thedoc on 09/06/2015 11:50:02
-
Damian Bentley asked the Naked Scientists:
My wife and I have since identified that my asthma symptoms return in relation to specific toothpaste, and more recently to a dental product with mainly fluoride.
While it may be a wild theory... the increase in asthma incidence has been predominantly in western cultures and seems to be around cities - with the prevailing theory being that of air pollution.
However what if it was also related to the introduction of fluoride into water?
What do you think?
-
An important part of asthma management is learning how to avoid triggers. So if flouride toothpaste (or pictures of Donald Rumsfeld) make you feel tight then avoid it. When I grew up us country folk used salt and baking soda. I have all my teeth and I am pushing 70.
Do you monitor your peak flow regularly like it says on page 18 of the "Global Initiative against Asthma" brochure?
http://www.ginasthma.org/search?q=peak
Read it here....
"CAN THE PEAK FLOW METER TELL ME IF I NEED TO SEE THE DOCTOR?
If you take peak flow readings regularly or know the reading you get when your asthma is well controlled then, as a general rule, if the reading falls to less than two-thirds of the usual level, it is time to be cautious and to increase the amount of medication. A reading that is less than half the usual level often indicates the need for immediate help, but this varies from person to person."
"It is best if you and your doctor together set a personal peak flow reading that indicates when it is time for you to increase the dose of medication or seek acute help. This should be combined with a written treatment plan for your medications."
You can get a peak flow meter pretty cheap. That way you can avoid one of those pesky exacerbations.
As for flouride, who knows? But so what?
-
It isn't a wild theory, it is highly plausible at the very least. Irish environmental scientist Declan Waugh has written about the link between asthma and fluoride. Dental fluorosis, which is a toxic effect, is now very common in populations subjected to fluoridation of their water supplies. Dental fluorosis is a developmental effect, but fluoride continues to accumulate in the body, and if there were no other toxic effects it would be a biological miracle. Fluoride exposure from toothpaste is generally lower than that from fluoridated water, but still significant. I don't have asthma, but I am sensitive to fluoride and have been trying to recover from skeletal fluorosis for a long time, so I've got a pretty good idea of the kind of damage fluoride can do.
-
I should have also mentioned that if the toothpaste were mint flavoured, salicylate may have been a problem. A substantial proportion of asthmatics are salicylate sensitive. Aspirin is acetylsalicylic acid. I happen to also be sensitive to salicylate, which is neurotoxic, like fluoride. I have reason to believe that those who are sensitive to fluoride are at higher risk of being sensitive to salicylate, and vice versa.
-
" I don't have asthma, but I am sensitive to fluoride and have been trying to recover from skeletal fluorosis for a long time, so I've got a pretty good idea of the kind of damage fluoride can do." --your original post.
Why what a sly boots you are to impersonate an asthma sufferer so that you can sucker me into that old dental anti-fluoride twaddle. If you weren't sailing under false colors, I could have been watching the avocets on "Springwatch". Tsk! Tsk!
Tell you what, Johns Hopkins University biosciences has a free MOOC course called "The Data Scientist's Toolbox" which I am just finishing. If you took that course maybe you could organize some facts so that you wouldn't have to pull stunts like this,eh? Find it here...
https://www.mooc-list.com/course/data-scientists-toolbox-coursera
They just offered the course again on June 1st and it's self-paced -- and free.
As for Mr. Declan Waugh, I believe he is pretty much dealt with properly in The Irish Expert Body on Fluorides and Health's paper entitled, "Appraisal of “HUMAN TOXICITY, ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT AND LEGAL
IMPLICATIONS OF WATER FLUORIDATION” (author Mr Declan Waugh)"
http://www.fluoridesandhealth.ie/download/documents/Appraisal_of_Waugh_report_May_2012.pdf
It is a pity that you weren't candid enough to ask about your "skeletal fluorosis" in front. Sorry 'bout that.
Have a nice day
-
" I don't have asthma, but I am sensitive to fluoride and have been trying to recover from skeletal fluorosis for a long time, so I've got a pretty good idea of the kind of damage fluoride can do." --your original post.
Why what a sly boots you are to impersonate an asthma sufferer so that you can sucker me into that old dental anti-fluoride twaddle. If you weren't sailing under false colors, I could have been watching the avocets on "Springwatch". Tsk! Tsk!
Tell you what, Johns Hopkins University biosciences has a free MOOC course called "The Data Scientist's Toolbox" which I am just finishing. If you took that course maybe you could organize some facts so that you wouldn't have to pull stunts like this,eh? Find it here...
https://www.mooc-list.com/course/data-scientists-toolbox-coursera
They just offered the course again on June 1st and it's self-paced -- and free.
As for Mr. Declan Waugh, I believe he is pretty much dealt with properly in The Irish Expert Body on Fluorides and Health's paper entitled, "Appraisal of “HUMAN TOXICITY, ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT AND LEGAL
IMPLICATIONS OF WATER FLUORIDATION” (author Mr Declan Waugh)"
http://www.fluoridesandhealth.ie/download/documents/Appraisal_of_Waugh_report_May_2012.pdf
It is a pity that you weren't candid enough to ask about your "skeletal fluorosis" in front. Sorry 'bout that.
Have a nice day
You are making a false accusation and should be banned from this forum in my opinion. I have never claimed to be an asthma sufferer. I am familiar with the "expert" body in Ireland and the report you linked to. If you had read it and were scientifically literate you would not take it seriously. Here is my response to a debate involving Joe Mullen, a member of the "expert" body.
http://forcedfluoridationfreedomfighters.com/response-to-joke-mullen-member-of-the-irish-expert-body-on-fluorides-and-health/
-
Oh ah.
I mentioned that I am taking the free online courses in biostatistics offered at Johns Hopkins University.
