• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

US National Toxicology Program Report: High levels of fluoride exposure linked to lower IQ in children

poppabk

Cheeks Spread for Digital Only Future
No. It would be accurate to say that fluoride levels in water supplies are regulated to within the recommended levels, as of the present day, unless the higher than recommended levels are naturally occurring.

That does not account for fluoride exposure from other sources, which can increase your dose to potentially brain damaging levels. And we also don't understand the cumulative effects of long-term exposure at other levels.

Therefore, drinking fluoridated water is likely a bad idea.
But all the higher than recommended levels are naturally occuring. The study does account for fluoride exposure from other sources as it's based on epidemiology studies.
Also we do know the long term effects - "The NTP found no evidence that fluoride exposure had adverse effects on adult cognition."
 

EviLore

Expansive Ellipses
Staff Member
But all the higher than recommended levels are naturally occuring. The study does account for fluoride exposure from other sources as it's based on epidemiology studies.
Also we do know the long term effects - "The NTP found no evidence that fluoride exposure had adverse effects on adult cognition."
It accounts for exposure from other sources on a population level, not an individual level. You need to account for your individual exposure.

You're misinterpreting the second part. There is a demonstrable long-term effect on cognition from exposure during childhood. No evidence that exposure has adverse effects on adults.
 

poppabk

Cheeks Spread for Digital Only Future
It accounts for exposure from other sources on a population level, not an individual level. You need to account for your individual exposure.

You're misinterpreting the second part. There is a demonstrable long-term effect on cognition from exposure during childhood. No evidence that exposure has adverse effects on adults.
Right if you are getting fluoride at elevated levels from another source then maybe you have some risk - but the average person has average exposure from other sources and so they are within the safe range.

For the second part - these are population studies - if there was cumulative risk it should be more evident in an adult population who has been exposed all their life to the higher levels. That they don't see any effect in the adult population is indicative of there being minimal long term impact.it could be confounded by migration but they could account for that.

I would not surprised if this ends up like the power lines causing cancer panic, where confounding factors account for most of any reduction in measured IQ.
 

Atrus

Gold Member
City water treatment facilities adhere to established scientific guidelines which in Canada is regulated between 0.7 and 1.5 mg/L and so would not meet the “high” standard determined in the report.

Naturally occurring water sources in my area have 0.1 to 0.4mg/L standard.

It may be concerning if you were ingesting supplemental Fluoride or had case specific absorption/retention issues but there isn’t really anything concerning here if your water treatment is regulated.
 

IntentionalPun

Ask me about my wife's perfect butthole
I thought we already knew this. At least it’s always been advices to be very cautious with fluoride toothpaste with little kids.
 

EviLore

Expansive Ellipses
Staff Member
I thought we already knew this. At least it’s always been advices to be very cautious with fluoride toothpaste with little kids.
Harvard study in 2012 expressed serious concerns about fluoride neurotoxicity in children, yes. It was using Chinese data since no studies had been done yet in the United States.

"

Impact of fluoride on neurological development in children​

July 25, 2012 — For years health experts have been unable to agree on whether fluoride in the drinking water may be toxic to the developing human brain. Extremely high levels of fluoride are known to cause neurotoxicity in adults, and negative impacts on memory and learning have been reported in rodent studies, but little is known about the substance’s impact on children’s neurodevelopment. In a meta-analysis, researchers from Harvard School of Public Health (HSPH) and China Medical University in Shenyang for the first time combined 27 studies and found strong indications that fluoride may adversely affect cognitive development in children. Based on the findings, the authors say that this risk should not be ignored, and that more research on fluoride’s impact on the developing brain is warranted.
The study was published online in Environmental Health Perspectives on July 20, 2012.

The researchers conducted a systematic review of studies, almost all of which are from China where risks from fluoride are well-established. Fluoride is a naturally occurring substance in groundwater, and exposures to the chemical are increased in some parts of China. Virtually no human studies in this field have been conducted in the U.S., said lead author Anna Choi, research scientist in the Department of Environmental Health at HSPH.

Even though many of the studies on children in China differed in many ways or were incomplete, the authors consider the data compilation and joint analysis an important first step in evaluating the potential risk. “For the first time we have been able to do a comprehensive meta-analysis that has the potential for helping us plan better studies. We want to make sure that cognitive development is considered as a possible target for fluoride toxicity,” Choi said.

