Thread: Sodium Flouride's effect on the pineal gland

Fluoride is not toxic in the concentrations in which it is found in drinking water.

Actually the pineal gland is responsible for synthesis of Melatonin. It has only been speculated that DMT may be produced in the pineal glad, but there is no scientific evidence supporting this. Fluoride's main target is not the pineal gland, but water fluoridation does indeed have an affect on the pineal gland, which is outside of the blood brain barrier and is a calcifying tissue.

Ok thanks. I don't think we should have flouride still

If you wish to discontinue using toothpaste, I recommend tooth soap. Look it up.

There is fluoride free toothpaste you can buy at any convenience store. It's definitely not as "refreshing" feeling...but at least it's poison free.

Isnt flouride rat poison?

flouride toothpaste = biggest scam ever
I heard the flouride they put in water is toxic waste from aliluminum production I think?
They put it in the water supply because its cheaper to do that than dispose of it properly.
I also heard that flouride actually eats away at your tooth enamel, but it kills the bacteria in your mouth that produce acids that eat away at your tooth enamel.
So I guess baking soda would nutralise the acid produced by the bacteria that eat sugars in your mouth.
Also you can rinse hydrogen peroxide to kill the bacteria in your mouth.

Originally Posted by saltyseedog

flouride toothpaste = biggest scam ever
I heard the flouride they put in water is toxic waste from aliluminum production I think?
They put it in the water supply because its cheaper to do that than dispose of it properly.
I also heard that flouride actually eats away at your tooth enamel, but it kills the bacteria in your mouth that produce acids that eat away at your tooth enamel.
So I guess baking soda would nutralise the acid produced by the bacteria that eat sugars in your mouth.
Also you can rinse hydrogen peroxide to kill the bacteria in your mouth.

Where'd you hear this? I believe you, I just want to know your sources.

Originally Posted by Xei

Fluoride is not toxic in the concentrations in which it is found in drinking water.

Doesn't make it okay. Doesn't mean it won't affect you in the long run.

If you brush with baking soda, you'll quickly wear your teeth away. It is quite abrasive. Once in a while is fine, but if you do it every single time, you won't have teeth for long.

And seriously, you people are concerned over nothing. Fluoridation of drinking water has contributed to a nice improvement of overall dental health. The amounts are so tiny that they won't hurt you, and believe it or not, your body does require fluorine in minute quantities. So kindly stfu about conspiracies. Okay?

of coarse its not... now go back to sleep sheepy

I once did a research paper on the effects of fluoride consumption on public health, and it does seem we would be much better off without it. Excessive fluoride intake from public water supplies can cause dental fluorosis, a medical condition which discolors the teeth, among numerous other health conditions, some of which I will list below. Numerous studies have proven that fluoride is only effective when applied topically to the teeth, and not when ingested.

Main health conditions caused by fluoride intake:
-Skeletal Fluorosis (aka "Bone Disease"), an arthritic skeletal disease
-IQ deficits in children
-Damage to cells and neurotransmitters in the brain of the developing fetus
-Central Nervous System disturbances among adults
-Impaired learning and memory functions in animal studies
-Direct toxic effects of fluoride on the brain
-Genetic damage
-Dental fluorosis (mentioned above), a commonly found (20%-80%) discoloring of the teeth, negating the assertion that fluoride ingestion has any real cosmetic dental benefits
-Increased teeth porosity, leading to pitting, chipping, fracturing, and decay of teeth (belying any reasonable amount of improved overall public tooth health)
-Pineal Gland calcification, causing depressed melatonin synthesis and altered timing of sexual maturity; the Pineal Gland contains the highest levels of fluoride in the entire human body
-Reduced fertility and semen potency
-Hypothyroidism (suppressed Thyroid Gland activity)


For more detailed information and countless studies on the effects of fluoride on public health, you may go to fluoridealert.org and click on the Health Effects Database link on the left. Note the .org; the American Dental Association redirects fluoridealert.com to their own website.


