Posted by enviro-mom at 3/24/06 12:26 a.m.

I got involved in this issue years ago – when my daughter (who was a toddler at the time) had a serious reaction to a combination of fluoride drops and a dental treatment. It was at that point that I stopped the drops and treatment and tried to find out how much fluoride she could safely consume. From recent scientific studies and reports I found out that she should be ingesting none. That's right, none. Just like the EWG has said in recent weeks.

Fluoride is not a nutrient – according to recent, peer-reviewed scientific studies, it is a potent neurotoxin. Read the warning on your toothpaste – it's not like baking soda or salt -- it's so toxic that you should keep it out of reach from your little ones, in case they try to do some taste-testing in the bathroom. My daughter (and her teeth) has been doing fine since I removed fluoride – that includes fluoridated water -- from her diet.

So how should we put the debate to rest? Well, Robert, many of my daughter's friends, who live in the fluoridated Seattle area, have cases of dental fluorosis – funky teeth with white or brown mottling caused by excessive exposure to fluoride. As they get older, some of those kids will have to get expensive veneers to cover those strange mottled tooth surfaces.

How about we ask THEM how to end the debate.

By the way, did you know that the Centers for Disease Control recently admitted that 32% of American children have some form of dental fluorosis? Does this give anyone here a clue as to why this needs to be addressed by our news sources and decision makers today – not when more science comes arrives in upcoming years?
http://www.fluoridealert.org/health/news/24.html

And it's not just dental fluorosis that we need to be concerned about. Here's a quote from a recent release about the NAS report:
"The NRC also notes a growing body of scientific research linking fluoride exposure to disruption of the nervous and endocrine systems, including the brain, thyroid and pineal gland. According to data presented in the report, the doses of fluoride associated with thyroid disturbances are now exceeded by many Americans – particularly children - living in so-called "low fluoride" (1 ppm) areas."
http://www.fluoridealert.org/health/epa/nrc/press01.html

We need to implement a wonderful little precept called the Precautionary Principle:
"When an activity raises threats of harm to human health or the environment, precautionary measures should be taken - even if some cause and effect relationships are not fully established scientifically…" - Wingspread Statement on the Precautionary Principle, Jan. 1998 http://www.sehn.org/precaution.html

In other words, if you are going to put something in the drinking water to treat a health problem, you'd better be damned sure it doesn't hurt others in the process. And damned sure we obviously are not.

Posted by EdwardsWins at 3/24/06 12:36 a.m.

The NRC was hired by the EPA to decide the science; but kicked it back to the EPA, instead. The EPA doesn't seem to be in a hurry to do anything with the information despite that the NRC said no additional study was necessary. All the data already exists to lower the MCLG of fluoride.

It's a hot potato - why? Because essentially they told us that consuming 8 milligrams fluoride daily is putting adults at risk of broken bones and children at risk of broken bones and teeth - which threatens water fluoridation as well as the EPA's newly approved allowable levels of fluoride residues on foods by Dow Chemical Companies sulfuryl fluoride pesticide. Dow chemical attended the NRC meetings to protect it's own interests.

Adverse health effects are expected to happen when an adult drinks two liters of water fluoridated at 4 ppm (or 4 mg/L) daily. That's 8 milligrams daily.

This level is easily exceeded by athletes, diabetics and other high water drinkers as ell as tea drinkers. Other sources of fluoride, the NRC tells us, is food, beverages, pharmaceuticals, dental products, air pollution and pesticide residues. But the largest percentage comes from water supplies.

It just doesn't make any sense to add fluoride chemicals into the water supply (and therefore the environment!)
especially when the NRC is advising some areas to filter it out. Fluoride is neither a nutrient nor essential for healthy teeth. No American is fluoride deficient and no fluoride deficiency state exists.

And the fluoride chemicals added to water supplies are not clean pharmaceutical grade chemicals - but silicofluorides, lead and arsenic laced waste-products of industry.

Environmentalists work very hard to rid the air, food and water of industrial contaminants that accidentally get realeased into our source of life. Fluoridationists actually instigate communites to purposely add, and then pay for industries waste to be added to water supplies.

Never made any sense. Every environmentalist should be up in arms about this. I'm glad the EWG finally made you see the light.

Posted by Ron Eheman at 3/24/06 3:03 a.m.

Anyone have an idea what should be done to put this debate to rest?

Yes, find real people who are fluoride poisoned and know for a fact they ARE FLUORIDE POISONED.

http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/FluoridePoisoning/

is just such a place.