Let me know if you have any statistical analysis to support your claims -- that wouldn't make professor Peng fall down laughing.
-
Pecos_Bill, I don't need to take a course in statistics because I already have two degrees in the physical sciences from one of Australia's Group of Eight universities, which included a third year statistics unit, for which I received an A+. If you had read any of the "studies" which are used to sell forced-fluoridation and had a basic understanding of statistics, you would know that the authors do not even demonstrate a proper understanding of the difference between correlation and causation, let alone anything else.
I have asked many forced-fluoridation fanatics to tell me how much accumulated fluoride in the body they think is safe. So far not a single one of them has been able to answer the question.
http://forcedfluoridationfreedomfighters.com/a-preliminary-investigation-into-fluoride-accumulation-in-bone/
-
As far as I can tell, Declan Waugh has no scientific credibility.
If we assume that the initial post is true then this
"My wife and I have since identified that my asthma symptoms return in relation to specific toothpaste, and more recently to a dental product with mainly fluoride. " suggests asthma due to some other component of the toothpaste, for example a flavouring rather than fluoride which isn't volatile and thus will not reach the lungs.
I don't believe that this
" Dental fluorosis, which is a toxic effect, is now very common in populations subjected to fluoridation of their water supplies. "
is true.
Dan Germouse should cite evidence or withdraw it.
-
Of course, the sensible advice is that if you get asthma you should talk to your doctor about it urgently.
-
With the current crisis in British (and American) emergency rooms, when is it appropriate to be urgent? Here are some ominous signs--
1) rapid and progressive shortness of breath
2) flaring nostril upon inhalation
3) being so short of breath that it's hard to talk
4) The suprasternal notch (under the adam's apple) getting sucked in with inhalation.
5) Difficulty walking
6) bluish tinge around the mouth and fingernails
Those merit a call to the paramedics. But lesser symptoms can wait a day or so..
Those are things like wheezing, coughing after exercise, or chest tightness as long as they aren't getting steadily worse.
It sez here that 3 people die every in the UK from asthma so you want to get your ducks in a row.
http://www.asthma.org.uk/asthma-facts-and-statistics
-
"My wife and I have since identified that my asthma symptoms return in relation to specific toothpaste, and more recently to a dental product with mainly fluoride. " suggests asthma due to some other component of the toothpaste, for example a flavouring rather than fluoride which isn't volatile and thus will not reach the lungs.
A chemical does not have to be volatile to affect the lungs. Ingested arsenic can cause lung cancer, for example, and ingested aspirin can result in a severe asthmatic reaction in those who are sensitive to aspirin. There is such a thing as the bloodstream.
-
I don't believe that this
" Dental fluorosis, which is a toxic effect, is now very common in populations subjected to fluoridation of their water supplies. "
is true.
Dan Germouse should cite evidence or withdraw it.
Dental fluorosis is fluoride poisoning. Saying it's only a cosmetic effect is like saying the blue line around the gums from lead poisoning is only a cosmetic effect.
Here's some quotes from the 2006 US National Research Council report Fluoride in Drinking Water: A Scientific Review of EPA's Standards.
"Excessive intake of fluoride during enamel development can lead to enamel [i.e. dental] fluorosis, a condition of the dental hard tissues in which the enamel covering of the teeth fails to crystallise properly, leading to defects that range from barely discernible markings to brown stains and surface pitting."
"The improper mineralisation that occurs with enamel fluorosis is thought to be due to inhibition of the matrix proteinases responsible for removing amelogenin fragments. The delay in removal impairs crystal growth and makes the enamel more porous.… Fluoride apparently interferes with protease activities by decreasing free Ca2+ [calcium ion] concentration in the mineralising milieu."
"There appears to be general acceptance in today's dental literature that enamel fluorosis is a toxic effect of fluoride intake"
"Moderate and severe dental fluorosis have been reported in diabetes insipidus patients in other countries with drinking water containing fluoride at 0.5 mg/L (Klein 1975) or 1 mg/L (Seow and Thomsett 1994)"
-
Professor Trevor Sheldon, chair of the 2000 UK York Review, has written:
"I am concerned that the results of the review have been widely misrepresented";
"It is particularly worrying then that statements which mislead the public about the review's findings have been made in press releases and briefings by the British Dental Association, the British Medical Association, the National Alliance for Equity in Dental Health and the British Fluoridation Society. I should like to correct some of these errors.";
"The review found water fluoridation to be significantly associated with high levels of dental fluorosis, which was not characterised as, 'just a cosmetic issue'.";
"The review did not show water fluoridation to be safe.";
"There was little evidence to show that water fluoridation has reduced social inequalities in dental health."
http://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/debate/letters/chewing-over-the-facts-about-fluoride-and-our-dental-health-1-2380603
-
"Dental fluorosis is fluoride poisoning. Saying it's only a cosmetic effect is like saying..."
Thanks for the straw man. nobody said it was cosmetic.
Nor did anyone doubt that it's toxic in excess.
So the only new data you brought to the discussion was that diabetes insipidus causes problems if there are low levels of toxic chemicals in the water that people drink.
But that's not unique to fluoride is it?
It's a reason to treat diabetes.
So, back to the point I made earlier, the allergy to toothpaste could be due to some other component, rather than fluoride.
And I had a quick look- I couldn't find any study linking fluoride in water to asthma.
Can you?
(I could find plenty of references to tea being good for asthmatics and tea has a high fluoride content- but they were anecdotal reports rather than scientific studies)
-
Bored chemist, if you had some understanding of the issue, you would know that the idea that dental fluorosis is merely cosmetic is the standard defence used by promoters of forced-fluoridation as an excuse for deliberately poisoning millions of children. You seem to have missed the part where Trevor Sheldon wrote "The review found water fluoridation to be significantly associated with high levels of dental fluorosis". By "high levels" he means that it affects a high proportion of the population in the relevant age group. The latest information from the US CDC is that 41% of American 12 to 15-year-olds had dental fluorosis. That was given as one of the reasons for the recent recommendation for the nominal fluoride concentration used for forced-fluoridation to be 0.7 ppm, replacing the previous recommendation of 0.7 to 1.2 ppm, which has been widely reported. What I said about dental fluorosis being a toxic effect and very common in populations subjected to fluoridation of their water supplies is true. What part of that don't you understand?