Mario92, it's not much of a conspiracy theory rather than a political battle. Public water fluoridation was in no way motivated by scientific studies on its health benefits. In any case, it's not the first time our government has used misinformation to fuel their own agenda. I am in no way a paranoid conspiracy theorist; I am simply an American citizen who chooses to inform myself (and others, sometimes) on public issues concerning myself and others.

"The EPA was pressured by supporters of fluoride, however well-meaning, and by states that would have to remove excess fluoride, to raise the standard to a level that now borders on unsafe, according to EPA's own scientific review. EPA's actions were not driven by science, but by political pressure from supporters of fluoride."
- Journal of the Academy of General Dentistry, February 1987

>implying there's actually enough fluoride in the water to actually cause any of those health issues, which there is not.
>implying drinking water never makes contact with teeth
>implying fluoride is pure poison and has absolutely no benefit other than cosmetic dental appearance

There is also Chlorine in our drinking water.
So destilling drinking water is allways a good idea.

Originally Posted by SKA

There is also Chlorine in our drinking water.
So destilling drinking water is allways a good idea.

Chloride is a chemical the human body needs for metabolism (the process of turning food into energy). It also helps keep the body's acid-base balance. The amount of chloride in the blood is carefully controlled by the kidneys.

Chloride ions have important physiological roles. For instance, in the central nervous system, the inhibitory action of glycine and some of the action of GABA relies on the entry of Cl− into specific neurons. Also, the chloride-bicarbonate exchanger biological transport protein relies on the chloride ion to increase the blood's capacity of carbon dioxide, in the form of the bicarbonate ion.

Chlorine kills the good bacteria that help you digest food. Distilled water can be good if you want to detox, but its not good for regular consumtion because it has no minerals. Also water that comes in plastic has... plastic in it.

>again implying there's a significant enough amount of chlorine in drinking water to do any real harm

well there is enough to kill bacteria

>implying bacteria don't reproduce
>implying there is significant or long-term damage that comes from killing off the bacteria
>implying there is enough chlorine left in the water to kill the bacteria by the time it actually reaches them

Originally Posted by Mario92

>implying there's actually enough fluoride in the water to actually cause any of those health issues, which there is not.

Do you have any studies indicating there is not enough fluoride to cause any of those health issues? There is certainly an abundance of studies referenced on fluoridealert.org stating otherwise. Feel free to take a look sometime.

In any case, I merely provided an array of health conditions caused by fluoride intake. Nowhere did I imply that all of those health conditions were caused at absolute normal levels of fluoride consumption (although I would like to point out that most of the effects of fluoride on the brain, including calcification of the pineal gland, are commonly found at the regular levels of fluoride consumption of 1.0 ppm). I haven't looked too in-depth into the matter, but other health conditions I listed may also be caused at the regular fluoride dosage. Aside from that, I would like to point out that I simply stated my position on the subject; nowhere did I assume anything you are suggesting, and if I did throw in a couple statements prompting the reader to assume anything you are saying, I would like you to point them out to me so I can keep that in mind in later debates. I, as I am sure is the case with most others too, would really appreciate it if you didn't try to put words and 'assumptions' into my mouth. Thank you.

Originally Posted by Mario92

>implying drinking water never makes contact with teeth

Although it may have a relatively small effect, fluoridated drinking water doesn't make contact with teeth long enough to have any substantial effects. The accepted "optimal level" of fluoride in water is 1 ppm, in contrast to the level of fluoride found in most toothpaste (around 1450 ppm) which is brushed onto the entire surface of the cleaned teeth for around 60 seconds, a recommended two or three times per day. Let's say the average person brushes his or her teeth twice per day. That means an average of 120 seconds of tooth contact with toothpaste is recommended per day at a fluoride concentration of 1450 ppm.
Now consider this. The recommended amount of drinking water per day is 8 cups, which equates to about 160 swallows (see this study) per day. Let's say each swallow of water takes around two seconds to pass over the teeth, give or take half a second. That means 320 seconds of tooth contact with water is recommended per day at a fluoride concentration of 1 ppm.