Someone also needs to do a large scale fluoride challenge test.

http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/FluorideChallange/

especially if you have thyroid problems, kidney problems, CFS, fibromyalgia, blurry vision - on and off not continously. got new glasses just
before I went for last MRI reading. Also looked for ICP by looking at
optic disc.

leg pains - hip, shoulder joints - I can't cross my legs - feels like
my joints are coming apart

muscle cramps and charley horses in calfs and arch of feet

mental confusion -short term memory - seems I really have to work at
remembering daily stuff

Headaches ( frontal)_ worse as day goes on

dizziness, like an airpane ride , disconnected , sometimes feels like
I am 3 feet off the ground or I am sitting sideways up on the wall -
no spinning vertigo

Brain fog - I suspect this is what alhzimers must feel like

tinnitus,-
otolaringologist says I have low frequency hearing loss

irritability - lashing out at family for no apparent reason
lack of concentration

can't sleep - up at 3-4 am and can't get back to sleep

Need to lie down in the afternoon - exhausted - feels like I am in a
comotose state - at times I can hear what is happening around me but
I can't respond

Getting fine tremmors in legs & eyelid

Dysphagia - throat feels swollen , hard to swallow at times - THROAT
GOES OPEN AND CLOSED -worse after exercise

cold hands & feet at times - cold all over at times

profuse sweating - sometimes I sweat like a pig for 15 min. after a
shower

No appitite - constant nausea - lots of bread & milk

muscle weakness & myalgic pain moving all the time

Lower back pain and neck pain comes and goes I don't think itis
linked to exercise

hands and heels really hurt at times

electric like shocks in left leg ( thigh, sometimes in feet and toes)
worst ones happen while I am
lying on couch watching TV - doubled over in pain

Fatigue is increadible - last two hours and consider it a good day!

Gums bleed , had periodontal disease

bone loss in jaw,- according to periodontist and dentist

teeth feel loose, USED TO BE ABLE TO WIGGLE THEM WITH MY TONGUE ,

drooling at times

Soft stools all the time -almost diarrhea

Getting pins and needles on chest and back after a hot shower and hot
days and exercise - started after surgery i think

Itching on arms and waist especially after a hot shower but other
times too

Seems like all this happens after I eat!!! things get worse and also
after exercise

chest pain in ribs on right side, then on left side

Heels really hurt as do my "heels " of my hands

Ron Eheman
Fluoride Poisoning support group

Posted by Chris Roberts at 3/24/06 9:20 a.m.

An excellent scholarly review of fluoride and the environment can be found here: www.earthisland.org/eijournal/fluoride/f
luoride_index.html

On the human front, fluoride facilitates the human body's uptake of lead, particularly in children www.dartmouth.edu/~news/releases/2001/ma
r01/flouride.html.

Even setting aside the effect of fluoride on humans, there are plenty of environmental reasons to be wary of fluoridation.

For example, some researchers feel fluoride from drinking water and as a byproduct of industry (particularly the aluminum smelting industry) is at least partially the cause of reduced salmon runs.
www.earthisland.org/EIJOURNAL/fluoride/f
luoride_salmon.html

Fluoride also can have a negative effect on plant growth. This is especially the case where fluoridated water is sprayed onto plants (i.e., via irrigation). Ponderosa (shore) pine is even considered to be a sentinel species for fluoride contamination.
www.earthisland.org/EIJOURNAL/fluoride/f
luoride_plants.html

Posted by Robert McClure at 3/24/06 11:31 a.m.

Folks, thanks for this great information. I really appreciate it. Now, can anyone tell me who represents the other side? Is there a Fluoridation Institute? Who specifically are the "fluoridationists," as one of our correspondents calls them?

Posted by EdwardsWins at 3/24/06 5:09 p.m.

Organized dentistry are the fluoridationists. Government agencies also support fluoridation. But, unbelievably, they take their lead from the American Dental Association. In fact, the ADA is coaching their members right now about how to combat this report so that they don't have to read it and find out that babies get fluoride overdosed even when they are drinking "optimally" fluoridated water. The adequate intake for fluoride for infants is 0.1 milligram per day to avoid moderate dental fluorosis - yellow and sometimes pitted teeth. This level is clearly exceeded for most babies - unless they are exclusively breastfed.

While insisting this report isn't about fluoridation, the NRC report tells us that some athletes, workers, military personnel actually consume 10 milligrams fluoride from drinking so much "optimally" fluoridated water.

Do they get skeletal fluorosis - who knows, because U.S. physicians are not trained to diagnose fluoride-induced disease. They've been taught for decades that fluoridation is absolutely safe for everyone.

Unlike the fluoridationists, we actually read the reports. Their media reports are just knee-jerk reactions and clever PR. They have the staff and money to do what we can't.

