This paper appears on the National Institutes of Health website, and it seems to say that fluoridation of water is a known cause of neurological degradation. The entire thrust of the paper is testing another substance to block the toxicity of the fluoride. Here is the most relevent quote:
As I said in the thread title, I am not one to subscribe to conspiracy theory, but this article appears to me as a smoking gun. Yes Fluoride has its benefits, but it has some really bad side effects, which the public are kept in the dark on.
So here is the debate:
Resolved, Fluoridation of public drinking water should be suspended until the effects of neurotoxicity of Fluoride can be effectively mitigated or a replacement for fluoride is found.
The subject paper’s opening line sounds dramatic, but it’s not what you think it is. Note that the authors of the paper are faculty at Sukhadia University, India. India does have an acute Fluoride toxicity problem, but this is due to well water poisoned by granite rocks:
Fluoride, like many elements, is toxic at high concentrations. At low concentrations, however, it offers significant dental health benefits, which is the reason municipalities fluoridate water.
I think you will find that these toxic effects occur only at concentrations much, much higher than those found in artificially fluoridated drinking water. Mildly toxic (or close to toxic) concentrations, however, may be found in a few of those places around the world where the water naturally contains significant amounts of fluoride, without it being deliberately added (because it is in the local rocks). I think it is probably this latter problem that the authors of your paper are concerned about.
The CDC says that the optimum fluoride concentration is drink water is 1.0 ppm. The US EPA set a maximum level for fluoride in drinking water of 4.0 ppm. The mice in the referenced study in the OP were given water with 120 ppm of fluorine.
The fact that those mice suffered ill effects is utterly irrelevant to the safety of fluoride in drinking water.
What is the conspiracy and what nefarious thing is it trying to be accomplish with Fluoridation? Does it have anything to do with our Precious Bodily Fluids?
More generally helpful, I’ve found, is referencing toxicity in whole. I refer to the axiom “the dose makes the poison” and also references for waterand oxygentoxicities.
Water is completely safe to drink, until you take in so much that you disturb your body’s chemical balance. Oxygen is completely safe to breathe, until you breathe it under pressure or at high saturations for long periods of time.
There is not one thing on this planet that is “completely safe” but there are myriad things that are “casually safe” - they are safe in almost every instance that a common person will come into contact with it.
dofe: I don’t know anyone, anyone at all, here in China who drinks water that isn’t delivered in a bottle. No kidding; I’ve yet to see anyone drink tap water or well water.
The problem with saying “conspiracy theorists might be on to something” is that generally speaking, it isn’t labeled a conspiracy theory unless the majority of available experts are clearly against it. In this case, the vaaaaast majority of available experts are clearly and explicitly against it and have been for more than 50 years. One paper wouldn’t be enough to overturn it even if the paper said what CTers claim it says.
Poison is in the dose. Water and oxygen can poison you in high enough doses. Too much protein can cause kidney damage. Most of the necessary vitamins and minerals we die without can also poison us in high doses. I would be shocked if there weren’t some lethal dose of fluoride at some point.
Also, RE: the polio serum scare. There was a vaccine made by Cutter where the virus was not properly killed, and made some children sick, who then caused outbreaks in areas where the vaccination had not yet reached. But only the Cutter pharmacy made people sick, and the government was all over it, and it was pulled. It was a tragedy, but the incident does show what actually happens when an unsafe vaccine gets made. Another unsafe polio vaccine got made at one point, when the government was trying to cut costs-- the Sabin vaccine, and it did take a little time before the government caught on, the reason being that it wasn’t that unsafe, not unsafe like the Cutter version of the Salk vaccine (the Salk vaccine, when prepared properly, is very, very safe); but again, once people figured out that it made a small number of children sick (children with minor immune system problems that had not been diagnosed), the government returned to the more expensive, but safer Salk vaccine.
The Sabin vaccine could be administered orally, so anyone, not necessarily a medical person, could give it out; the Salk vaccine had to be injected, and required a doctor or nurse. That was what made the Salk vaccine more expensive.
Reiterating that the fluoride level that was used to (supposedly) induce neurotoxicity in Swiss albino mice in that study was 30 times the upper level of fluoride tolerated in drinking water by the EPA.
The authors of the study get off to a very bad start by saying “the F toxicity through drinking water is well-recognized as a global problem.” Um, no it is not. It should be noted that there are communities in the U.S. with naturally high fluoride content in drinking water, and problems with neurotoxicity have not been identified (excess fluoride can cause pitting in teeth - a cosmetic problem).
I would be skeptical about any paper that inaccurately cites a laundry list of health problems attributed to fluoride. Journals devoted to CAM (complementary and alternative medicine) don’t tend to enforce the most rigorous standards for research.
In summary this is not a “smoking gun” but a very damp and fizzled firecracker.