Choi and senior author Philippe Grandjean, adjunct professor of environmental health at HSPH, and their colleagues collated the epidemiological studies of children exposed to fluoride from drinking water. The China National Knowledge Infrastructure database also was included to locate studies published in Chinese journals. They then analyzed possible associations with IQ measures in more than 8,000 children of school age; all but one study suggested that high fluoride content in water may negatively affect cognitive development.

The average loss in IQ was reported as a standardized weighted mean difference of 0.45, which would be approximately equivalent to seven IQ points for commonly used IQ scores with a standard deviation of 15.* Some studies suggested that even slightly increased fluoride exposure could be toxic to the brain. Thus, children in high-fluoride areas had significantly lower IQ scores than those who lived in low-fluoride areas. The children studied were up to 14 years of age, but the investigators speculate that any toxic effect on brain development may have happened earlier, and that the brain may not be fully capable of compensating for the toxicity.

“Fluoride seems to fit in with lead, mercury, and other poisons that cause chemical brain drain,” Grandjean says. “The effect of each toxicant may seem small, but the combined damage on a population scale can be serious, especially because the brain power of the next generation is crucial to all of us.”
"
 

Mistake

Member
Harvard study in 2012 expressed serious concerns about fluoride neurotoxicity in children, yes. It was using Chinese data since no studies had been done yet in the United States.
I don't normally care much for Chinese science, as their culture promotes a more mathematical but less scientific kind of thinking, but I can say this is something they would give special attention to. Seems likely to me at this point there's little reason to have fluoride in water purposefully.

Just an anecdote, but I watch one streamer that swears by cod liver oil to prevent cavities, saying she had lots of problems before she started taking it. Overall I'd say the best thing to do is keep a good diet and reduce sugar intake.
 
Last edited:

EviLore

Expansive Ellipses
Staff Member
Only took first post to get it wrong. This is talking about naturally high fluoride levels while the dipshit wants to completely eliminate it from the water.
Mm. I don’t care what some politician does or doesn’t believe. I do care about what the evidence indicates, though!
 

Bry0

Member
dr strangelove smoking GIF
 

poppabk

Cheeks Spread for Digital Only Future
Mm. I don’t care what some politician does or doesn’t believe. I do care about what the evidence indicates, though!
Don't ignore the flipside
"The relationship between tooth loss and cognitive decline was “dose-dependent”: Each lost tooth was associated with a 1.4% increase in the risk of cognitive impairment and a 1.1% increase in the risk of dementia. Participants who were missing 20 or more teeth had a 31% higher risk of cognitive impairment."
 

EviLore

Expansive Ellipses
Staff Member
Don't ignore the flipside
"The relationship between tooth loss and cognitive decline was “dose-dependent”: Each lost tooth was associated with a 1.4% increase in the risk of cognitive impairment and a 1.1% increase in the risk of dementia. Participants who were missing 20 or more teeth had a 31% higher risk of cognitive impairment."
Correlation vs causation. Losing teeth doesn't cause cognitive impairment.

However, there are potential causal links between gum health and heart health.

Obviously it's in your best interest to prioritize dental health. Not to such a high priority that you give yourself brain damage in the process though.
 

JayK47

Member
I hated having fluoride in my drinking water. I am glad I am on well water now. I am guessing they knew from day one the affects and were happy to lower the IQs of people on purpose. Doubtful this was an accident. I wonder if it will soon be removed from drinking water?
 

Rentahamster

Rodent Whores
Assuming we are trying to prioritize children's development health with regards to this topic, if I were in charge my policy recommendation would be to make sure any federally regulated maximums for fluoride are scientifically sound, erring on the conservative side for caution.

Then I'd leave it up to individual municipalities on whether or not to add it in at all as a supplement (within those strict federal guidelines).

And to combat any potential upticks in dental problems resulting from this policy, yearly dental checkups, and standard dental healthcare for citizens up to age 26 is free.

It'll cost more than the status quo for sure, but we don't have to live in a world where people must choose between dental or mental health. The USA can afford to choose both.

We could partly fund this by taxing products that contain added sugar in excess of a certain amount.
 