A former EPA scientist explained to me that the maximum contaminant level goal (MCLG) is a level that's based on pure science. The MCLG is level by which NO person will be harmed by a substance but doesn't have to be enforced. The MCLG for fluoride should be zero. However, the MCL or maximum contaminant level is based on politics. They factor in costs and availability of technology to lower the amounts found naturally in water.

Many communities can reach the MCLG simply by turning off the fluoride spigot. Very easy; but not politically correct.

For more info:

New York State Coalition Opposed to Fluoridation, Inc.
http://www.orgsites.com/ny/nyscof

Fluoridation News Releases
http://tinyurl.com/6kqtu

Fluoride News Tracker
http://www.fluoridenews.blogspot.com/

Fluoride Action Network
http://www.FluorideAction.Net

Posted by Chris Roberts at 3/24/06 9:05 p.m.

Makes you wonder whether fluoridation was a Communist plot after all (said half tongue-in-cheek).

Posted by enviro-mom at 3/24/06 10:40 p.m.

I'm sharing a news release from a EPA union based in Washington DC -- they've got some very pertinent comments on the irresponsibility of our health agencies and associations concerning fluoride toxicity.

Certainly seems that these health agencies are more interested in preventing litigation than protecting our health.

Please check out the background on EPA unions' view of fluoridation:
http://www.fluoridealert.org/news/2378.html

U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, NATIONAL HEADQUARTERS - NTEU CHAPTER 280

PRESS RELEASE
MARCH 23, 2006

Fluoride Report Confirms EPA Union's 20-year-old Concerns

The National Research Council's (NRC) report, "Fluoride in Drinking Water: A Scientific Review of Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Standards," was released yesterday. It vindicated this union's expressed concerns about fluoride toxicity dating back to 1986, when we defined severe dental fluorosis as an adverse health effect as the NRC just did. The NRC Committee also found that it was likely that there is an increase in bone fractures and increased risk of Stage II skeletal fluorosis among people drinking water at the 4 milligrams of fluoride per liter (mg/L) level. Again, our union has been saying this for years.

Furthermore, the Committee expressed concerns similar to those of the union over adverse effects on the brain and central nervous system, as well as endocrine disruption, including effects on thyroid function. The Committee report also cautions against assumptions - put forward by proponents of fluoridation  that there is no evidence that fluoride can cause cancer.

When EPA first issued its primary drinking water standards for fluoride in 1986, the union, which then was Local 2050 of the National Federation of Federal Employees, told the public that the standards were not protective of public health. That is exactly what the NRC Committee of independent scientists said yesterday in its 450 page report. The Committee recommended that EPA lower its standards from 4 mg/L to an unspecified lower level.

EPA sets two primary drinking water standards for each regulated pollutant: a non-enforceable Maximum Contaminant Level Goal (MCLG), based solely on toxicity concerns to protect against any known or anticipated adverse effect on health; and an enforceable Maximum Contaminant Level, set by law as close to the MCLG as feasible. Both EPA standards for fluoride are currently 4 mg/L (or 4 parts per million per liter of water).

The report defines severe dental fluorosis, which occurs in a significant fraction of people drinking water at 4 mg/L, an adverse health effect, something the union has been saying for twenty years. In contrast, the American Dental Association and the Centers for Disease Control, while pushing to increase the public's exposure to fluoride through nation-wide fluoridation of drinking water supplies, have always referred to the condition as a "cosmetic" effect. The NRC now joins our union in putting the lie to this propaganda ploy by those whose devotion to an out-dated and dangerous policy overrode their obligations to protect public health.

The union got involved in this fight in 1986 as a matter of scientific integrity and to protect the right of EPA employees to live up to their Civil Service oath, which binds them to defend the Constitution. The union believes that in violating the Safe Drinking Water Act in 1986 by failing to set the MCLG at a level to protect against the adverse health effect of severe dental fluorosis, EPA management perpetrated an assault on the Constitution.

The NRC Committee also found that it was likely that there is an increase in bone fractures and increased risk of Stage II skeletal fluorosis among people drinking water at the 4 mg/L level. Again, our union has been saying this for years as its representatives have traveled around the United States helping citizens fight off efforts of the ADA and the CDC to add more fluoride to their water supplies and diets.

CONTACT: J. William Hirzy, PhD Vice-President
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, NATIONAL HEADQUARTERS - NTEU CHAPTER 280
202-885-1780
email: whirzy@american.edu

U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, NATIONAL HEADQUARTERS - NTEU CHAPTER 280
BEN FRANKLIN STATION
P.O. BOX 7672
WASHINGTON, DC 20044
202-566-2785(V)
202-566-1460(F)
Website www.nteu280.org

Posted by Highlander at 3/24/06 11:33 p.m.

