Guest guest Posted September 1, 2007 Report Share Posted September 1, 2007 Dr. Yiamouyiannis is unequivocally opposed to fluoridation! Here's a link to a couple of excerpts from the book: http://fluoridealert.org/aging-factor.htm I doubt anyone can read just one excerpted chapter and tell me they're still OK with fluoride in their drinking water. Even if Yiamouyiannis is only in the top ten authorities in the world and he's only half right, I'll pass on the fluoridated water. W.G. Ubermensch Sports Consultancy San Diego, CA. > > > > , I agree with you that some anti-fluoride sites are > > unreasonably sensationalist, including the source of this thread. > > However, for a start I don't think Wikipedia is a reliable source to > > be quoting for a definitive rebuttal. > > > > From my own perspective, I agree with this statement from the anti- > > fluoride group should it be accurate: > > > > > > According to one of the statement's signers, Dr. Arvid Carlsson, > > > > winner of the 2000 Nobel Prize for Medicine, " Fluoridation is > > >>against all principles of modern pharmacology. It's really > > obsolete. " > > > > Adding a pharmacologically active substance to the water supply is > > really an anachronism and quite ridiculous if you consider it in the > > context of modern toxicological and pharmacological risk assessment > > of food additives. > > > > When one considers the risk assessment and scrutiny that food > > companies have to go through to be able to add vitamins and minerals > > such as folate and iron to various foods, the addition of sodium > > fluoride or silicofluoride to water supplies becomes even more absurd > > in my view. For a start it's impossible to guarantee a standard dose > > considering fluoride in toothpaste and other sources. > > > > Second, the safety margin (between no effect and adverse effect) is > > quite low. Take a look if you're interested at: > > http://www.epa.gov/IRIS/subst/0053.htm. > > Usually safety factors of at least 10X are used for toxic substances > > in human exposure assessment. > > > > Third, dental fluorosis is a known adverse if not toxic affect and > > the epidemiological evidence for a strong effect of fluoride on > > dental caries is low. A recent systematic review published in the > > British Medical Journal (below), found the following: > > > > " Overall, reductions in the incidence of caries were found, but they > > were smaller than previously reported. > > > > " The range (median) of mean change in decayed, missing, and filled > > primary/permanent teeth was 0.5 to 4.4 (2.25) teeth. " > > > > " The prevalence of fluorosis (mottled teeth) is highly associated > > with the concentration of fluoride in drinking water. " > > > > " A dose-dependent increase in dental fluorosis was found. At a > > fluoride level of 1 ppm an estimated 12.5% (95% confidence interval > > 7.0% to 21.5%) of exposed people would have fluorosis that they would > > find aesthetically concerning. " > > > > " An association of water fluoride with other adverse effects was not > > found. " > > > > See full text here: > > BMJ 2000;321:855-859. Systematic review of water fluoridation > > http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/321/7265/855 > > > > Just consider if, as a food manufacturer you went to the FDA or > > similar organization and said you wanted to add mineral X to food but > > you expected about 10% of children would get mottled teeth, what do > > you think they would say? > > > > The lawyers would be lining up and the peels of laughter would be > > heard in every corridor. > > > > That's the case against adding fluoride to water supplies. > > > > > > Gympie, Australia > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.