0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
" 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... newbielink:https://www.mooc-list.com/course/data-scientists-toolbox-coursera [nonactive]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 LEGALIMPLICATIONS OF WATER FLUORIDATION” (author Mr Declan Waugh)" newbielink:http://www.fluoridesandhealth.ie/download/documents/Appraisal_of_Waugh_report_May_2012.pdf [nonactive]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
"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.
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.
Bored chemist, you and Pecos_Bill have done such a thorough job of making fools of yourselves that my job here is done.
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?