Posts Tagged ‘industrial’

Dear Sir,

Thank you for your tireless effort to bring awareness of the effects of water fluoridation to human health. I live in the Triangle area and am also concerned about this issue.

I thought you might be interested in a recently published article in a top level journal that links fluoridated water with ADHD and mental disorders. Here it is :

Neurobehavioral Effects of Developmental Toxicity

Attached is the original Lancet article.

Thanks,

Anonymous

_________________________________________________

Hi,

Thanks for writing & sharing this article, although I am already aware of these studies & have written about them extensively on my website.

One of the most common criticisms of these studies is that the subjects in the studies were drinking water at a much higher concentration level than what is commonly seen in municipal water supplies across America.  However this observation does not negate the fact that drinking fluoride is simply linked to the lowering of IQ, so we naturally should question it’s efficacy & risk/reward.

Also the critics never address or even acknowledge the fact that having control over ‘concentration level’ does not = having control over the dosage of fluoride – which inherently varies from person to person to an extreme degree.

Obviously if we care more about our brains than our dental health then we should be concerned…but what happens when you discover that drinking fluoride ALSO does nothing for your dental health?

I’ll tell you what happens – we expose the fraud!  Which is what I try to do with my website, presentations & other activism.

How long have you lived in the Triangle?  When did you learn about fluoridation?

Would you be interested in speaking out or doing any activism?

Let me know your thoughts,

Corey

_________________________________________________

Hi Corey,

Thanks for your email. The Lancet article is actually a meta-analysis of the effects of industrial chemicals, including fluoride, on brain development.

I am a neurobiologist and my area of interest is sensory processing in the Central Nervous System. Recently I have partly shifted my research focus to study the effects of man-made chemicals on the developing brain.

Perhaps it is no coincidence that the rates of increase of human chronic diseases including neuro-developmental disease (ADHD, autism) and metabolic disease  (diabetes, obesity) parallel the rates of exposure of man-made chemicals in the environment.  Of the >80,000 chemical released into the environment, scientists have documented the safety and health effects of only a very tiny fraction of these chemicals. What’s more, many of the chemicals that are being used in the USA are in effect banned in the EU and other countries.

As a foreign citizen I feel I have no right to outwardly protest or demonstrate against the laws of this country. As a practicing scientist, it is also a risk to my job to speak out about issues which can possibly irk corporate interest (See Tyron Hayes, Ignacio Chapela and many other scientists).

However I do care very much about the citizens’ health and feel strongly that people need to be more aware of the chemicals found in their food or water and what these chemicals can do to their health.

Your perseverance to bring awareness of the fluoride in drinking water issue is an admirable undertaking and is indeed laudable. I apologize for my inability to be more involved, but please know that I support your tenacity and hard work.

Best,

Anonymous

_________________________________________________

Hello,

At the very least, would you allow me to publish this e-mail exchange with your identity kept completely anonymous?
I feel it would be enlightening to the other viewers of the site & I would ensure that you approve of the message before it is published.  I understand your position completely & know you have to work within the confines of your own circumstance to fight the perceived injustices, like we all do equally. I am just trying to suggest some way we can make this exchange productive, even if you are bound not to do anything more visibly.
Thank you for your encouragement & interest in my work, it is always appreciated when someone takes the time to make their thoughts known.
Let me know what you think!
Corey

Related Articles:

Advertisements

Hi Steve,

I hope you’ve been well.

I am mailing you to find out if you would be willing to make a public comment on this recent article published by TIME magazine which cites Fluoride as being an industrial chemical that causes harm to the brain.

Children Exposed to More Brain-Harming Chemicals Than Ever Before (TIME magazine)

 “Now the same researchers have reviewed the literature and found six additional industrial chemicals that can hamper normal brain development. These are manganese, fluoride, chlorpyrifos, dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane, tetrachloroethylene and polybrominated diphenyl ethers. Manganese, they say, is found in drinking water and can contribute to lower math scores and heightened hyperactivity, while exposure to high levels of fluoride from drinking water can contribute to a seven-point drop in IQ on average. The remaining chemicals, which are found in solvents and pesticides, have been linked to deficits in social development and increased aggressive behaviors.”

