The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: Can fluoride cause asthma?  (Read 2596 times)

Pecos_Bill

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 120
    • View Profile
Re: Can fluoride cause asthma?
« Reply #25 on: 17/06/2015 15:57:05 »
ATTENTION MODERATOR

Are this gentleman's repeated ad hominem insults an example of acceptable behavior on this forum?

Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 7828
    • View Profile
Re: Can fluoride cause asthma?
« Reply #26 on: 18/06/2015 20:46:56 »
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.



Dan_Germouse

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 14
    • View Profile
Re: Can fluoride cause asthma?
« Reply #27 on: 19/06/2015 09:55:43 »
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/

Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 7828
    • View Profile
Re: Can fluoride cause asthma?
« Reply #28 on: 19/06/2015 18:27:14 »
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.

Pecos_Bill

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 120
    • View Profile
Re: Can fluoride cause asthma?
« Reply #29 on: 19/06/2015 20:10:52 »
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

alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2577
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Re: Can fluoride cause asthma?
« Reply #30 on: 20/06/2015 01:40:01 »
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".

Dan_Germouse

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 14
    • View Profile
Re: Can fluoride cause asthma?
« Reply #31 on: 20/06/2015 10:48:47 »
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
« Last Edit: 20/06/2015 11:25:55 by Dan_Germouse »

Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 7828
    • View Profile
Re: Can fluoride cause asthma?
« Reply #32 on: 20/06/2015 11:26:17 »
"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.

Dan_Germouse

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 14
    • View Profile
Re: Can fluoride cause asthma?
« Reply #33 on: 22/06/2015 13:01:38 »
Bored chemist, you and Pecos_Bill have done such a thorough job of making fools of yourselves that my job here is done.

Pecos_Bill

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 120
    • View Profile
Re: Can fluoride cause asthma?
« Reply #34 on: 22/06/2015 20:13:52 »
res ipsa loquitur

Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 7828
    • View Profile
Re: Can fluoride cause asthma?
« Reply #35 on: 25/06/2015 20:30:21 »
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

DamianBentley

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 1
    • View Profile
Re: Can fluoride cause asthma?
« Reply #36 on: 05/07/2015 07:37:16 »
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.


Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 7828
    • View Profile
Re: Can fluoride cause asthma?
« Reply #37 on: 05/07/2015 10:24:40 »
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?


Pecos_Bill

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 120
    • View Profile
Re: Can fluoride cause asthma?
« Reply #38 on: 05/07/2015 20:03:54 »
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.

Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 7828
    • View Profile
Re: Can fluoride cause asthma?
« Reply #39 on: 05/07/2015 21:28:41 »
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.

alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2577
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Re: Can fluoride cause asthma?
« Reply #40 on: 05/07/2015 23:42:07 »

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.
« Last Edit: 05/07/2015 23:44:12 by alancalverd »

 

SMF 2.0.8 | SMF © 2011, Simple Machines