I wonder: How much money could I get by suing Everett, Washington, for intentionally poisioning my water supply?

How much could I get by taking every single last one of the city council members who voted to put that poison into the water to begin with?

How much could I get by suing the company which supplies that chemical?

And I wonder: How much could I get from those current members who will not seek to remove that chemical from my water – knowing what they must now know?

I might retire quite comfortably – assuming that none of the above don't try to assassinate me first

Posted by enviro-mom at 3/25/06 10:23 p.m.

Infants fed formula reconstituted with fluoridated water receive 100 -200 times more fluoride than infants fed with breastmilk. When you evaluate fluoride exposure in terms of bodyweight, you can easily see that infants and children are grossly overexposed.

Why doesn't our protective health agencies take action? Who will help us make the necessary changes?

Fluoride Exposure During Infancy - Recommendations from Dental Researchers:

"A major effort should be made to avoid use of fluoridated water for dilution of formula powders. In addition, when economically feasible, young infants fed formulas prepared from concentrated liquids should have these these formulas made up with nonfluoridated water."
SOURCE: Ekstrand J. (1996). Fluoride Intake. In: Fejerskov O, Ekstrand J, Burt B, Eds. Fluoride in Dentistry, 2nd Edition. Munksgaard, Denmark. Pages 40-52.

"[W]e recommend use of water with relatively low fluoride content (e.g. 0 to 0.3 ppm) as a dilutent for infant formulas and recommend that no fluoride supplements be given to infants."
SOURCE: Fomon SJ, Ekstrand J, Ziegler EE. (2000). Fluoride intake and prevalence of dental fluorosis: trends in fluoride intake with special attention to infants. Journal of Public Health Dentistry 60: 131-9.

"All health professionals should understand the risks of preparing infant formulas with optimally fluoridated water and give precise recommendations to their patients. Additionally, this information should be emphasized in public health policies."
SOURCE: Buzalaf M, et al. (2004). Risk of Fluorosis Associated With Infant Formulas Prepared With Bottled Water. Journal of Dentistry for Children 71:110-113.

"Breastfeeding of infants should be encouraged, both for the many documented, general health benefits and the relative protection against ingestion of excessive fluoride from high quantities of intake of fluoridated water used to reconstitute concentrated infant formula early in infancy."
SOURCE: Levy SM, Kiritsy MC, Warren JJ. (1995). Sources of fluoride intake in children. Journal of Public Health Dentistry 55: 39-52.

"Use of powder concentrate would be recommended only for those with low-fluoride water."
SOURCE: Levy SM, Kiritsy MC, Warren JJ. (1995). Sources of fluoride intake in children. Journal of Public Health Dentistry 55: 39-52.

"When infants are formula-fed, parents should be advised to reconstitute or dilute infant formula with deionized water (reverse osmosis, distilled, or low-fluoride bottledwater) in order to reduce the amount of systemically ingested fluoride."
SOURCE: Brothwell D, Limeback H. (2003). Breastfeeding is protective against dental fluorosis in a nonfluoridated rural area of Ontario, Canada. Journal of Human Lactation 19: 386-90.

"Our results suggest that the fluoride contribution of water used to reconstitute formulas increases risk of fluorosis and could be an area for intervention... Supporting long-term lactation could be an important strategy to decrease fluorosis risk of primary teeth and early developing permanent teeth."
SOURCE: Marshall TA, et al. (2004). Associations between Intakes of Fluoride from Beverages during Infancy and Dental Fluorosis of Primary Teeth. Journal of the American College of Nutrition 23:108-16.

"infant formulas should still be prepared using non-fluoridated water."
SOURCE: Clarkson JJ, McLoughlin J. (2000). Role of fluoride in oral health promotion. International Dental Journal 50:119-28.

"The recommendation is that bottled or deionized water be used instead (of fluoridated water) to dilute the formula."
SOURCE: Ekstrand J. (1989). Fluoride intake in early infancy. Journal of Nutrition 119(Suppl 12):1856-60.

"When formula concentrations need to be diluted, it is recommended parents use low fluoride bottled distilled water (labeled as "purified" or "distilled baby water") or tap water with a reverse osmosis home water filtration system attached that removes most of the fluoride."
SOURCE: Academy of General Dentistry. "Monitor Infant's Fluoride Intake." See article online

http://www.fluoridealert.org/health/infant/index.html

Posted by enviro-mom at 3/28/06 11:48 a.m.