I'm not aware of any study specifically looking at a link between fluoride in water and asthma, but you only have to look at the international statistics on asthma to see that there is a correlation. Whether or not fluoridated water actually causes asthma is uncertain, but as I said, it is highly plausible. Here's some relevant studies.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21298697
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16531831
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8905000
http://fluoridealert.org/studytracker/16789/
-
As to the assertion that flourosis causes Diabetes Insipidous, Thus.
The incidence of DI being 3 in 100,000, linking that to the presence of fluorosis is as feckless as saying it is caused by cell phone radiation or witches.
Furthermore,
Nephrogenic DI (including X-linked, autosomal dominant, and autosomal recessive forms) develops in early infancy, often in neonates younger than 1 week. (1.) That being the case, I would admire to know how you would get toxic levels of fluoride into a two month old baby.
What next from you, Mister? Fluoride causes lycanthropy? Because with the obvious havoc caused by satanic afflictions like alcohol. marijuana, meth, and heroin -- I find your fixation on fluoride boogeymen hiding in the closet somewhat bizarre.
Personally, I think people cook up these bizarre theories to distract themselves from the real and bona fide horrors right in front of their noses -- like Lear worrying about a button..
"Thou'lt come no more,
Never, never, never, never, never!
Pray you, undo this button: thank you, sir."
(1.) Pediatric Diabetes Insipidus , Author: James CM Chan, MD; Chief Editor: Stephen Kemp, MD, PhD http://emedicine.medscape.com/article/919886-overview#a0156
-
Pecos_Bill, are you playing dumb, because I find it hard to believe that someone could accidentally be that obtuse. The only mention I made of diabetes insipidus was the following direct quote from the 2006 US National Research Council report Fluoride in Drinking Water: A Scientific Review of EPA's Standards. "Moderate and severe dental fluorosis have been reported in diabetes insipidus patients in other countries with drinking water containing fluoride at 0.5 mg/L (Klein 1975) or 1 mg/L (Seow and Thomsett 1994)". The point, which you apparently completely missed, is that people with diabetes insipidus are at higher than average risk from dental fluorosis. Considering that diabetes insipidus involves extreme thirst, it isn't difficult to figure out why that might be. I didn't say anything about fluorosis causing diabetes insipidus.
As for my "fixation" on fluoride, have a look at the title of the thread, genius. Unlike you, I have been attempting to provide relevant information. What are you trying to achieve here? That was a rhetorical question, by the way, so don't bother responding.
-
I expect that you have now shown what sort of facts (as you call them) you have to support your claims about fluoride in drinking water.
It is unfortunate that you used a real and serious health problem like Asthma to conceal your true intentions. If your "facts" amounted to a hill pf beans, why would you do that?
As to what I am doing here, I initially responded to your phony request for information about asthma. I have stayed to give you enough rope to hang your intellectual integrity up for people to observe.
-
Incidentally, my aunt has quite severe dental fluorosis; her teeth are plainly mottled (this is because she grew up in a place where the natural levels of fluoride in the water are high).
This didn't stop her growing up, getting married, working as s nurse and raising 3 kids. She's about 80 now and still in good health.
Can you give some indication of what ill effects that fluorosis has produced?
Or do you accept that, even in quite obvious cases, the effects of dental fluorosis are (at least in one case) entirely cosmetic.
Re
"I'm not aware of any study specifically looking at a link between fluoride in water and asthma, but you only have to look at the international statistics on asthma to see that there is a correlation."
I'm in two minds as to how to reply to that. One option is a string of expletives.
Here's the other
http://xkcd.com/552/
-
You seem to have found a collection of reports that show that the fumes from aluminium smelting are bad for your lungs.
On a related note, the Pope has not renounced Catholicism and bear droppings are found in woods.
The last shows that at least some people are sensitive to fluoride in water- at roughly a hundred times the level that it's added.
No cases of asthma were reported.
-
http://www.fluorosisindex.com/deansindex
Bored chemist, it's funny that you are now trying to claim that dental fluorosis is entirely cosmetic, having previously described that idea as a "straw man". What you describe as "quite severe dental fluorosis" would most likely be classified as "very mild" or "mild" according to Dean's Index. The argument you are using is the same form of argument which smokers commonly used not so long ago to "prove" that smoking is harmless. Just because someone doesn't have any obvious health problems does not mean that their health has not been affected. There may be subclinical effects on things such as IQ, immune function, and aerobic fitness, for example. Apart from that, even if a particular individual suffers no ill effects, or just one relatively benign toxic effect, you cannot simply extrapolate to other people because there are large differences in individual susceptibility. A large majority of long-term smokers never get lung cancer, but that does not mean that smoking does not cause lung cancer. Additionally, if there is a particular toxic effect from a chemical in a large proportion of a population, is virtually inevitable that there will be other toxic effects, and dental fluorosis is a toxic effect which is very common.
