Fluoridating water ban
Instead, all of the studies come from China or Iran, both of which have areas of naturally occurring (endemic) high fluoride pockets of groundwater.That means that studies utilized in its analysis are wholly irrelevant to the question that advocates claim they are answering.Two of those eight studies use a control group with fluoride values that are literally the same or higher than the target range of fluoridation efforts in the United States ( in private practice, with no academic background on the topic of fluoride toxicity.Collectively, this demonstrates that most of the IQ variance presented in the Harvard study still stems from exposures to extremely high levels of fluoride that would already be considered dangerous in the US, and those studies finding effects on a smaller scale are not sufficient to demonstrate the effects those groups opposed to fluoridation claim they demonstrate. Literally of the studies involved tested populations of individuals exposed to drinking water that was artificially supplemented with fluoride as a public health measure.In short, it appears that the presence or lack of iodine is a more significant factor in both the prevalence of goiter and average IQ [than fluoride levels alone].) do not appear to actually measure the water intake of the regions in which they are observing differences in intelligence quotient, or at the very least they do not report the total range of values for each region, or any statistical information regarding those values.
Moderate voices against the practice of water fluoridation point to concerns over the possible negative health effects of fluoride consumption, and a perceived lack of efficacy in terms of dental benefits.
In Mercola’s (and many others’) language, the topic has surreptitiously been shifted from the act of water fluoridation as a public health measure to the broader concept of fluoride toxicity in children.
Many otherwise benign chemicals can also be harmful in high concentrations.
Research has, for example, shown that there is a strong correlation between arsenic and fluoride in drinking water, according to a The strong positive correlation between groundwater F/Cl and As/Cl ratios (r2 = 0.98 and 0.77 in shallow and deep groundwater, respectively) indicates that these elements are mobilized and enriched by common processes.
This should not function as a distraction from the larger point that studying naturally occurring pockets of high fluoride and the assessing the risks of supplementing public drinking water in an effort to have it reach a concentration of 0.7 mg/L are two completely different beasts.