I'm posting a release that has some very pertinent excerpts from the NRC report. One question should be asked here, after you view all of the questions raised by the report:

How do you feel about being a participant of an ongoing science experiment that can directly impact your health?

Please email to this address if you'd like to help make change in the Seattle area:
fluorideforum@comcast.net

FAN Science Watch
March 28, 2006

Issue #28: Excerpts from NRC Report

by Michael Connett

Last week, the National Research Council (NRC) released its long-awaited review of EPA's safe water standard for fluoride (4 ppm). See: http://www.fluoridealert.org/health/epa/nrc/index.html

As reported by the media, the NRC concluded that EPA's safety standard for fluoride is not safe and "should be lowered." According to the NRC, EPA's "safe" standard (4 ppm) puts a person at increased risk for both tooth and bone damage ("severe dental fluorosis" and bone fracture).

While most of the press coverage so far has focused on NRC's concerns with teeth and bone, there are many other serious concerns expressed in the NRC report.

To give readers an indication of the other concerns expressed by the NRC, we have reproduced a series of excerpts from the report (see below).

The excerpts detail the various systems in the body (e.g. nervous, endocrine, and immune) that fluoride may damage, and how these effects may be enhanced or mediated through fluoride's interactive/synergistic effects with other compounds (e.g. iodine deficiencies and aluminum overload).

When one couples the multitude of serious health concerns expressed by NRC, with their uncertainties on what the various safe vs. toxic doses are, it should cause a great deal of concern.

Here, for example, are what two of the NRC panel members  – Dr. Kathleen Thiessen and Dr. Robert Isaacson – had to say about the relevance of NRC's report to the water fluoridation program (see: http://www.portlandtribune.com/archview.cgi?id=34527 )

  However, some of the research that is validated by the report suggests that water-fluoridation levels advocated by Hamilton and Ferre may be unhealthy, two members of the NAS panel said in interviews with the Portland Tribune.
   NAS panel member Kathy Thiessen, a former senior scientist at Oak Ridge National Laboratory who has studied fluoride for the EPA, said the report showed "the potential is there" that water fluoridation is unhealthy. As for the studies finding that higher levels damage children's IQ, she said it's possible water fluoridation levels may have a similar, albeit reduced effect. She said in her personal opinion the research suggests "most people should minimize their fluoride intake" — which includes avoiding fluoridated water.
   "I think you can look at most chapters of this report and say, ‘Whoa,' " she said. "We have made major strides from previous (looks) at this topic."
   NAS panel member Robert Isaacson, a distinguished professor of neurobehavioral science at the State University of New York in Binghamton, agreed, saying that the possible effects on endocrines and hormones from water-fluoridation are "something that I wouldn't want to happen to me if I had any say in the matter."

         The report "should be a wake-up call," he added.

For more information, and news articles, on NRC's review, see: http://www.fluoridealert.org/health/epa/nrc/index.html

###

Excerpts from: "Fluoride in Drinking Water: A Scientific Review of EPA's Standards" (National Research Council, 2006)

FLUORIDE'S EFFECTS ON THE BRAIN:

"On the basis of information largely derived from histological, chemical, and molecular  studies, it is apparent that fluorides have the ability to interfere with the functions of the brain  and the body by direct and indirect means." p187  

"A few epidemiologic studies of Chinese populations have reported IQ  deficits in children exposed to fluoride at 2.5 to 4 mg/L in drinking water.  Although the studies lacked sufficient detail for the committee to fully assess their quality and relevance to U.S. populations, the consistency of the results appears significant enough to warrant additional research on the effects of fluoride on intelligence." p6

"histopathological changes similar to those traditionally associated with Alzheimer's disease in people have been seen in rats chronically exposed to AlF." p178

"Fluorides also increase the production of free radicals in the brain through several  different biological pathways.  These changes have a bearing on the possibility that fluorides act to increase the risk of developing Alzheimer's disease." p186  

"More research is needed to clarify fluoride's biochemical effects on the brain." p186  

"The possibility has been raised by the studies conducted in China that fluoride can lower intellectual abilities.  Thus, studies of populations exposed to different concentrations of fluoride in drinking water should include measurements of reasoning ability, problem solving, IQ, and short- and long-term memory." p187

"Studies of populations exposed to different concentrations of fluoride should be undertaken to evaluate neurochemical changes that may be associated with dementia.   Consideration should be given to assessing effects from chronic exposure, effects that might be delayed or occur late-in-life, and individual susceptibility." p187

"Additional animal studies designed to evaluate reasoning are needed." p. 187

FLUORIDE'S EFFECTS ON THE ENDOCRINE SYSTEM:

"In summary, evidence of several types indicates that fluoride affects normal endocrine  function or response; the effects of the fluoride-induced changes vary in degree and kind in  different individuals.  Fluoride is therefore an endocrine disruptor in the broad sense of altering normal endocrine function or response, although probably not in the sense of mimicking a normal hormone.  The mechanisms of action remain to be worked out and appear to include both direct and indirect mechanisms, for example, direct stimulation or inhibition of hormone secretion by interference with second messenger function, indirect stimulation or inhibition of  hormone secretion by effects on things such as calcium balance, and inhibition of peripheral  enzymes that are necessary for activation of the normal hormone." p223

"Some of these [endocrine] effects are associated with fluoride intake that is achievable at fluoride concentrations in drinking water of 4 mg/L or less, especially for young children or for individuals with high water intake.  Many of the effects could be considered subclinical effects, meaning that they are not adverse health effects.  However, recent work on borderline hormonal imbalances and endocrine-disrupting chemicals indicated that adverse health effects, or increased risks for developing adverse effects, might be associated with seemingly mild imbalances or perturbations in hormone concentrations.  Further research is needed to explore these possibilities." p7

"Further effort is necessary to characterize the direct and indirect mechanisms of fluoride's action on the endocrine system and the factors that determine the response, if any, in a given individual."  p223

"The effects of fluoride on various aspects of endocrine function should be examined further, particularly with respect to a possible role in the development of several diseases or mental states in the United States." p224

FLUORIDE'S EFFECTS ON THE THYROID:

"Fluoride exposure in humans is associated with elevated TSH concentrations, increased  goiter prevalence, and altered T4 and T3 concentrations; similar effects on T4 and T3 are reported in experimental animals.." p218

"In humans,  effects on thyroid function were associated with fluoride exposures of 0.05-0.13 mg/kg/day when iodine intake was adequate and 0.01-0.03 mg/kg/day when iodine intake was inadequate." p218

"The recent decline in iodine intake in the United States (CDC  2002d; Larsen et al. 2002) could contribute to increased toxicity of fluoride for some individuals." p218

"Intake of nutrients such as calcium and iodine often is not reported in studies of  fluoride effects.  The effects of fluoride on thyroid function, for instance, might depend on whether iodine intake is low, adequate, or high, or whether dietary selenium is adequate." p222

FLUORIDE'S EFFECTS ON THE PINEAL GLAND:

"The single animal study of pineal function indicates that fluoride exposure results inaltered melatonin production and altered timing of sexual maturity (Table 8-1).  Whether fluoride affects pineal function in humans remains to be demonstrated.  The two studies of menarcheal age in humans show the possibility of earlier menarche in some individuals exposed to fluoride, but no definitive statement can be made. Recent information on the role of the pineal organ in humans suggests that any agent that affects pineal function could affect human health in a variety of ways, including effects on sexual maturation, calcium metabolism, parathyroid function, postmenopausal osteoporosis, cancer, and psychiatric disease." p221-22

FLUORIDE'S EFFECTS ON INSULIN SECRETION/DIABETES:

"The conclusion from the available studies is that sufficient fluoride exposure appears to bring about increases in blood glucose or  impaired glucose tolerance in some individuals and to increase the severity of some types of diabetes.  In general, impaired glucose metabolism appears to be associated with serum or plasma fluoride concentrations of about 0.1 mg/L or greater in both animals and humans. In addition, diabetic individuals will often have higher than normal water intake, and consequently, will have higher than normal  fluoride intake for a given concentration of fluoride in drinking water.  An estimated 16-20 million people in the U.S. have diabetes mellitus; therefore, any role of fluoride exposure in the development of impaired glucose metabolism or diabetes is potentially significant." p. 217

FLUORIDE'S EFFECTS ON THE IMMUNE SYSTEM:

"Nevertheless, patients who live in either an artificially fluoridated community or a  community where the drinking water naturally contains fluoride at 4 mg/L have all accumulated  fluoride in their skeletal systems and potentially have very high fluoride concentrations in their  bones.  The bone marrow is where immune cells develop and that could affect  humoral immunity and the production of antibodies to foreign chemicals." p249

"There is no question that fluoride can affect the cells involved in providing immune  responses.  The question is what proportion, if any, of the population consuming drinking water  containing fluoride at 4.0 mg/L on a regular basis will have their immune systems compromised?   Not a single epidemiologic study has investigated whether fluoride in the drinking water at 4  mg/L is associated with changes in immune function.  Nor has any study examined whether a  person with an immunodeficiency disease can tolerate fluoride ingestion from drinking water." p250