Your idea that I need to be told the difference between correlation and causation, considering that you have demonstrated a failure not only to understand that but also to understand the whole concept of meaningful evidence, is hilarious. I have not claimed that forced-fluoridation is a proven cause of asthma, but from what I've seen all of the available evidence is consistent with that theory, and I haven't seen any better theory for the current high incidence of asthma in countries with high rates of forced-fluoridation. You have adopted Robert Kehoe's infamous "show me the data" mentality. Kehoe was a leading promoter of leaded gasoline and fluoridated water. If you were more astute, you would realise that the failure of the authorities to investigate a link between ingested fluoride and asthma, let alone other health conditions, is scandalous in itself.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9719610
The most hazardous pollutant from aluminium smelting is fluoride, which is used as a flux. It was Alcoa which came up with the idea of dumping its toxic fluoride waste into public water supplies. You still seem to be struggling with the concept that chemicals can reach the lungs via the bloodstream. Your "roughly a hundred times" quip shows that you either have no understanding of the difference between concentration and dose, or are being deliberately dishonest, or both.
You clearly have nothing to say, so please don't bother replying.
-
Thanks for bringing that index to my attention. Since my aunt isn't here to check I'm not certain but I'd say it was a 4 or 5.
And it hasn't affected her life in any way that I'm aware of (indeed, she jokes about the fact that they don't look good- but she has no fillings and they are still in good working order.)
What I said was a strawman wasn't the idea that fluorosis is, or is not, cosmetic.
The straw man argument was you attacking the idea that "it's only cosmetic"- as if the rebutted anything anyone had said- even though nobody had mentioned the issue. (Though you have yet to show that it actually is anything but cosmetic).
Fundamentally, dental fluorosis is not asthma.
"The argument you are using is the same form of argument which smokers commonly used not so long ago to "prove" that smoking is harmless. "
No it is not.
If I had said " my aunt grew up in an area where there was stacks of fluoride in the water and her teeth are not mottled" you would have a point.
What I'm saying is that the first sign of high fluoride exposure (as a child) is mottling of the teeth.
It's not pretty but it's otherwise harmless. (unless you have some sort of data that shows otherwise)
At levels that don't even cause mottled teeth there's no (measurable) ill effect.
" There may be subclinical effects on things such as IQ, immune function, and aerobic fitness, for example."
Nope.
Of course if the effect is "sub" enough compared to clinical you never know it's there. You are looking at proving that there are no invisible unicorns in the woods.
re
"I haven't seen any better theory for the current high incidence of asthma in countries with high rates of forced-fluoridation"
Well, I have.
Fluoridation tends to happen in rich countries where children grow up in "nice clean "environments which are shown to correlate with asthma.
Ditto living in cities.
So there's a reasonable explanation for the correlation; and it doesn't involve causation- just a confounding variable.
If you want to to get into an argument with me about stats you aren't likely to win.
I'm well aware of the difference between concentration and dose; and I know which one is likely to matter if you are talking about something that might provoke an asthma attack.
Here's a hint- if it was absorbed dose then eventually all of us would succumb because we all ingest fluoride continuously- we don't. On the other hand, it the critical factor is concentration, that would explain why people get more acute symptoms (of any nature) when exposed to higher concentrations.
(You are not likely to win an argument with me about that either- it's one of my professional fields)
Finally this
"The most hazardous pollutant from aluminium smelting is fluoride, which is used as a flux."
is bollocks.
The PAHs produced are a lot more dangerous.
http://monographs.iarc.fr/ENG/Monographs/vol100F/mono100F-22.pdf
There are a few PCBs and dioxins in the brew too.
Speaking of "brew" there's a fair bit of aluminium and fluoride in tea.
Presumably, you think the failure of the authorities to investigate a link between ingested tea and asthma, let alone other health conditions, is scandalous in itself.
Incidentally, you missed something about Kehoe asking for the data.
He asked- and they gave it to him- in spadesfull.
I'm asking and I'm getting petty insults.
-
"Dr Chris van Tulleken said Britain has become "internationally renowned" for having "really lousy" teeth.
While having stains and decay is frowned on in America and other countries, "it doesn't really bother us" in the UK, he said.
The result is much worse oral hygiene than elsewhere in the world, he concluded, with both "subtle and very strong" negative effects on overall health." (1)
Furthermore...
Recently, it has been recognized that oral infection, especially periodontitis, may affect the course and pathogenesis of a number of systemic diseases, such as cardiovascular disease, bacterial pneumonia, diabetes mellitus, and low birth weight. The purpose of this review is to evaluate the current status of oral infections, especially periodontitis, as a causal factor for systemic diseases. (2)
Point one: If your life is ruined by diabetes, will you, gentle reader, thank the anti-fluoride chicken little alarmists?
Point two: If you can't get the care you need because NHS resources are being wasted on co-morbidities of dental problems ( Diabetes, pneumonia, heart attacks, etc) will you also thank the anti-fluoride chicken little alarmists?
(1.) http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/health/11628470/Shame-people-with-bad-teeth-doctor-urges.html
(2,)http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC88948/
PS: Mr. Germouse, my remarks are NOT addressed to you, but to the readers. I wonder if you would kindly follow my example? Ad hominem rancor is best directed to the nearest spitoon.
-
Bored chemist, to be honest I don't believe that your aunt with moderate or severe dental fluorosis actually exists. You didn't mention her when dental fluorosis was first brought up, and your account is not convincing.
You don't seem to understand what a straw man argument is. According to the Merriam-Webster dictionary, it is "a weak or imaginary opposition (as an argument or adversary) set up only to be easily confuted". You can't say that an argument is easily confuted and then later claim that the same argument is correct without contradicting yourself, dear.
"dental fluorosis is not asthma". Yeah, no sh1t, Einstein.
The first sign of high fluoride exposure as a child may be mottling of the teeth, but that does not mean that it is necessarily the most sensitive endpoint. The number of human and animal studies showing fluoride neurotoxicity is large, and the attempts made by forced-fluoridation fanatics to dismiss them are not credible. It may be that IQ can be reduced by fluoride exposure without any dental fluorosis. As for the effect of moderate or severe dental fluorosis itself, there is evidence of noncosmetic harm to the teeth, but you can find that for yourself because I'm tired of spoon feeding you. Your claim that there is no measurable ill effect at levels that don't cause mottled teeth is a meaningless assertion without evidence.