EviLore

Expansive Ellipses
Staff Member
Assuming we are trying to prioritize children's development health with regards to this topic, if I were in charge my policy recommendation would be to make sure any federally regulated maximums for fluoride are scientifically sound, erring on the conservative side for caution.

Then I'd leave it up to individual municipalities on whether or not to add it in at all as a supplement (within those strict federal guidelines).

And to combat any potential upticks in dental problems resulting from this policy, yearly dental checkups, and standard dental healthcare for citizens up to age 26 is free.

It'll cost more than the status quo for sure, but we don't have to live in a world where people must choose between dental or mental health. The USA can afford to choose both.

We could partly fund this by taxing products that contain added sugar in excess of a certain amount.
Children being exposed to neurotoxic chemicals that permanently reduce their cognitive abilities goes beyond mere mental health. Your cognitive abilities are everything.

Brushing with fluoride toothpaste is sufficient to get the remineralization benefits without passively ingesting large quantities of fluoride. Per NIH:

"Estimated typical amounts of fluoride ingested daily from toothpaste are 0.1 mg to 0.25 mg for infants and children age 0 to 5 years, 0.2 to 0.3 mg for children age 6 to 12 years, and 0.1 mg for adults [3]."

0.1 mg/day of fluoride ingestion if brushing twice daily and avoiding swallowing toothpaste properly (upwards of 0.3mg/day if not).

If a child drinks two liters of water daily in an area with fluoridated water at the recommended 0.7mg/l concentration, they're ingesting 1.4mg of fluoride daily plus the amount from brushing and other sources.

Significant difference in overall fluoride ingestion compared to just brushing. And with brushing, parents can decide whether to use fluoride toothpaste or alternatives during critical developmental years, or when children are not good yet at avoiding swallowing toothpaste while brushing.
 

Krathoon

Member
They actually took the fluoride out of the drinking water where I live. I guess they got paranoid.

I remember a dentist was fighting it.
 

Kappa

Member
If the question is between British teeth or -2 iq. I'm taking -2 iq anyday of the week lol
 
Last edited:

Jinxed

Member
Good thing our water is shit in our hometown so we drink bottled spring water. We go through two 18.9 liters a week between the three of us.
 

GloveSlap

Member
I never liked fluoride being added to water. It may be a net positive overall, but i'm responsible enough to take care of my teeth without ingesting questionable things. Especially since I drink a lot of water.

Plus you have dissolved prescription drugs in the mix. No thanks, i fill up 5 gallon jugs at the store. It tastes so good. Tap water tastes like straight up chlorine to me now.
 
Last edited:

Rentahamster

Rodent Whores
Children being exposed to neurotoxic chemicals that permanently reduce their cognitive abilities goes beyond mere mental health. Your cognitive abilities are everything.

I don't disagree with that. Do you think there's no safe minimum limit for this?
 

StreetsofBeige

Gold Member
Children being exposed to neurotoxic chemicals that permanently reduce their cognitive abilities goes beyond mere mental health. Your cognitive abilities are everything.
Over and underexposure can fuck people up.

It's like food allergies. Go back a generation or two and hardly anyone had food allergies in USA/Canada. Now shitloads of kids have them past 20 years.

No doubt due to overly safe policies like no nut, no this or that schools implement and parents do from the get go. So kids dont develop the right way to safely experience them. You can tell it's a choice thing that screws people up because it's not like nut allergies are big in Asian or Middle Eastern. If the allergy was a natural thing hitting all 8 billion people the same, you'd have half the people in those countries dying since nuts are used so much in cooking.
 

EviLore

Expansive Ellipses
Staff Member
I don't disagree with that. Do you think there's no safe minimum limit for this?
The Harvard study argues that there may not be any safe amount for children. I'll have to do more research and read the papers fully myself when I have some more time.

Based on what I've seen so far I would definitely not have my children drink fluoridated water, and possibly avoid fluoride toothpaste until their adult teeth come in.
 

poppabk

Cheeks Spread for Digital Only Future
The Harvard study argues that there may not be any safe amount for children. I'll have to do more research and read the papers fully myself when I have some more time.

Based on what I've seen so far I would definitely not have my children drink fluoridated water, and possibly avoid fluoride toothpaste until their adult teeth come in.
I'd be more worried about spring water and well water where you don't know the fluoride content.
 