"bone concentrates fluoride and the blood-borne  progenitors could be exposed to exceptionally high fluoride concentrations.  Thus, more research  needs to be carried out before one can state that drinking water containing fluoride at 4 mg/L has  no effect on the immune system." p250   

"it is important to consider subpopulations that accumulate large  concentrations of fluoride in their bones (e.g., renal patients).  When bone turnover occurs, the  potential exists for immune system cells and stem cells to be exposed to concentrations of  fluoride in the interstitial fluids of bone that are higher than would be found in serum.  From an  immunologic standpoint, individuals who are immunocompromised (e.g., AIDS, transplant, and  bone-marrow-replacement patients) could be at greater risk of the immunologic effects of  fluoride." p 258

"Within 250 ?m of a site of resorption, it is possible to encounter progenitor cells that give  rise to bone, blood, and fat.  Thus, one must assume that these cells would be exposed to high  concentrations of fluoride.  At this time, it is not possible to predict what effect this exposure would have on the functioning of skeletal elements, hematopoiesis, and adipose formation." p115

"It is paramount that careful biochemical studies be conducted to determine what  fluoride concentrations occur in the bone and surrounding interstitial fluids from exposure to  fluoride in drinking water at up to 4 mg/L, because bone marrow is the source of the progenitors  that produce the immune system cells." p 259

"In addition, studies could be conducted to determine what percentage of immunocompromised  subjects have adverse reactions when exposed to fluoride in the range of 1-4 mg/L in drinking  water." p259

FLUORIDE'S INTERACTIVE/SYNERGISTIC EFFECTS (w/ IODINE, ALUMINUM, ETC):

"Intake of nutrients such as calcium and iodine often is not reported in studies of  fluoride effects.  The effects of fluoride on thyroid function, for instance, might depend on whether iodine intake is low, adequate, or high, or whether dietary selenium is adequate." p222

"Better characterization of exposure to fluoride is needed in epidemiology studies  investigating potential effects.  Important exposure aspects of such studies would include the  following:  collecting data on general dietary status and dietary factors that could influence exposure or effects, such as calcium, iodine, and aluminum intakes."  p72

"Available information now indicates a role for aluminum in the interaction of fluoride on the second messenger system; thus, differences in aluminum exposure might explain some of the differences in response to fluoride exposures among individuals and populations." p222  

"With the increasing prevalence of acid rain, metal ions such as aluminum become more soluble and enter our day-to-day environment; the opportunity for bioactive forms of AlF to exist has increased in the past 100 years.  Human  exposure to aluminofluorides can occur when a person ingests both a fluoride source (e.g.,  fluoride in drinking water) and an aluminum source; sources of human exposure to aluminum include drinking water, tea, food residues, infant formula, aluminum-containing antacids or medications, deodorants, cosmetics, and glassware." p42

"Further research should include characterization of both the exposure conditions and the physiological conditions (for fluoride and for aluminum or beryllium) under which  aluminofluoride and beryllofluoride complexes can be expected to occur in humans as well as  the biological effects that could result." p42

"Another possible explanation for increased blood lead concentrations which has not been examined is the effect of  fluoride intake on calcium metabolism; a review by Goyer (1995) indicates that higher blood and tissue concentrations of lead occur when the diet is low in calcium.  Increased fluoride exposure appears to increase the dietary requirement for calcium (see Chapter 8); in addition, the substitution of tap-water based beverages (e.g., soft  drinks or reconstituted juices) for dairy products would result in both increased fluoride intake and decreased  calcium intake." p43

"[G]iven the expected presence of fluoride ion (from any fluoridation source) and silica (native to the water) in any fluoridated tap water, it  would be useful to examine what happens when that tap water is used to make acidic beverages  or products (commercially or in homes), especially fruit juice from concentrate, tea, and soft  drinks.  Although neither Urbansky (2002) nor Morris (2004) discusses such beverages, both indicate that at pH less than 5, SiF6 2- would be present, so it seems reasonable to expect that some SiF6 2-  would be present in acidic beverages but not in the tap water used to prepare the beverages.   Consumption rates of these beverages are high for many people, and therefore the possibility of  biological effects of SiF62-, as opposed to free fluoride ion, should be examined." p44

FLUORIDE'S EFFECTS ON THE REPRODUCTIVE SYSTEM:

"A few human studies suggested that high concentrations of fluoride exposure might  be associated with alterations in reproductive hormones, effects on fertility, and developmental  outcomes, but design limitations make those studies insufficient for risk evaluation." p6

"the relationship between fertility  and fluoride requires additional study." p161