The idea you have that you can rule out subclinical effects in a particular individual just shows how deluded you are. A subclinical effect is not necessarily small, either. Someone's IQ could be much lower than it otherwise would have been, but there is no way of knowing how high it otherwise would have been, and unless the reduction results in an unusually low IQ that person would be considered normal. I'm actually not looking at proving anything except that you are clueless. You are making assertions based on anecdotal evidence from a sample size of one person who may well be imaginary. Evidence doesn't get any weaker than that.
"Fluoridation tends to happen in rich countries". Oh really, is that a fact? The reality is that more people are subjected to forced-fluoridation in the US than in the rest of the world combined. Japan does not force-fluoridate, and neither does the vast majority of Western Europe. It makes more sense to compare rich countries with each other than it does to do a simple comparison of rich countries with the rest, due to the vast differences in the latter case. It is the rich countries with high fluoride exposure which have high rates of asthma. I am aware of the hygiene hypothesis, but I haven't seen any convincing evidence for it, and you certainly haven't provided any. Even if it is true, it doesn't rule out fluoride exposure as a causal factor. As for asthma being more prevalent in cities, alternative explanations to the hygiene hypothesis are obvious. Forced-fluoridation is more common in cities than elsewhere. For example, here in Australia every major city is force-fluoridated, whereas many towns and rural areas are not. The situations in the US, Ireland, and elsewhere are similar, although Portland, Oregon and Honolulu are not force-fluoridated. There also tends to be more air pollution in cities.
You have already lost the argument about stats, because you have shown you lack even the most basic understanding of the difference between correlation and causation.
"if it was absorbed dose then eventually all of us would succumb because we all ingest fluoride continuously". Every argument you have made on this thread has been erroneous, but this one takes the cake. Individual differences in susceptibility and exposure are important. What part of that don't you understand? Don't bother answering that.
"The PAHs produced are a lot more dangerous." That monograph you linked to does not support that conclusion. It is from the International Agency for Research on Cancer, and surprise, surprise, only considers cancer while completely ignoring all other health effects. Even in that limited context, it glibly states "Workers in aluminium production are primarily exposed to polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons". There is no explanation of what "primarily exposed to" is supposed to mean, or any reference to back it up, or any discussion of the potential carcinogenicity of other pollutants from aluminium smelting.
The failure of the authorities to require a warning label for the fluoride content of tea, which is certainly a health risk, is disgraceful. You are conveniently ignoring the fact that people can easily choose not to drink tea, though, whereas avoiding fluoridated water when you live in a place which is force-fluoridated is far more difficult, and many people don't even know their water is fluoridated.
Why am I not surprised that you completely missed the point about Kehoe's "show me the data" mentality? Adding lead to gasoline didn't become a stupid idea when it was finally banned (though not for some aircraft) in the mid-1990s. It was always a stupid idea, and it was a stupid practice from the time it started in the late 1920s. The point is that getting rid of it took a very long time, and a huge amount of harm was done which could have been avoided. The other point is that the burden of proof is on those forcing poison down people's throats, not their victims. Dumping fluoride pollution into public water supplies has always been a stupid idea, just like adding lead to gasoline, a fact which is obvious to everyone who is not mentally and ethically deficient.
-
ATTENTION MODERATOR
Are this gentleman's repeated ad hominem insults an example of acceptable behavior on this forum?
-
Bored chemist, to be honest I don't believe that your aunt with moderate or severe dental fluorosis actually exists. You didn't mention her when dental fluorosis was first brought up, and your account is not convincing.
You don't seem to understand what a straw man argument is. According to the Merriam-Webster dictionary, it is "a weak or imaginary opposition (as an argument or adversary) set up only to be easily confuted". You can't say that an argument is easily confuted and then later claim that the same argument is correct without contradicting yourself, dear.
"dental fluorosis is not asthma". Yeah, no sh1t, Einstein.
The first sign of high fluoride exposure as a child may be mottling of the teeth, but that does not mean that it is necessarily the most sensitive endpoint. The number of human and animal studies showing fluoride neurotoxicity is large, and the attempts made by forced-fluoridation fanatics to dismiss them are not credible. It may be that IQ can be reduced by fluoride exposure without any dental fluorosis. As for the effect of moderate or severe dental fluorosis itself, there is evidence of noncosmetic harm to the teeth, but you can find that for yourself because I'm tired of spoon feeding you. Your claim that there is no measurable ill effect at levels that don't cause mottled teeth is a meaningless assertion without evidence.
The idea you have that you can rule out subclinical effects in a particular individual just shows how deluded you are. A subclinical effect is not necessarily small, either. Someone's IQ could be much lower than it otherwise would have been, but there is no way of knowing how high it otherwise would have been, and unless the reduction results in an unusually low IQ that person would be considered normal. I'm actually not looking at proving anything except that you are clueless. You are making assertions based on anecdotal evidence from a sample size of one person who may well be imaginary. Evidence doesn't get any weaker than that.
"Fluoridation tends to happen in rich countries". Oh really, is that a fact? The reality is that more people are subjected to forced-fluoridation in the US than in the rest of the world combined. Japan does not force-fluoridate, and neither does the vast majority of Western Europe. It makes more sense to compare rich countries with each other than it does to do a simple comparison of rich countries with the rest, due to the vast differences in the latter case. It is the rich countries with high fluoride exposure which have high rates of asthma. I am aware of the hygiene hypothesis, but I haven't seen any convincing evidence for it, and you certainly haven't provided any. Even if it is true, it doesn't rule out fluoride exposure as a causal factor. As for asthma being more prevalent in cities, alternative explanations to the hygiene hypothesis are obvious. Forced-fluoridation is more common in cities than elsewhere. For example, here in Australia every major city is force-fluoridated, whereas many towns and rural areas are not. The situations in the US, Ireland, and elsewhere are similar, although Portland, Oregon and Honolulu are not force-fluoridated. There also tends to be more air pollution in cities.