To give a more accurate comparison of the two, the 120 seconds of 1450 ppm F topical dosage must be adjusted to the calculated concentration of fluoride for 320 seconds. Multiplying 120 by 2 2/3 and dividing 1450 ppm by 2 2/3 gives us 320 seconds of 543.75 ppm F. Let's compare this to the concentration of fluoride found in drinking water. 320 seconds of 1 ppm F topically applied while the water is swallowed throughout the day. That means the concentration of fluoride found in toothpaste, when topically applied, is over 540 times more effective than the contact of fluoride provided by drinking fluoridated drinking water. You would need to drink the recommended amount of publicly fluoridated water for 540 days to get the same amount of treatment provided by two one-minute sessions of tooth brushing.

One might also point out that a few cities have exceeded the optimal level of water fluoridation of 1.0 ppm and increased the fluoride concentration to up to 4.0 ppm, which is generally deemed to be borderline dangerous to one's health. If one were living in such a community, that would shorten the length of time needed to obtain the same amount of topical treatment as one day of brushing the teeth through drinking fluoridated water from 540 days to 135 days. Even at that concentration of fluoride in public water supplies, it seems as though fluoride consumption doesn't have much of an effect on tooth health according to these calculations.

Originally Posted by Mario92

>implying fluoride is pure poison and has absolutely no benefit other than cosmetic dental appearance

As with the rest of the words you're trying to put into my mouth, I never assumed this. Since you bring the subject up, though, I do admit that the cosmetic dental effects of fluoride are in fact the most widely acknowledged effects of water fluoridation. I have read elsewhere that fluoride may have positive effects on bone health, but these assertions are subject to the same political bias as those concerning fluoride's effect on tooth health and must be treated as such, by questioning them with studies such as those generously provided by the Fluoride Action Network. I do digress, though; if fluoride does have a positive effect on any part of the body (which I have yet to see solid proof of), then it is still capable of causing negative effects throughout other parts of the human body (such as the pineal gland, which was the initial concern upon creating this topic).


Good day to you, sir.

-MindGames

And I would like to direct your attention to this source.

Fluoride may be ingested or applied topically. If foods containing fluoride (such as meat, fish, eggs, and tea leaves) are consumed, then fluoride enters the bloodstream and is eventually absorbed by the teeth and bones. Many communities add fluoride to the drinking water to ensure that the recommended levels are obtained.

Fluoride can also be applied directly to teeth by a professional in a dental office. The teeth will readily absorb topical fluoride treatments, and the chemical will remain in the mouth for several hours. Less thorough topical fluoride treatments may also be applied at home using products such as toothpaste, mouthwash or mouth rinse, fluoride gels, or fluoride supplements.

I'd be quite wary of any source that states fluoride can only be absorbed through the teeth. Tell me...how does the bloodstream factor into your 540 day calculation?

Many governmental health agencies recommend that both children and adults receive some level of fluoride. Children need fluoride to protect their permanent teeth as they are forming. Adults need fluoride so that they can continue to protect teeth against tooth decay. Several groups of people could benefit especially from fluoride treatments because they have a higher risk of tooth decay.

When used properly, fluoride is usually considered a safe and effective tool to prevent tooth decay. However, high levels of fluoride exposure for extended periods of time may result in harm. For example, dental fluorosis - a discoloration of tooth enamel - may occur if a person is exposed to too much fluoride. In addition, it is possible for a lifetime of exposure to high fluoride levels to lead to bone weakening and skeletal fluorosis (joint stiffness and pain).

More extreme, toxic effects may result if someone consumes too much fluoride. Fluoride overdose is possible, for example, if a small child consumes an entire tube of tooth paste. Symptoms include nausea, vomiting blood, diarrhea, stomach pain, salivation, watery eyes, general weakness, shallow breathing, faintness, tiredness, and convulsions.