EviLore

Expansive Ellipses
Staff Member
Ngl, 5 IQ points isn't really going to change much.
I'd argue it's significant, but neurotoxicity isn't just a simple stat reduction.

Lead is another neurotoxin that affects childhood cognitive development. Lead exposure in children, which has been researched more extensively, lowers IQ but also leads to impulse control issues, ADHD, personality disorders, and a host of other problems, because lead poisoned brains don't develop properly.

You can expect there to be a difference between a 100 IQ healthy person and a naturally 110 IQ person who was poisoned by heavy metals and chemicals down to 100 IQ. You'd probably want to be the former rather than the latter.
 

darrylgorn

Member
I'd argue it's significant, but neurotoxicity isn't just a simple stat reduction.

Lead is another neurotoxin that affects childhood cognitive development. Lead exposure in children, which has been researched more extensively, lowers IQ but also leads to impulse control issues, ADHD, personality disorders, and a host of other problems, because lead poisoned brains don't develop properly.

You can expect there to be a difference between a 100 IQ healthy person and a naturally 110 IQ person who was poisoned by heavy metals and chemicals down to 100 IQ. You'd probably want to be the former rather than the latter.

Wow, that was very enlightening!
 

Cyberpunkd

Member
I hated having fluoride in my drinking water. I am glad I am on well water now. I am guessing they knew from day one the affects and were happy to lower the IQs of people on purpose. Doubtful this was an accident. I wonder if it will soon be removed from drinking water?
Now I understand what happened this week.
 

FunkMiller

Member
Any mineral substance ingested into the human body can be toxic at very high levels. Absolutely right to say that levels of anything like fluoride should be controlled, but people who will scream that it should be taken out of the water completely - good luck with those dental bills, guys! :messenger_grinning_squinting:
 
Last edited:

EviLore

Expansive Ellipses
Staff Member
Any mineral substance ingested into the human body can be toxic at very high levels. Absolutely right to say that levels of anything like fluoride should be controlled, but people who will scream that it should be taken out of the water completely - good luck with those dental bills, guys! :messenger_grinning_squinting:
So between:

A) Brushing your teeth with fluoride toothpaste and spitting it out
B) Drinking fluoride water all day so that it comes in contact with your teeth on the way down the hatch

When fluoride is a demonstrable neurotoxin, per the US government and Harvard, that impairs cognitive development when ingested, but has a useful property of remineralizing enamel when in contact with your teeth

A is the dumb option and B is the smart option? Do I have that right?
 

FunkMiller

Member
So between:

A) Brushing your teeth with fluoride toothpaste and spitting it out
B) Drinking fluoride water all day so that it comes in contact with your teeth on the way down the hatch

When fluoride is a demonstrable neurotoxin, per the US government and Harvard, that impairs cognitive development when ingested, but has a useful property of remineralizing enamel when in contact with your teeth

A is the dumb option and B is the smart option? Do I have that right?

I suppose it depends on how good you are at brushing your teeth :messenger_grinning_squinting: If everybody was really good at brushing their teeth regularly, then fluoride in water wouldn't be so needed to keep tooth decay issues down among the populace - which ends up being extremely expensive if there wasn't a preventative.

I mean, I can't speak for the USA here, but in Australia and the UK, fluoride has been extensively analysed and found to be safe at the levels it's used at:

https://www.nhmrc.gov.au/sites/default/files/documents/attachments/water-fluoridationqa.pdf

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/health-and-care-bill-factsheets/health-and-care-bill-water-fluoridation#:~:text=There is also no evidence,implemented for nearly 40 years.

Clearly nobody should be having it at twice the recommended limit. But again, that's for any mineral.
 
Last edited:

HoodWinked

Member
poor dental health is also linked to cardiovascular disease, and any stress to the heart probably causes brain damage as well, so there's always a trade off.

probably can mitigate alot of the issues if they educate parents to not give infants tap water and use nursery water. but instead the public service commercials are always race/sex focused which actually causes more division.

50428558775.jpg
 

sankt-Antonio

:^)--?-<
It's honestly wild to think about where American society would be without lead paint/leaded gasoline and fluoride. A 5-7 IQ point increase across the board would have massive ramifications for everything.
No, lead was something that affected everyone on the planet, Fluoride (in this paper) affects people who "by natural causes" have more Fluoride in their water than approved by the FDA, in the US.
And it "only" affects children whom are in a development state, so an adult moving to a place with higher levels of Fluoride is not affected.