You have already lost the argument about stats, because you have shown you lack even the most basic understanding of the difference between correlation and causation.
"if it was absorbed dose then eventually all of us would succumb because we all ingest fluoride continuously". Every argument you have made on this thread has been erroneous, but this one takes the cake. Individual differences in susceptibility and exposure are important. What part of that don't you understand? Don't bother answering that.
"The PAHs produced are a lot more dangerous." That monograph you linked to does not support that conclusion. It is from the International Agency for Research on Cancer, and surprise, surprise, only considers cancer while completely ignoring all other health effects. Even in that limited context, it glibly states "Workers in aluminium production are primarily exposed to polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons". There is no explanation of what "primarily exposed to" is supposed to mean, or any reference to back it up, or any discussion of the potential carcinogenicity of other pollutants from aluminium smelting.
The failure of the authorities to require a warning label for the fluoride content of tea, which is certainly a health risk, is disgraceful. You are conveniently ignoring the fact that people can easily choose not to drink tea, though, whereas avoiding fluoridated water when you live in a place which is force-fluoridated is far more difficult, and many people don't even know their water is fluoridated.
Why am I not surprised that you completely missed the point about Kehoe's "show me the data" mentality? Adding lead to gasoline didn't become a stupid idea when it was finally banned (though not for some aircraft) in the mid-1990s. It was always a stupid idea, and it was a stupid practice from the time it started in the late 1920s. The point is that getting rid of it took a very long time, and a huge amount of harm was done which could have been avoided. The other point is that the burden of proof is on those forcing poison down people's throats, not their victims. Dumping fluoride pollution into public water supplies has always been a stupid idea, just like adding lead to gasoline, a fact which is obvious to everyone who is not mentally and ethically deficient.
OK, lets start with you calling me a liar.
Prove it, retract it and apologise or expect to be thrown off the site.
On the other hand, the fact that you don't see the truth as convincing probably tells us a lot.
This
http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=6350.msg252306#msg252306
shows that you are simply wrong, when you say
"You didn't mention her when dental fluorosis was first brought up, "
And you miss the point about the straw man.
You launched an attack on the idea that fluorosis is only cosmetic before it had been raised.
That makes it a straw man.
Anything that happens afterwards doesn't affect that fact.
You attacked an argument that nobody was using- that's intellectually dishonest.
Have you got the hang of that now?
It's still a straw man even if you are wrong and (most) fluorosis is, in fact, largely cosmetic.
The point is that you easily confuted it (wrongly) by simply saying it's not cosmetic. You have yet to show any evidence of that.
""dental fluorosis is not asthma". Yeah, no sh1t, Einstein."
Well spotted (though I did help you by pointing it out).
Why did you start banging on about fluorosis in a thread about asthma?
Were you trying to muddy the waters by raising a valid, but irrelevant potentially toxic effect of fluoride and hoping that people would think it had something to do with asthma?
Hard luck; at least some of us are bright enough to spot that sort of "bait and switch".
"The first sign of high fluoride exposure as a child may be mottling of the teeth, but that does not mean that it is necessarily the most sensitive endpoint"
In a very real sense; it does.
If, for example, their ears turning green was the most sensitive endpoint then it would be the first thing people would spot.
Granted that some things- e.g. reproductive damage- are clearly not going to show up till later any effect that's present can be measured.
You say "It may be that IQ can be reduced by fluoride exposure without any dental fluorosis." but you offer no evidence that it's true. Again you are looking to prove the non existence of invisible unicorns.
"Individual differences in susceptibility and exposure are important. What part of that don't you understand? Don't bother answering that."
The part I don't understand is why you are raising it (well, I guess it might be because you really like straw-manning).
You have just tried to move the goal posts from the difference between concentration and dose (which you got wrong) by saying I didn't mention individual susceptibility- which isn't the point.
Once again, did you think you were going to get away with that?
Re your thoughts on the IARC report
""Workers in aluminium production are primarily exposed to polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons". There is no explanation of what "primarily exposed to" is supposed to mean, or any reference to back it up.
There are a couple of pages of references in that report; they say things like "CYP1A1 and GSTM1 polymorphisms affect
urinary 1-hydroxypyrene levels after PAH exposure."
and
"Air pollution from aluminium smelting plants I. The emission of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons and of mutagens from an aluminium smelting plant using the soumlderberg process T".
You are right in saying that "There is no explanation of what "primarily exposed to" is supposed to mean" but this isn't a "Jannet and John" book for school kids. If you don't know what something means, work it out or look it up.
However in this case, it hardly matters.
The salient point is that ""Workers in aluminium production are" [in some way or other that you don't understand] "exposed to polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons"
Now here's the point I was making.
According to the wiki page (and you are, of course, welcome to check its references)
"AlF3 has low toxicity (LD50 600 mg/kg)."
There's about 70 Kg of me so as a ballpark figure I'd expect to survive swallowing an ounce or more of it.
Which of the PAHs do you fancy trying that with?
Are you really sayng that things like dioxin (known to be present in the fumes from smelting) is less hazardous than AlF3?
(I remind you; you said " most hazardous pollutant from aluminium smelting is fluoride")
And you seem to have missed something.
The burden of proof argument works both ways here.
In order to deny people the protection afforded by fluoride you need to prove that it's harmful.
That burden therefore lies with you.
So, your steadfast refusal to provide any evidence of any (non cosmetic) effect from fluoride (at levels used in fluoridation ) is, at best, unscientific.
And, of course, pending some actual evidence concerning fluoride and asthma, your whole "contribution" here has been a moot point.