I’d also like to take this opportunity to make you aware that I receive regular traffic to my website, as a result of people searching YOUR name, ostensibly to discover your feelings on this topic (see graphic below).  Whether the people searching your name are in alignment with your “convictions” or not, I’m not sure…but in any case I thought I would offer my website as a platform to get your “expert” analysis on this TIME magazine article & why you feel the general population should ignore all the warnings about drinking too much fluoride published by respected scientists at Harvard University.  I will gladly publish whatever you have to say on this subject since I know you are highly motivated to combat any “anti-fluoride” sentiments that show themselves on the internet.

slott

Sincerely yours,

Corey Sturmer

____________________________________________________

Corey, i have no specific comment for you to place on your little blog.  Actually, it’s of no concern to me what you post on it.  If you simply want to be educated on Grandjean’s statements, first, notice that there is no mention of concentration levels of fluoride, simply the implication that the mere presence of fluoride at any concentration will “hamper brain development”.  There is no substance known to man which is not toxic at improper levels, including plain water.  Fluoride is certainly no exception.  Concentration level is the difference between safety and toxicity of ANY substance we ingest. Water is fluoridated at the minuscule concentration of 0.7 ppm.  At this concentration it is not toxic.  If you care to dispute this elementary fact then provide valid, peer-reviewed scientific evidence to support your claim.  Keep in mind that the antifluoridationist websites, and blogs on which you solely rely for your “information” do not qualify as valid sources.

As far as Choi and Grandjean’s Harvard Review on which Grandjean bases his “suggestions” about IQ and brain  development in regard to fluoridated water, this was actually a review of 27 Chinese studies found in obscure Chinese scientific journals, of the effects of high levels of naturally occurring fluoride in the well water of various Chinese, Mongolian, and Iranian village. The concentration of fluoride in these studies was as high as 11.5 ppm. By the admission of the Harvard researchers, these studies had key information missing, used questionable methodologies, and had inadequate controls for confounding factors. These studies were so seriously flawed that the lead researchers, Anna Choi, and Phillippe Grandjean, were led to issue the following statement in September of 2012:

“–These results do not allow us to make any judgment regarding possible levels of risk at levels of exposure typical for water fluoridation in the U.S. On the other hand, neither can it be concluded that no risk is present. We therefore recommend further research to clarify what role fluoride exposure levels may play in possible adverse effects on brain development, so that future risk assessments can properly take into regard this possible hazard.”

–Anna Choi, research scientist in the Department of Environmental Health at HSPH, lead author, and Philippe Grandjean, adjunct professor of environmental health at HSPH, senior author

As it seems there have been no translations of these studies into English by any reliable, objective source, it is unclear as to whether they had even been peer-reviewed, a basic for credibility of any scientific study. These studies were flawed that NOTHING could be “concluded” from them.

Steve

Steven D. Slott, DDS

PO Box 1744

Burlington, NC.  27216

Sent from my iPad

____________________________________________________

Steve,

I have to be honest I really just wanted to be entertained by the psychological acrobatics I knew you would perform in order to justify the continued addition of an industrial chemical to our water supply.  Like always you delivered so thanks for the laughs!

However  I must admit it would be a lot funnier if it wasn’t so sad, how many people like yourself have to resort to picking a part each damning study which individually contribute to the gradual chipping away at the 60 year long PR stunt that is public water fluoridation.  I respect you more than most apologists because at least you put forth a lot of effort…But let’s be real – you are on the defense because the body of evidence which supports public water fluoridation is diminishing quickly & the body of evidence which supports its removal is growing all the time.  You & others of your ilk have had your time and I think you are acutely aware of this fact, as evidenced by all the frantic attacks you wage against those who speak out about this crime on the internet.

One would think,  given the self pronounced efficacy of this practice, that we would not be finding out about adverse health effects 60 years after the fact & instead the “scientific community” would have known ALL possible ramifications of ingesting fluoride when it was first forced on the American public in the 1950’s.  Of course, we know that the establishment did know many of the ramifications (and that they were negative), but this was ignored intentionally & those reasons are precisely why it was rammed down our throats in the first place.  NOT for the “dental health” of our nation but to actually impair the rational cognitive ability of the American people, which you epitomize by the way.

It is even more laughable, how focused you & other statists are on the “optimal concentration level” of fluoride in our water, when this so-called “optimal level” was so recently lowered due to the department of health & human services own admission, that over ingestion of fluoride is responsible for 40% of adolescents now suffering from some degree of fluorosis.    Statists always hide behind the auspices of having figured out the “exact optimal level” of fluoridation thanks to the “science,” except they never acknowledge that their “science” was originally flawed by their own admission.  Do you not see how discrediting it is to unilaterally change the “optimal level” without admitting that the prior “optimal” was too much?
Maybe that’s a mental trapeze act you just aren’t ready to perform yet.

Of course,  another thing I never hear you & other statists say, is whether you actually know the proper “dose” of fluoride.  I suspect this is because

  1.  There isn’t a proper dose to ingest orally since drinking fluoride is absolutely non-essential & has no material positive effect on any organ when ingested &
  2.  Talking about dosages & what medications one should ingest would be outside the scope of your licensure as a dentist & surely discredit you as a legitimate source of information on this topic…

But you have already discredited yourself countless times around the web & I thank you for providing one more example today.