FLUORIDE & DOWNS SYNDROME:

"The possible association of cytogenetic effects with fluoride exposure suggests that Down's syndrome is a biologically plausible outcome of exposure." p170

"A reanalysis of data on Down's syndrome and fluoride by Takahashi (1998) suggested a  possible association in children born to young mothers.  A case-control study of the incidence of  Down's syndrome in young women and fluoride exposure would be useful for addressing that  issue.  However, it may be particularly difficult to study the incidence of Down's syndrome  today given increased fetal genetic testing and concerns with confidentiality." 172

FLUORIDE'S EFFECTS ON THE GASTROINTESTINAL SYSTEM:

"The numerous fluoridation studies in the  past failed to rigorously test for changes in GI symptoms and there are no studies on drinking water containing fluoride at 4 mg/L in which GI symptoms were carefully documented." p230

"GI effects appear to have been rarely evaluated in the fluoride supplement studies that followed the early ones in the 1950s and 1960s." p231

"The table suggests that fluoride at 4 mg/L in the drinking water results in approximately 1% of the population experiencing GI symptoms." p231

"Whether fluoride activates G proteins in the gut epithelium at very low doses (e.g., from fluoridated water at 4.0 mg/L) and has  significant effects on the gut cell chemistry must be examined in biochemical studies." p236  

"There are a few case reports of GI upset in subjects exposed to drinking water fluoridated at 1 mg/L.  Those effects were observed in only a small number of cases, which suggest hypersensitivity.  However, the available data are not robust enough to determine whether that is the case." p. 250

"Studies are needed to evaluate gastric responses to fluoride from natural sources at  concentrations up to 4 mg/L and from artificial sources." p. 258

FLUORIDE'S EFFECTS ON THE LIVER:

"It is possible that a lifetime ingestion of 5-10 mg/day from drinking water containing 4 mg/L might turn out to have long-term  effects on the liver, and this should be investigated in future epidemiologic studies." p248  

"The effect of low doses of fluoride on kidney and liver enzyme functions in humans  needs to be carefully documented in communities exposed to different concentrations of fluoride  in drinking water." p258

FLUORIDE'S EFFECTS ON THE KIDNEY:

"Human kidneys... concentrate fluoride as much as 50-fold from plasma to urine.  Portions of the renal system may therefore be at higher risk of fluoride toxicity than most soft tissues." p236

"Early water fluoridation studies did not carefully assess changes in renal function." p236

"future studies should be directed toward determining whether kidney  stone formation is the most sensitive end point on which to base the MCLG." p247

"On the basis of studies carried out on people living in regions where there is endemic fluorosis, ingestion of fluoride at 12 mg per day would increase the risk for some people to develop adverse renal effects." p247

"The effect of low doses of fluoride on kidney and liver enzyme functions in humans needs to be carefully documented in communities exposed to different concentrations of fluoride  in drinking water." p258

FLUORIDE & CANCER:

"Fluoride appears to have the potential to initiate or promote cancers, particularly of the  bone, but the evidence to date is tentative and mixed (Tables 10-4 and 10-5).  As noted above,  osteosarcoma is of particular concern as a potential effect of fluoride because of (1) fluoride  deposition in bone, (2) the mitogenic effect of fluoride on bone cells, (3) animal results described  above, and (4) pre-1993 publication of some positive, as well as negative, epidemiologic reports on associations of fluoride exposure with osteosarcoma risk." p. 286

"Because fluoride stimulates osteoblast proliferation, there is a theoretical risk that it might induce  a malignant change in the expanding cell population.  This has raised concerns that fluoride  exposure might be an independent risk factor for new osteosarcomas." p109

"Osteosarcoma presents the greatest a priori plausibility as a potential cancer target site  because of fluoride's deposition in bone, the NTP animal study findings of borderline increased  osteosarcomas in male rats, and the known mitogenic effect of fluoride on bone cells in culture  (see Chapter 5).  Principles of cell biology indicate that stimuli for rapid cell division increase  the risks for some of the dividing cells to become malignant, either by inducing random transforming events or by unmasking malignant cells that previously were in nondividing states." p275

"Further research on a possible effect of fluoride on bladder cancer risk should be conducted." p288

Posted by unregistered user at 7/6/08 8:40 p.m.

I've researched and learned that many people like myself are realizing the negative health effects of fluoride in their source water. I've been using the FluorideMaster whole house fluoride water filtration system and am impressed on how well it performs to completely remove or significantly reduce the floride in my water. I know that the company Vitasalus at http://www.vitasalus.com or http://www.equinox-products.com sells the FlourideMaster Whole Home Fluoride Water Filter System.