-
Bored chemist, are you in training for the slow learner Olympics or something? Replying to all of your latest tripe is a waste of my time, because anyone who has read this far in the thread worked out long ago that you have zero credibility. All I'll say is that your reference to my "steadfast refusal to provide any evidence of any (non cosmetic) effect from fluoride (at levels used in fluoridation)" is an outright lie. For a start, I provided the following link, to which you and the other fluoride pushing clown on this thread have completely failed to respond.
http://forcedfluoridationfreedomfighters.com/a-preliminary-investigation-into-fluoride-accumulation-in-bone/
-
OK, now let's do some actual maths with real numbers.
People drink about two litres of water a day (there's a lot of variability and, of course, many people don't only drink tap water).
Typical fluoridation levels are 0.5 to 1 part pre million so that's an intake of about 1 or two miligrams per day.
On the other hand, the non peer reviewed paper from a pressure group you have cited says "retention of 2 mg of fluoride per day (corresponding approximately to a daily intake of 4-5 mg) ‘would mean that an average individual would experience skeletal fluorosis after 40 yr, "
Well, the typical intake is about 20% to 50% what they claim so they would take between twice as long and 5 times as long to pick up the toxic dose .
You have successfully predicted fluorosis in individuals who are between eighty and two hundred years old.
And you think I am the one who is short of credibility.
That paper goes on to say
"A retention of 2 mg of fluoride per day for 40 years gives
0.002(40)(365.25) = 29.22 grams
which happens to be far more than what is required to kill an adult if taken in a single dose. "
as if that's somehow relevant.
Acute toxicity isn't the same as chronic toxicity.
Among the other silly assumptions is that fluoride excretion rates are independent of the amount in the body.
So, once again.
The thread is about asthma caused by fluoride.
-
Dear Reader,
I will interject a point of information here.
"Around 10% of the population of the United Kingdom receives fluoridated water"(1.)
I am reminded of one of Mr. Samuel Clemens' aphorisms. He said, "Never argue with a fool because people passing by won't be able to tell you apart."
(1.) British Dental Journal, History of Water Fluoridation. Dr. Joe Mullen http://www.nature.com/bdj/journal/v199/n7s/full/4812863a.html
-
So, to return to the world of normal people,
1. The original question was an anecdotal report of an individual correlation between some unnamed toohpaste and asthma. Given the (by definition) highly individualistic nature of allergy, the obvious response is "buy a different toothpaste".
2. It has been loudly asserted that ingestion of high levels of fluoride within the permitted range for public drinking water supplies can lead to mottled teeth. This has been known for over 100 years.
3. Given that the level of fluoride in drinking water, whether by natural occurrence or intentional addition, is known for all public supplies in the UK, if there is any correlation with the incidence of asthma, this should be statistically evident and distinguishable from some confounding variables such as urban versus rural location. Is it?
4. The only obvious correlation I have seen is between the incidence of diagnosed childhood asthma and the availability of child-friendly inhalers. One is reminded of the immortal words of Dr Bernadette Wolowitz: "Today, my company invented, diagnosed and treated Restless Eye Syndrome".
-
Bored chemist, it is becoming increasingly obvious that you have little respect for the truth, and are relying on readers not bothering to check or think much about what you are saying. Or maybe you just enjoy being wrong. For a start, the idea that people subjected to forced-fluoridation have a daily fluoride intake of no more than 2 mg per day is laughable. Many people drink far more than 2 L per day, including outdoor workers, athletes, and diabetics. People are also exposed to fluoride via fluoridated water in all food cooked in, processed with, or grown using fluoridated water. They are also exposed via drinks made using fluoridated water, including beer. Some other sources of exposure are fluoridated toothpaste, fluoridated mouthwash, fluoride treatments at the dentist, fluoridated fillings, tea, some fluorinated pharmaceuticals, some pesticides, mechanically deboned meat, Teflon, cigarette smoke, industrial pollution, seafood, and food in general (though most unprocessed food has fluoride concentrations far lower than those used for forced-fluoridation). There is also the fact that boiling water increases its fluoride concentration. The last time I checked Birmingham and Newcastle were force-fluoridated using a nominal fluoride concentration of 1 ppm, by the way, as were Sydney and Melbourne.
Your quote from my article originally comes from the US National Research Council, which was made clear in the article. The National Research Council is part of the National Academy of Sciences, which is generally considered to be the foremost scientific body in the United States, so your "pressure group" description is misleading. I don't think any source of information should be taken as gospel, and have read many original research papers on skeletal fluorosis and fluoride pharmacokinetics, and haven't seen anything to indicate that a daily retention of 2 mg fluoride per day is out of the ordinary in people subjected to forced-fluoridation, and you certainly haven't provided any evidence of it. You are also ignoring the fact that 50% retention is an average, and some people retain much more, including those with impaired kidney function. Children also retain a considerably higher percentage than adults on average.
I am well aware of the difference between acute toxicity and chronic toxicity. At the same time, the idea that acute toxicity and chronic toxicity of the same chemical are completely unrelated to each other is naive. You conveniently neglected to mention that 29 g of fluoride in bone corresponds to bone ash fluoride concentrations of more than 10,000 ppm, assuming no pathological increase in bone mass, and that the third stage of skeletal fluorosis has been found at a bone ash fluoride concentration as low as 4200 ppm, let alone the first stage of the disease.
You are not the first forced-fluoridation harm denier I have encountered who has questioned the independence of fluoride excretion rates from the amount in the body, but that is what the empirical evidence indicates. Whenever I ask for some evidence to back up the scepticism, none is provided. Even if it turns out there is some nonlinearity in daily fluoride retention percentage as a function of time in adults, with a negative second derivative, it is highly unlikely that the curve levels off so quickly that everyone is saved from developing skeletal fluorosis. The half life of fluoride in bone has been estimated at 20 years, so once it gets into bone it only comes out again very slowly.
p 77 "Several cross-sectional studies have found an association between fluoride bone concentrations and age (Jackson and Weidmann 1958; Kuo and Stamm 1974; Parkins et al. 1974; Charen et al. 1979; Alhava et al. 1980; Eble et al. 1992; Richards et al. 1994; Torra et al. 1998). Jackson and Weidmann (1958) were unusual in finding a leveling off at an older age."
2006 US National Research Council report Fluoride in Drinking Water: A Scientific Review of EPA's Standards
-
"Or maybe you just enjoy being wrong. For a start, the idea that people subjected to forced-fluoridation have a daily fluoride intake of no more than 2 mg per day is laughable. "
it would be; if that was what I had said.
What I actually said was "there's a lot of variability".
The water used in brewing in the UK is often "burtonised" (a process in which the water is de-mineralised by ion exchange, then treated with minerals to give it a composition similar to that in Burton on Trent, in any event the breweries are often sited where the water is suitable.
The actual evidence shows that most beers are below 0.5ppm fluoride
http://ffbeers.com/
In most of the other things you cite like mechanically deboned meat, you are arguing against yourself.
If the rest of your diet has lots of fluoride in it then the contribution from fluoridated water is less significant.
Had you not realised that?
Granted that fact is fairly obscure but for you to ignore it makes it clear that you are the one unconcerned about facts.
" There is also the fact that boiling water increases its fluoride concentration."
Not as such, no.
"Children also retain a considerably higher percentage than adults on average."
"The half life of fluoride in bone has been estimated at 20 years"
congratulations; you just realised why extrapolating over 40 years' exposure isn't valid.
Why did you cite an article that did that, even though you know it makes no sense?
Meanwhile, back at the topic.
I presume that you still have nothing useful to say about fluoride and asthma.
-
Bored chemist, you and Pecos_Bill have done such a thorough job of making fools of yourselves that my job here is done.
-
res ipsa loquitur
-
Bored chemist, you and Pecos_Bill have done such a thorough job of making fools of yourselves that my job here is done.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
-
In some respects I had hoped that such a question might have raised a higher level discussion... however my original question was cut short when it was posted, so let me try and broaden the debate...
First up... yes, if you have asthma etc, go see a doctor etc. etc. However that was not my question.
My question related to the recent research identifying the Calcium Sensing Receptor (CaSR) as a potential "root cause" of asthma (do a search for "CaSR asthma" in your fav search engine). While there is limited research, other chemicals etc will no doubt have an impact on CaSR, and thus could lead to either increase or decrease the likelihood of asthma occurring.
If we take a short detour and look at the work of places such as the allergy unit at the Royal Prince Alfred Children's hospital here in Australia, various chemicals etc in food can result in symptoms in individuals. In fact it was actually the work of Sue Denegate (www.fedup.com.au) that has also helped bring an end to my asthma for close to four years. Basically this sort of work has identified certain preservatives and other chemicals can lead to certain changes to the human body (both physical and mental).
What seems to be lacking out there is how CaSR is affected by various chemicals. Bringing the conversation back to fluoride... The special paste provided by my dentist was actually preservative free, and specifically selected due to food allergies and intolerance I have. The common ingredient was fluoride. There is some evidence out there in relation to how fluoride affects CaSR, so the question I was raising is based on the following observation:
* A large increase in the incidence of Asthma has been identified particularly in more "advanced" (I use that term loosely) economies / first world countries. This increase has been identified in the last 40 or so years. Asthma tends to be based around areas of air pollution / built up population areas. Many rural areas where there is tank water does not tend to have as high rates of asthma.
Air pollution is only one small piece of the puzzle... however what if we look at the way fluoride affects CaSR? For instance, steam within a shower from a fluoridated water supply may very well carry small amounts of fluoride into the lungs, and interact more with CaSR within lung tissue. It might take a week to build up to high enough levels, but that may be enough to cause problems for CaSR - thus leading to greater risks of asthma developing.
So rather than argue pro/anti fluoride, look at the bigger picture in the context of CaSR, and how other chemicals interact with CaSR.
-
That's certainly interesting.
It seems that drugs that block the effect of calcium at tat receptor reduce asthma.
Now, while it's probably too toxic to use as a therapeutic, fluoride binds to calcium and, as such it too would be expected to reduce airway sensitivity via this receptor.
On the other hand, anything that makes calcium more available to the receptor would be likely to increase the likelihood of an asthma attack.
Does the toothpaste list any calcium compounds?
-
Mr. Bored Chemist,
You DO realize that 400 years ago this fellow would, no doubt, be blathering about witchcraft instead of fluoride and arguing that Elizabeth Woodville had ensorcelled ye kinge and subverted the Yorkist cause?
The major impact of the past years of human progress for these people is that they no longer burn old ladies.
-
I realise that. But I think it's still reasonable to post a reply for two reasons. The first is that there may be people reading this who think that his point actually has some validity- and they would be right. that receptor shows that fluoride is likely to suppress asthma (to a tiny extent that's never going to be worth looking at)
and secondly, I don't have a with burning to go to so I have to look for other entertainment.
-
You DO realize that 400 years ago this fellow would, no doubt, be blathering about witchcraft instead of fluoride and arguing that Elizabeth Woodville had ensorcelled ye kinge and subverted the Yorkist cause?
Hast thou evidence to ye contrary? Or art thou nought but a conniving blackguard?
Know'st thou not of ye Precautionary Principle by which the peoples of Europe are enslaved? Everything is sorcery and evil until proven otherwise (or ye line the pockets of our incorruptible Commissioners).
Sorry you missed the burnings, BC, but I'm sure there will be plenty of sharia stonings and mutilations to please the crowds in future. Or you could go Stateside and watch the protectors of the unwanted blow up a few clinics.