In new studies they've found that kids who live in areas where the government fluoridates water have lower IQ's than those who don't fluoridate them. Don't be a sucka and make your family aware, they sell a zero water filter for about 40$ on amazon which removes all of that, if you want do more in depth filtration get the berkley water filter, with the fluoride filter attachment. Just felt needed to make you aware, not trying to advertise or anything but brita does not filter it out. Shit the majority of bottled water adds this stuff to it, you'd be supprised how long we've been lied to Refrence: Harvard Study Finds Fluoride Lowers IQ - Published in Federal Gov't Journal | Reuters
This is 'news'? lol.. people have been saying this for years.. even decades. A chemical cousin to fluoride is what's used in Xanax and all those other sedatives. It dulls the mind.
I hope you know that a single atom in a molecule can entirely change the biofunctionality. That's the kind of argument that somebody who doesn't understand biochemistry would make.....
What is a "chemical cousin"? Never heard this term. Must be something odd because xanax doesn't even have a fluorine atom in it.
Better watch out for the table salt too. I hear it is a 'chemical cousin' of an explosive metal and a poison gas!!! I won't be letting my family near the stuff!!! derp..
The chemical makeup to fluoxetine (generic prozac) is C17 H18 F3 N O.. there are 3 fluorine atoms in it. All of this is rather irrelevant to OP's point though, it's been shown that fluoride lowers IQ..
I just read through the article myself and had some thoughts on it. Basically what they did was search publically available research article databases to select articles about fluoride contamination and intelligence in children, which brings me to my first point. The very method by which they gather their data is inherently biased in that any publications they came across will most certainly show what they are looking for. Nobody publishes literature on findings that shows something has no effect on another thing. Even so, of the 37 articles they found, six showed no correlation between fluoride levels and intelligence. Of those six, the authors discarded four. Therefore, 2/3 of the data that went against their hypothesis were discarded. My second point is in regards to this statement: What they are saying is that their data comes from areas where fluoride is a natural contaminant of the drinking water and not from areas where the government adds fluoride to the drinking water. What this means, as the authors state clearly, In other words, their data comes from studies where their drinking water is contaminated by fluoride at levels 10x's that of standard fluoride levels in industrialized nations. If the authors wanted to suggest that the levels of fluoride added to drinking water in the US (for example) have adverse side effects, then they would need to find studies that compare areas with and without added fluoride, but even the authors conceed: The authors also conceed: Yet they can't help themselves to say How can you, as an author, admit the data is of insufficient quality yet say it lends support to your conclusion? And keep in mind the "consistency" that they are referring to resulted from the very nature of their literature search, which was to find (dare I say filter out) articles that only included what they wanted them to say. Seems like a case of bias confirmation. To lend additional support to their conclusions, they state: If you read this carefully, you can see quite clearly they're comparing apples and oranges. Essentially, they are asserting that that because both apples and oranges are round, they should taste the same. In other words, because mercury is toxic at 10nmol/L, and fluoride is found at 50micromol/L, then fluoride must also be toxic. WTF? This is a logical fallacy. I'm shocked a reviewer did not catch this intentionally misleading statement. On the same note, the authors say: In other words, some of the areas with high contamination levels of fluoride also had other contaminants (not too surprising) like mercury, which is has been known for decades to be a highly potent neurotoxin. In fact, two of the studies included data from subjects that Seems like those would be good articles to throw out since coal probably has other contaminants other than fluoride that might exert some toxicological effects. But the authors included those papers in their statistical analysis. Basically what this study needed to do to, but couldn't, was to compare data from areas with fluoride at the levels equivalent (not 10x's or more higher) to that of drinking water where fluoride is added at levels around 1ppm (or 1mg/L) and compare that to data from areas where no fluoride is added and the levels are significantly lower than 1ppm. If this happens and the data shows a correlation between added fluoride and lower IQ, then we've got ourselves a serious argument. As it is, I don't see anything from this paper that tells me the levels of fluoride added to drinking water in the US has any effect on IQ. What they have found, if anything, is that levels of fluoride much higher than what is added by governments to drinking water may in fact be toxic. In other words, too much of a potentially good thing is a bad thing. Who would have ever thought that? Oh lordy. I hope that is a joke. As Sam_Spade mentioned, aqueous fluoride and fluorine atoms in an organic molecule are two completely different beasts. Where are you learning this stuff man? Have you ever taking a chemistry class? For someone with such strong scientific opinions you genuinely have no understanding of science....at all... Strange that this article passes your scientific validity test no problem, but the tens of thousands of evolution and climate change papers all fail. Speaking of toxic contaminants, you should check out some information on dihydrogen monooxide. You might learn some interesting things...maybe start a movement, or at least a thread, to spread awareness.
You guys are quick to disregard the findings in the article. I find this article to be a good reference to make you aware of the health effects of Fluoride in our bodies, the United-States claim it has beneficial properties. If you want a really good article where you can cite the balls out of it here's one Fluoride's Serious Health Problems, thyroid disorder, Iodine deficiency & that DHMO contaminant is pretty badass IMO
This dude knows whats up. [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4d_FvgQ1csE]Vermin Supreme: When I'm President Everyone Gets A Free Pony - YouTube[/ame]
That DHMO article is pretty badass IMO But the main point is that fluoride has ad-verse side effects. The US convinces people of the beneficial properties of Fluoride when i believe there is no benefit! It's in our toothpaste, water, food, etc. If you want a really good article i should have posted this one to begin with Fluoride's Serious Health Problems, thyroid disorder, Iodine deficiency Raising awareness because i believe people should know what they brush their teeth with.
This is NOT an example of a really good article. This is a really good example of a website that uses trendy search words in order to draw traffic to their website to make money off of advertising hits and selling. Facts and content are not a priority.
I just find it hilarious- that ONE 'dentist' (no way in HELL im calling a tooth-jockey with a power drill a 'dr'!) who writes an articles claiming the benefits of TOPICAL flouride on the OUTSIDE of teeth reduces plaque . .. . SOMEHOW turned into- allowing our government to adulterate drinking water with flouride- simply to use humans as a biological filter- to remove the constant build-up of floro- products produced by nuclear activities.
Quick? I read the entire original peer-reviewed article from start to finish (not any media's interpretation of it), including the supplementary information before making judgments on the quality of the findings. How is that "quick"?
Very glad you took the time to share your keen eye for detail and highlight the holes in that rubbish article. Also, fluoxetine is not a chemical cousin of fluoride, it is a chemical nephew. Get your facts straight, jeez.
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7r0c_kfdwQU]Stuff They Don't Want You To Know - Fluoridation - YouTube[/ame]