I am a meat popsicle
- Sep 18, 2001
- Reaction score
- Inside a starship, watching puny humans from afar
They only looked at the dental effects. No mention of other health changes.
FULL STORY: https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/12/191216173652.htmSimple test could prevent fluoride-related disease
Method uses synthetic biology to detect dangerous levels of fluoride in drinking water
Northwestern University synthetic biologists developed a simple, inexpensive new test that can detect dangerous levels of fluoride in drinking water.
Costing just pennies to make, the system only needs a drip and a flick: Drip a tiny water droplet into a prepared test tube, flick the tube once to mix it and wait. If the water turns yellow, then an excessive amount of fluoride -- exceeding the EPA's most stringent regulatory standards -- is present.
This method is starkly different from current tests, which cost hundreds of dollars and often require scientific expertise to use.
The researchers tested the system both in the laboratory at Northwestern and in the field in Costa Rica, where fluoride is naturally abundant near the Irazu volcano. When consumed in high amounts over long periods of time, fluoride can cause skeletal fluorosis, a painful condition that hardens bones and joints.
Americans tend to think of the health benefits of small doses of fluoride that strengthen teeth. But elsewhere in the world, specifically across parts of Africa, Asia and Central America, fluoride naturally occurs at levels that are dangerous to consume.
"In the United States, we hear about fluoride all the time because it's in toothpaste and the municipal water supply," said Northwestern's Julius Lucks, who led the project. "It makes calcium fluoride, which is very hard, so it strengthens our tooth enamel. But above a certain level, fluoride also hardens joints. This mostly isn't an issue in the U.S. But it can be a debilitating problem in other countries if not identified and addressed." ...
Those Homeopathy people have a point?Just to pose the other point of view...
The difference in oral health between the generations pre- and post- fluoridation is pretty marked. My mother & her peers (70-80 years old) had problems from adulthood onwards with various teeth, some have none left. Their parents' were even worse as they grew up in the era before 1948 (NHS, school milk, subsidised school meals).
However my generation (40-50 years) generally have bad dental issues only as a result of poor personal hygiene, neglect and bad diet.
Bad teeth aren't just a cosmetic issue - the main health impact of them is through infections that can lead to sepsis, pericarditis and even infections of the heart valves.
On balance, I'd personally rather have traces of fluoride in my tap water, akin to the vitamin Bs and folic acid added to wheat products we already have in the UK.
It sounds very possible to me that very small sub-clinical doses of lithium naturally occurring in tap water may well have a small effect on suicide rates on a population level, it might not have any perceivable therapeutic effect in people with diagnosed mental illness (as pointed out above) but could still have a beneficial impact. I'm not advocating adding it to tap water but it's an interesting 'thing'!.
About Fluoride in water.
"The enthusiasm with which fluoride was introduced as a public health measure in the 1950s is gradually giving way to a more rational analysis of its benefits and costs as a caries prevention technology. This review argues that the modest benefits of ingested fluoride in caries prevention are thoroughly counterbalanced by its established and potential diverse adverse impacts on human health. Due to the abundance of this chemical, it is little surprising that humans ingest or inhale fluoride from a variety of sources. In the Hippocratic treatise titled Epidemics, the ethical principle in relation to controlling disease Primum non nocere (“do good or to do no harm”) was emphasised. This principle is, at best, not being fully observed in relation to fluoride-centred dental caries prevention interventions, given the established and potential harms currently attributed to fluoride.
A change in the ideological approach to fluoride use for dental caries prevention is essential in the global public health community. An important change would be for the World Health Organization to repudiate its assertion that fluoride is an essential nutrient or trace element, or that artificial water fluoridation is a useful public health strategy. Resolution 4 of the 2007 World Health Assembly resolution 60.17 urges member states to “consider the development and implementation of fluoridation programmes” . This statement is a reflection of current realities that artificial water fluoridation is not necessarily the most economical, effective, or affordable way to deliver fluoride to teeth in the 21st century [8, 9]. While the statement contrasts with the ringing endorsement provided by the World Health Organization for artificial water fluoridation as recently as 1994, continuing passive support for water fluoridation allows those promoting water fluoridation to use WHO endorsement as an argument for implementing fluoridation programmes . Second, all nutrient values for fluoride need to be withdrawn, not least because it is irrational to have daily nutrient intakes for a hazardous substance whose mode of action is topical on teeth enamel. Third, coordinated global efforts to reduce adverse human health effects on fluoride need to start with ensuring that its introduction into water supplies is prohibited, occupational and industrial fluoride exposures and injuries are reduced to the minimum possible, and natural water systems with high fluoride content are defluoridated prior to being endorsed as “potable.” Finally, given that dental caries is the most common disease globally arising from bacterial infection [91, 92], efforts to develop safe technologies to address the disease deserve high priority. Unfortunately, advocacy for funding to develop nonfluoride approaches for dental caries prevention has so far been compromised by the “religious arguments” between antifluoridationists and profluoridationist".