Corey

____________________________________________________

Gee, Corey, it’s not like I haven’t seen all this ridiculous nonsense copied/pasted from  antifluoridationist websites, countless times.  Your total lack of success in furthering your irrational vendetta against fluoridation, in spite of your repeated “presentations” to intelligent people,  is all that needs to be viewed in regard to your claims.  Why don’t you surprise everyone and actually come up with something intelligent, instead of just parroting Connett’s  nonsense from “fluoridealert.org“?

Steve

Steven D. Slott, DDS

PO Box 1744

Burlington, NC.  27216

Sent from my iPad

____________________________________________________

Steve,

Without giving any credence to your opinion of what is “intelligent” or not, since it has been made abundantly clear that you are no authority whatsoever on original thought, I humbly submit my latest video which will teach you more about water in 10 minutes than you ever learned in the fluorescent lit halls of academia which seem to have forever savaged your feeble mind.

Corey

____________________________________________________

Thanks, Corey, but I prefer to obtain my information from credible, reliable, and authoritative sources of peer- reviewed scientific literature…..not from “YouTube” videos and antifluoridationist websites.

Steve

Steven D. Slott, DDS

PO Box 1744

Burlington, NC.  27216

Sent from my iPad

Editor’s Note:  I want to share this blurb with you from Time Magazine’s online publication, because it confirms two key points I have maintained since I created 100274-56268-ralph-wiggum_largedurhamagainstfluoride.com, however not been adequately refuted by the bureaucracy responsible for fluoridating our water here in Durham North Carolina.

Namely;

  1. That fluoride (especially in the form Hydrofluorosilicic acid) is an “industrial chemical” and,
  2. That drinking fluoride has the material affect of lowering your intelligence quotient

As you read this casual confirmation in a mainstream publication, just remember that our city website tacitly admits to adding one of the below named IQ stultifying industrial chemicals to your water.   Here is a video of the actual tank which pours this corrosive compound into our drinking water:

Source: Time Health & Family

A new report finds the number of chemicals contributing to brain disorders in children has doubled since 2006

By Alice Parker 2/14/2014

In recent years, the prevalence of developmental disorders such as autism, attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and dyslexia have soared. While greater awareness and more sophisticated diagnoses are partly responsible for the rise, researchers say the changing environment in which youngsters grow up may also be playing a role.

In 2006, scientists from the Harvard School of Public Health and the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai identified five industrial chemicals responsible for causing harm to the brain — lead, methylmercury, polychlorinated biphenyls (found in electric transformers, motors and capacitors), arsenic (found in soil and water as well as in wood preservatives and pesticides) and toluene (used in processing gasoline as well as in paint thinner, fingernail polish and leather tanning). Exposure to these neurotoxins was associated with changes in neuron development in the fetus as well as among infants, and with lower school performance, delinquent behavior, neurological abnormalities and reduced IQ in school-age children.

(MORE: A Link Between Pesticides and Attention Disorders?)

Now the same researchers have reviewed the literature and found six additional industrial chemicals that can hamper normal brain development. These are manganese, fluoride, chlorpyrifos, dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane, tetrachloroethylene and polybrominated diphenyl ethers. Manganese, they say, is found in drinking water and can contribute to lower math scores and heightened hyperactivity, while exposure to high levels of fluoride from drinking water can contribute to a seven-point drop in IQ on average. The remaining chemicals, which are found in solvents and pesticides, have been linked to deficits in social development and increased aggressive behaviors.

The research team acknowledges that there isn’t a causal connection between exposure to any single chemical and behavioral or neurological problems — it’s too challenging to isolate the effects of each chemical to come to such conclusions. But they say the growing body of research that is finding links between higher levels of these chemicals in expectant mothers’ blood and urine and brain disorders in their children should raise alarms about how damaging these chemicals can be. The developing brain in particular, they say, is vulnerable to the effects of these chemicals, and in many cases, the changes they trigger are permanent.

“The consequence of such brain damage is impaired [central nervous system] function that lasts a lifetime and might result in reduced intelligence, as expressed in terms of lost IQ points, or disruption in behavior,” they write in their report, which was published in the journal Lancet Neurology.

They point to two barriers to protecting children from such exposures — not enough testing of industrial chemicals and their potential effect on brain development before they are put into widespread use, and the enormous amount of proof that regulatory agencies require in order to put restrictions or limitations on chemicals. Most control of such substances, they note, occurs after negative effects are found among adults; in children, the damage may be more subtle, in the form of lower IQ scores or hyperactivity, that might not be considered pathological or dangerous. “Our very great concern is that children worldwide are being exposed to unrecognized toxic chemicals that are silently eroding intelligence, disrupting behaviors, truncating future achievements and damaging societies, perhaps most seriously in developing countries,” they write. “A new framework of action is needed.”