Although scientific research has supported the benefits of fluoride treatment in preventing tooth decay, many people question its safety and effectiveness. Several interest groups cite recent increases in dental fluorosis and fluoride levels in water that exceed optimal levels in calling for an end to fluoridated drinking water. They deem fluoride treatments unnecessary and less useful and more dangerous than originally thought.

And you'll note that I used the word "imply," not "state." You ARE implying, whether you intend to or not.

Ah, I do see where my first post may have caused some confusion. Public water fluoridation is not the only source of fluoride that can be ingested and therefore contribute to causing fluoride-related health conditions; it seems I should have made that more clear for you. Fluoride is also added to other sources such as toothpaste, mouthwash, (I quote your source) "meat, fish, eggs, and tea leaves"; fluoride gels, fluoride supplements, et cetera; and in the case of gels, toothpaste and mouthwash, small amounts of fluoride actually are unintentionally ingested during usage. I assure you, I did not intentionally imply that public water supplies were the only source of fluoride ingestion. My position still stands, though, that public water supplies should not be fluoridated in the first place, and I also maintain that fluoride ingestion from fluoridated water alone causes several health conditions in and of itself (which I later made clear in my second post). I also did not imply that the fluoride in fluoridated water does not make contact with the teeth; the implications, rather, were that the contact of fluoride with teeth when ingested via fluoridated water is ineffective, or not effective enough, in providing any cosmetic dental benefit. Lastly, at the levels we are ingesting fluoride via public water fluoridation and other means, I certainly do believe it is poisonous to our bodies, and may have suggested that in particular in my first post (although not that it is pure poison). I certainly did not imply that fluoride does not have any other possible benefits in the human body when ingested, but even if it did have benefits, I strongly believe that the negative side effects far outweigh any potential benefits.


Onto the article you generously provided.

In response to fluoride being absorbed through the bloodstream, it is acknowledged by researchers that this method of fluoride treatment is not effective; topical fluoride treatment is the only method which benefits tooth health. Take a look at my source, which has plenty of research to back up its statements: (In fact, I'd be rather wary of your source when it has virtually no research sources listed, and whose primary purpose is news-related; not necessarily scientific, which is the appropriate type of source for this debate.)

Originally Posted by Fluoride Action Network

When water fluoridation first began in the 1940s, dentists believed that fluoride's main benefit came from ingesting fluoride during the early years of life. This belief held sway for over 40 years.

However, it is now acknowledged by dental researchers to be incorrect. According to the Centers for Disease Control, fluoride's predominant effect is TOPICAL (direct contact with teeth) and not systemic (from ingestion).

Hence, there is no need to ingest fluoride to derive it's purported benefit for teeth.

As stated by the US Centers for Disease Control:

"[L]aboratory and epidemiologic research suggests that fluoride prevents dental caries predominately after eruption of the tooth into the mouth, and its actions primarily are topical for both adults and children" (CDC, 1999, MMWR 48: 933-940).

Notice the sources listed on the page I got that quote from. That's what we're shooting for here. Research sources.

Unless you can provide research sources showing evidence in favor of the claims made by your "source", your assertion that fluoride is effective for treatment of teeth when absorbed through the bloodstream remains invalid. Also, some of the parts you emphasized in your first quote didn't even help prove your bloodstream theory; it has already been made known that topical fluoride treatments are readily absorbed through the teeth. That doesn't back up your first assertion at all. I realize you might have been trying to make the point that topical fluoride treatment is effective in addition to fluoride ingestion, but all that does is imply that fluoride ingestion is in fact effective when in reality, you don't have research sources to back up that claim anyway. But yes, it is widely held that topical fluoride treatment is effective.

Onto your second quotation.

Many governmental health agencies recommend that both children and adults receive some level of fluoride. Children need fluoride to protect their permanent teeth as they are forming. Adults need fluoride so that they can continue to protect teeth against tooth decay. Several groups of people could benefit especially from fluoride treatments because they have a higher risk of tooth decay.

Notice that the first sentence only states that some level of fluoride is recommended, and not by what means. In any case, I am sure government agencies recommend public water fluoridation since government is responsible for putting fluoride in our water in the first place. In response to that, water fluoridation is not the only means of, and is hardly the safest and most effective method of, treating individuals with fluoride. The rest of the quote is true from what I can tell, but does not necessarily prove your point since fluoride treatments do not have to come in the form of public water fluoridation when there are safer and more effective methods of fluoride treatments than via ingestion.

Onto your third quote.

When used properly, fluoride is usually considered a safe and effective tool to prevent tooth decay. However, high levels of fluoride exposure for extended periods of time may result in harm. For example, dental fluorosis - a discoloration of tooth enamel - may occur if a person is exposed to too much fluoride. In addition, it is possible for a lifetime of exposure to high fluoride levels to lead to bone weakening and skeletal fluorosis (joint stiffness and pain).

More extreme, toxic effects may result if someone consumes too much fluoride. Fluoride overdose is possible, for example, if a small child consumes an entire tube of tooth paste. Symptoms include nausea, vomiting blood, diarrhea, stomach pain, salivation, watery eyes, general weakness, shallow breathing, faintness, tiredness, and convulsions.

Yes, fluoride is considered a safe and effective tool to prevent tooth decay, but only when it is applied topically, and not when ingested, as I have shown. My response to the rest of the first paragraph is that, yes, there is too much fluoride in publicly fluoridated water, and that, yes, some of those conditions can be caused by consuming enough of it, especially when fluoride levels are raised from the harmful levels of 1 part per million to the dangerous levels of 4 parts per million, which has happened in some areas. That only proves that fluoride can be dangerous, which supports my position.
In response to the second paragraph, yes, since fluoride is a toxic substance, it is logical that if you consume large amounts of it, you are going to have some nasty side effects. That further proves how unsafe fluoride is when ingested.

Now, for the last section you quoted:

Several interest groups cite recent increases in dental fluorosis and fluoride levels in water that exceed optimal levels in calling for an end to fluoridated drinking water. They deem fluoride treatments unnecessary and less useful and more dangerous than originally thought.

It is mentioned that the amount of fluoride in fluoridated drinking water exceeds the deemed "optimal levels" (1 ppm), and that (I will assume here that "fluoride treatment" refers to water fluoridation) water fluoridation is now deemed to be unnecessary and "more dangerous than originally thought." This adds strength to my position that public water supplies should not be fluoridated, rather than support your position. What were you trying to prove by emphasizing the fact that fluoride levels have recently increased? What must really be brought to attention is the fact that your source mentions how dangerous and unnecessary water fluoridation actually is, in contrast to what was previously deemed to be a safe and effective treatment. I tip my hat to you for quoting information in favor of my position.


Your last post seemed to largely disprove your theory that water fluoridation is beneficial. Tell me, what are you trying to prove here?
Or are you simply grasping at straws?



Til next time,

-MindGames.

What I want to see is a peer-reviewed scientific study that states, very clearly, that public water fluoridation carries with it significant long-term health risks, and that those health risks are the exclusive result of said public water fluoridation. Otherwise, it is a harmless practice that at least contributes to people receiving the proper level of fluoride nutrition, which is more beneficial to those who don't have access to or purchase and use products such as toothpaste and other topical treatments. It also contributes to those who don't particularly care to or are unable to consume natural sources of fluoride.

What I don't want is you telling me the risks of fluoride poisoning from rare and unusual overdoses. What I don't want is a claim that a few instances of overfluoridation of water supplies merits the shutting down of fluoridation in entirety.

We have survived thousands of years without drinking fluoridated water... I think we can survive a few thousand more without it.

We have survived thousands of years without vaccinations, antibiotics, modern medicine, and your mother.

Just because we can, doesn't mean we necessarily should.