This means, aprox. 0,1-0,2% of US children need their water fixed by the government. Not at all comparable to what gas with lead additives did to the world.
 

EviLore

Expansive Ellipses
Staff Member
I suppose it depends on how good you are at brushing your teeth :messenger_grinning_squinting: If everybody was really good at brushing their teeth regularly, then fluoride in water wouldn't be so needed to keep tooth decay issues down among the populace - which ends up being extremely expensive if there wasn't a preventative.

I mean, I can't speak for the USA here, but in Australia and the UK, fluoride has been extensively analysed and found to be safe at the levels it's used at:

https://www.nhmrc.gov.au/sites/default/files/documents/attachments/water-fluoridationqa.pdf

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/health-and-care-bill-factsheets/health-and-care-bill-water-fluoridation#:~:text=There is also no evidence,implemented for nearly 40 years.

Clearly nobody should be having it at twice the recommended limit. But again, that's for any mineral.

Let's read the Australian report from the first link, then.

S201P6s.png


They decided that all studies reporting negative effects were low quality and discarded them. Eyebrow-raising in itself, but let's continue.

They recommend up to 1.1mg/l of fluoride in water supplies in addition to using fluoride toothpaste (noted elsewhere in the report). Brushing exposes young people to another ~0.3mg/day of fluoride, per NIH.

The US Government report from the OP concluded that 1.4mg/l fluoridation led to cognitive impairment in children. Our 200% level of fluoride exposure is more like your 100% level, it turns out.

Blindly trusting the government to make decisions for you isn't the best idea. Especially when those decisions were originally made in the 1940s and 1950s with no understanding of the potential long-term effects.
 
Last edited:

Mistake

Member
Let's read the Australian report from the first link, then.

S201P6s.png


They decided that all studies reporting negative effects were low quality and discarded them. Eyebrow-raising in itself, but let's continue.

They recommend up to 1.1mg/l of fluoride in water supplies in addition to using fluoride toothpaste (noted elsewhere in the report). Brushing exposes young people to another ~0.3mg/day of fluoride, per NIH.

The US Government report from the OP concluded that 1.4mg/l fluoridation led to cognitive impairment in children. Our 200% level of fluoride exposure is more like your 100% level, it turns out.

Blindly trusting the government to make decisions for you isn't the best idea. Especially when those decisions were originally made in the 1940s and 1950s with no understanding of the potential long-term effects.
Reminds me of the food pyramid scandal. I recently came across a comic with a good bit on YouTube
"We really should have known the whole thing was a scam from the beginning when there's no water on it"
 

Trilobit

Member
I've never understood why USA and some European countries allow high amounts of fluoride or add it to tap water. You really don't want to swallow that stuff. My country prohibited addition of it already in the 70's. There are better ways to care for teeth.
 

Zathalus

Member
The Netherlands doesn’t allow it to be added to drinking water. Since the 70s, as the long term effects have not been properly studied. There was a rather big movement against it here.
 

poppabk

Cheeks Spread for Digital Only Future
Actually maybe there is something to this - the monkey hangers (Google it) have naturally high levels of fluoride in their water.
 

FunkMiller

Member
Let's read the Australian report from the first link, then.

S201P6s.png


They decided that all studies reporting negative effects were low quality and discarded them. Eyebrow-raising in itself, but let's continue.

They recommend up to 1.1mg/l of fluoride in water supplies in addition to using fluoride toothpaste (noted elsewhere in the report). Brushing exposes young people to another ~0.3mg/day of fluoride, per NIH.

The US Government report from the OP concluded that 1.4mg/l fluoridation led to cognitive impairment in children. Our 200% level of fluoride exposure is more like your 100% level, it turns out.

Blindly trusting the government to make decisions for you isn't the best idea. Especially when those decisions were originally made in the 1940s and 1950s with no understanding of the potential long-term effects.

We have a lot more faith in our institutions here, what can I say. Must be all that compulsory voting. But given how America seems to function, can’t say I blame any of you for not being confident you’re not being poisoned by the government.
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom