<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">---------- Forwarded message ----------<br>From: <b class="gmail_sendername">Olga Scully</b> <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:muffyandbrian@westnet.com.au">muffyandbrian@westnet.com.au</a>></span><br>
Date: Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 5:12 PM<br>Subject: Study Proves: This Everyday Drink Lowers Your IQ<br>To: <br><br><br><u></u>
<div text="#000000" bgcolor="#ffffff">
<h1> Study Proves: This Everyday Drink Lowers Your IQ </h1>
<h5> <span>Posted By</span>
<a href="http://articles.mercola.com/members/Dr.-Mercola/default.aspx" target="_blank"> Dr. Mercola </a> <span>|</span> August 12
2011 | <span>145,479</span>
<span>views</span> </h5>
<div> </div>
<div>
<div>
<table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td><br>
</td>
<td><br>
</td>
<td><br>
</td>
<td><br>
</td>
<td><br>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</div>
</div>
<div style="width: 297px; float: right; min-height: 238px;">
<div style="padding-left: 26px; font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif; color: rgb(255, 90, 11); font-size: 24px; padding-top: 40px;">Dr. Mercola Recommends...</div>
<div style="margin-top: 18px; font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif; color: rgb(255, 90, 11); margin-left: 27px; font-size: 13px; font-weight: bold;">Every
"Like" Helps Support This Cause</div>
</div>
<p><b>By Drs. Paul and Ellen Connett</b></p>
<blockquote>
<p><i>Paul Connett, co-author of the book, </i>The Case Against
Fluoride<i>, is joined by his wife, Ellen, webmaster of the
Fluoride Action Network (FAN), and Tara Blank, PhD, Science
Liason Officer for FAN, in authoring this article on fluoride
and the brain. Together they have recently provided an
extensive commentary to the EPA's Office of Drinking water
in response to its proposed safe reference dose for fluoride<a name="1328652f49512c7f__ednref1" href="http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2011/08/12/fluoride-and-the-brain-no-margin-of-safety.aspx?e_cid=20110812_DNL_art_1#_edn1" target="_blank"><sup>1</sup></a>.
</i></p>
<p>In an ongoing effort to determine which chemicals may damage
the developing brain, scientists from the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) recently conducted an extensive
literature review of over 400 chemicals, including fluoride. </p>
</blockquote>
<h2>Fluoride is Classified as a Neurotoxin</h2>
<blockquote>
<p>While the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) would have us all
believe that fluoride is perfectly innocuous and safe,
scientists from the EPA's National Health and Environmental
Effects Research Laboratory have classified fluoride as a
"chemical having substantial evidence of developmental
neurotoxicity".<a name="1328652f49512c7f__ednref2" href="http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2011/08/12/fluoride-and-the-brain-no-margin-of-safety.aspx?e_cid=20110812_DNL_art_1#_edn2" target="_blank"><sup>2</sup></a>
Consistent with the EPA's conclusion, a continually growing body
of human and animal research strongly suggests that fluoride can
damage the developing brain. </p>
<p>Consider for example: </p>
<ul>
<li>24 studies have now reported an association between fluoride
exposure and reduced IQ in children </li>
<li>Three studies have reported an association between fluoride
exposure and impaired neurobehavioral development </li>
<li>Three studies have reported damage to the brain of aborted
fetuses in high fluoride areas, and </li>
<li>Over 100 laboratory studies have reported damage to the
brain and/or cognitive function among fluoride-exposed animals<a name="1328652f49512c7f__ednref3" href="http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2011/08/12/fluoride-and-the-brain-no-margin-of-safety.aspx?e_cid=20110812_DNL_art_1#_edn3" target="_blank"><sup>3</sup></a>.
</li>
</ul>
<p>Most of the 30 studies linking fluoride to reduced IQ, impaired
neurobehavioral development, and fetal brain damage have come
from China where fluoride occurs at moderate to high levels in
the drinking water in what is known as "endemic areas for
fluorosis." While there have been shortcomings in the
methodologies of some of these studies, they have been
remarkably consistent in their findings. Children exposed to
excessive fluoride have been consistently observed to suffer
from some form of neurological impairment. </p>
</blockquote>
<h2>Your Brain Under Attack</h2>
<blockquote>
<p>Statistics tell us that our brains are under attack. For
example:</p>
<ul>
<li><b>Autism Spectrum Disorders: </b>The rates in
the U.S. are now <a href="http://www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/autism/data.html" target="_blank">1 in 110
children and are "4 to 5 times more likely to occur in boys
than in girls</a>," <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-kirby/do-you-believe-that-one-i_b_310378.html" target="_blank">or
as many as 1 in 60 boys</a>. </li>
<li><b>Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder:</b>
According to a November 2010 CDC report, <a href="http://articles.boston.com/2010-11-11/news/29307443_1_adhd-howard-abikoff-attention-deficit-hyperactivity" target="_blank">nearly
1 in 10 U.S. children have ADHD - an increase of about 22
percent from 2003</a>. </li>
<li><b>Alzheimer's Disease:</b> According to the
Alzheimer's Association, 5.4 million Americans are living with
it and every 69 seconds an American is diagnosed with it. By
2050, it is estimated that as many as <a href="http://www.alz.org/documents_custom/2011_Facts_Figures_Fact_Sheet.pdf" target="_blank">16
million Americans will have the disease</a>. </li>
</ul>
<p>We do not know the causes for the alarming increases in these
diseases but we do know that wherever possible, everything must
be done by regulatory agencies and caregivers to protect the
brain from known neurotoxins. Fluoride is a known neurotoxin and
it is time to stop adding it to public drinking water systems.
However, convincing U.S. regulatory authorities of this urgent
necessity is proving very difficult.</p>
</blockquote>
<h2>Developmental Neurotoxicity</h2>
<blockquote>
<p>In 2007 Choi and Grandjean<a name="1328652f49512c7f__ednref4" href="http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2011/08/12/fluoride-and-the-brain-no-margin-of-safety.aspx?e_cid=20110812_DNL_art_1#_edn4" target="_blank"><sup>4</sup></a>
stated:</p>
<blockquote>
<p><i>"In humans, only five substances have so far been
documented as developmental neurotoxicants: lead,
methylmercury, polychlorinated biphenyls, arsenic, and
toluene. From this evidence, including our own studies on
some of these substances, parallels may be drawn that
suggest that fluoride could well belong to the same class of
toxins, but uncertainties remain…"</i></p>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<h2>Health Agencies are Ignoring Fluoride-Brain Studies</h2>
<blockquote>
<p>Even though health agencies in the U.S. and other fluoridating
countries have recognized that children are being grossly
over-exposed to fluoride (41 percent of American children aged
12-15 now have some form of dental fluorosis<a name="1328652f49512c7f__ednref5" href="http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2011/08/12/fluoride-and-the-brain-no-margin-of-safety.aspx?e_cid=20110812_DNL_art_1#_edn5" target="_blank"><sup>5</sup></a>),
they are unwilling to concede that fluoride may be impacting the
brain. Their approach has been either to ignore these studies
completely or to challenge the relevance and the methodology of
the fluoride-brain studies. They have thus far failed to conduct
any IQ studies of their own. </p>
</blockquote>
<h2>Bottle-Fed Babies at Risk</h2>
<blockquote>
<p>The level of fluoride in mothers' milk is remarkably low; only
about0.004 ppm<a name="1328652f49512c7f__ednref6" href="http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2011/08/12/fluoride-and-the-brain-no-margin-of-safety.aspx?e_cid=20110812_DNL_art_1#_edn6" target="_blank"><sup>6</sup></a>.
In the view of many critics of fluoridation, including Arvid
Carlsson, Nobel laureate in medicine/physiology, it is reckless
to expose infants to levels of fluoride orders of magnitude
higher than that found in breast milk.</p>
<p>In the U.S., infants who are fed formula reconstituted with
fluoridated tap water receive the highest levels of fluoride
(per kilogram bodyweight) in the human population. Specifically,
infants who are fed formula made with fluoridated water at the
current level of 1 part-per-million (1 ppm = 1 mg/liter)
fluoride will receive a dose up to 250 times more than the
breastfed infant. </p>
<p>Even with the proposal by the <a href="http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2011/02/05/breaking-news-us-finally-admits-too-much-fluoride-in-the-water.aspx" target="_blank">U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services to lower fluoride to
0.7 ppm</a> in fluoridation schemes, bottle-fed infants will
still receive up to 175 times more fluoride than the breastfed
infant. </p>
<p>In addition to bottle-fed infants, others at heightened risk
include those with poor nutrition and both African American and
Mexican-American children. </p>
<p>Recent studies indicate that African American and
Mexican-American children have higher rates of the more severe
forms of dental fluorosis than white children<a name="1328652f49512c7f__ednref7" href="http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2011/08/12/fluoride-and-the-brain-no-margin-of-safety.aspx?e_cid=20110812_DNL_art_1#_edn7" target="_blank"><sup>7</sup></a>.
As dental fluorosis provides a visual indication that fluoride
has exerted a toxic effect on your body, it is reasonable to
assume that these same children will also be more vulnerable to
other toxic effects of fluoride including damage to the brain.</p>
</blockquote>
<h2>EPA Protecting Fluoridation Program, Not Public Health</h2>
<blockquote>
<p>On January 7, 2011, the EPA's Office of Water (OW), while
pursuing its mandate to set a new safe drinking water standard
for fluoride, made it clear that it would do so without
jeopardizing the water fluoridation program. According to Peter
Silva, EPA Assistant Administrator for the OW: </p>
<blockquote>
<p><i>"EPA's new analysis will help us make sure that people
benefit from tooth decay prevention while at the same time
avoiding the unwanted health effects from too much fluoride"<a name="1328652f49512c7f__ednref8" href="http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2011/08/12/fluoride-and-the-brain-no-margin-of-safety.aspx?e_cid=20110812_DNL_art_1#_edn8" target="_blank"><sup>8</sup></a>.</i></p>
</blockquote>
<p>Silva was referring to severe dental fluorosis, broken bones,
and skeletal fluorosis as the unwanted health effects. These
were the three health effects that the National Research Council
of the National Academies in its 2006 report <i>Fluoride in
Drinking Water: A Scientific Review of EPA's Standards </i>singled
out. The report recommended that the EPA perform a new health
risk assessment to determine a safe drinking water standard for
fluoride because they found the current level of 4 ppm was not
protective of health. </p>
<p>In its first draft risk assessment, EPA claimed that the most
sensitive health effect of fluoride was severe dental fluorosis<a name="1328652f49512c7f__ednref9" href="http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2011/08/12/fluoride-and-the-brain-no-margin-of-safety.aspx?e_cid=20110812_DNL_art_1#_edn9" target="_blank"><sup>9</sup></a>.
Brain effects were ignored by EPA even though <a href="http://www.fluoridealert.org/since-nrc.html" target="_blank">many more
studies have been published</a> since the NRC made its
recommendation. Science does not stand still. </p>
<p>The NRC examined five IQ studies; there have now been nearly
five times more at 24!</p>
<p>Making matters worse, the EPA's Office of Water risk assessment
excluded the fetus and infants under 6 months of age, as the EPA
does not expect them to get dental fluorosis! Whether fluoride
impacts the growing tooth enamel during this period or not, this
is a very important period for brain development. As noted
above, an infant fed formula made with fluoridated water at the
proposed lower level of 0.7 ppm will receive 175 times more
fluoride than the breast-fed infant. </p>
</blockquote>
<h2>EPA Research Laboratory Takes Different View</h2>
<blockquote>
<p>Fortunately, the EPA does not speak with a single voice on
fluoride's neurotoxicity. While the EPA's Office of Water
ignored any brain effect in its 2011 risk assessment, the
Neurotoxicology Division at the EPA's National Health and
Environmental Effects Research Laboratory included fluoride in
its list of "Chemicals with Substantial<b> </b>Evidence
of Developmental Neurotoxicity", for a new project expected to
be launched this year<a name="1328652f49512c7f__ednref10" href="http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2011/08/12/fluoride-and-the-brain-no-margin-of-safety.aspx?e_cid=20110812_DNL_art_1#_edn10" target="_blank"><sup>10</sup></a>.
</p>
<p>Ultimately, therefore, the EPA administrator will have to
resolve the following question: Is it more important to protect
our children's brains or the fluoridation experiment? </p>
</blockquote>
<h2>Fluoridation Proponents' False Claim</h2>
<blockquote>
<p>Proponents of fluoridation have dismissed the fluoride-IQ
studies on the basis of the claim that the children in these
studies were drinking water containing fluoride at <i>much
higher</i> levels than used for water fluoridation
(approximately 1 ppm). </p>
<p>However, such claims do not bear close scrutiny, Xiang<a name="1328652f49512c7f__ednref11" href="http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2011/08/12/fluoride-and-the-brain-no-margin-of-safety.aspx?e_cid=20110812_DNL_art_1#_edn11" target="_blank"><sup>11</sup></a>
estimated that the threshold for IQ lowering was 1.9 ppm and
more recently Ding et al. (2011) found a lowering of IQ in the
range of 0.3 to 3 ppm. These findings reveal that there is no
adequate margin of safety to protect ALL American children
drinking uncontrolled amounts of fluoridated water and ingesting
fluoride from other sources (e.g. toothpaste). </p>
<p>While we will discuss this crucial margin of safety argument in
more detail below, suffice it to say here that when harm is
found in a small human study a safety factor of 10 to 100 is
typically applied in order to extrapolate to a level designed to
protect a whole population from harm.</p>
</blockquote>
<h2>The NRC (2006) Review of Fluoride </h2>
<blockquote>
<p>The NRC panel devoted a whole chapter on the brain in its
507-page 2006 review and concluded: </p>
<blockquote>
<p><i>"it is apparent that fluorides have the ability to
interfere with the functions of the brain and the body by
direct and indirect means.</i>" </p>
</blockquote>
<p>Of the <i>five</i> IQ studies reviewed by the NRC the panel
drew special attention to the study by Xiang et al.<a name="1328652f49512c7f__ednref12" href="http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2011/08/12/fluoride-and-the-brain-no-margin-of-safety.aspx?e_cid=20110812_DNL_art_1#_edn12" target="_blank"><sup>12</sup></a>,
which they indicated had the strongest design. The panel
described this study:</p>
<blockquote>
<p><i>"This study compared the intelligence of 512 children
(ages 8-13) living in two villages with different fluoride
concentrations in the water. The IQ test was administered in
a double-blind manner. The high-fluoride area had a mean
water concentration of 2.47 ± 0.79 mg/L (range 0.57-4.50
milligrams per liter [mg/L]), and the low-fluoride area had
a mean water concentration of 0.36 ± 0.15 mg/L (range
0.18-0.76 mg/L). The populations studied had comparable
iodine and creatinine concentrations, family incomes, family
educational levels, and other factors. </i></p>
<p><i>The populations were not exposed to other significant
sources of fluoride, such as smoke from coal fires,
industrial pollution, or consumption of brick tea. Thus, the
difference in fluoride exposure was attributed to the amount
in the drinking water… the average intelligence quotient
(IQ) of the children in Wamiao was found to be significantly
lower (92.2 ± 13.00; range, 54-126) than that in Xinhuai
(100.41 ± 13.21; range, 60-128). </i></p>
<p><i>The IQ scores in both males and females declined with
increasing fluoride exposure."</i> </p>
</blockquote>
<p>The shift in the IQ curves for both males and females are shown
in Figures 1 and 2. </p>
<p><img src="cid:part1.02010000.01020400@westnet.com.au" alt="Figure 1" style="display: block; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><br>
<b><i>Figure 1.</i></b><i> Distribution of IQ
scores from males in Wiamiao and Xinuai. Source: data from
Xiang et al. 2003a (as shown in NRC, 2006, Figure 7-2, p.
207).</i></p>
<p><img src="cid:part2.04060705.04090107@westnet.com.au" alt="Figure 2" style="display: block; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><br>
<b><i>Figure 2</i></b><i>. Distribution of IQ
scores from females in Wiamiao and Xinuai. Source: data from
Xiang et al. 2003a (as shown in NRC, 2006, Figure 7-1, p.
207).</i></p>
<p>According to the NRC (p. 206): </p>
<blockquote>
<p><i>"A follow-up study to determine whether the lower IQ
scores of the children in Wamiao might be related to
differences in lead exposure disclosed no significant
difference in blood lead concentrations in the two groups of
children<a name="1328652f49512c7f__ednref13" href="http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2011/08/12/fluoride-and-the-brain-no-margin-of-safety.aspx?e_cid=20110812_DNL_art_1#_edn13" target="_blank"><sup>13</sup></a>."
</i></p>
</blockquote>
<p>Xiang extrapolating from the whole set of data estimated that
the threshold for IQ lowering would be 1.9 ppm. Below we use
this estimate in a margin of safety analysis to calculate a
level that would be sufficient to protect all children drinking
fluoridated water.</p>
<p>The NRC panel's overall conclusion based on its review of these
<i>five </i>IQ studies was: </p>
<blockquote>
<p><i>"A few epidemiologic studies of Chinese populations have
reported IQ deficits in children exposed to fluoride at 2.5
to 4 mg/L in drinking water. Although the studies lacked
sufficient detail for the committee to fully assess their
quality and relevance to U.S. populations, the consistency
of the results appears significant enough to warrant
additional research on the effects of fluoride on
intelligence."</i> </p>
</blockquote>
<p>Incredibly, no fluoridating country has followed up on this. We
continue to fly blind on this critical issue. One of the animal
studies reviewed by the NRC was the study by Julie A. Varner and
co-workers<a name="1328652f49512c7f__ednref14" href="http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2011/08/12/fluoride-and-the-brain-no-margin-of-safety.aspx?e_cid=20110812_DNL_art_1#_edn14" target="_blank"><sup>14</sup></a>
from the State University of New York at Binghamton. These
authors fed rats for one year with 1 ppm fluoride in their water.
One group received sodium fluoride, the other aluminum fluoride. </p>
<p>In the rats treated with either fluoride compound, Varner et al.
discovered the following: </p>
<ul>
<li>Morphological changes in the kidney and the brain </li>
<li>An increased uptake of aluminum into the brain </li>
<li>The formation of beta-amyloid deposits, which are a hallmark
for Alzheimer's disease </li>
</ul>
</blockquote>
<h2>More Brain Studies Published Since NRC 2006 Review</h2>
<blockquote>
<p>Since the NRC panel wrote its report in 2006 many more animal
studies have been published and another <i>14</i> IQ studies
have either been published or translated. Five more IQ studies
wait translation from the original Chinese. This brings the
total to 24 IQ studies that have found exposure to fluoride
associated with lowered IQ<a name="1328652f49512c7f__ednref15" href="http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2011/08/12/fluoride-and-the-brain-no-margin-of-safety.aspx?e_cid=20110812_DNL_art_1#_edn15" target="_blank"><sup>15</sup></a>.
</p>
<p>At least 16 studies on animals have shown that fluoride has an
effect upon the hippocampus and nine of these have been
published since the NRC's 2006 review. Damage in this area of
your brain usually results in difficulties in forming new
memories and recalling events that occurred prior to the damage<a name="1328652f49512c7f__ednref16" href="http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2011/08/12/fluoride-and-the-brain-no-margin-of-safety.aspx?e_cid=20110812_DNL_art_1#_edn16" target="_blank"><sup>16</sup></a>.
</p>
</blockquote>
<h2>Xiang Updates His Work<a name="1328652f49512c7f__ednref17" href="http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2011/08/12/fluoride-and-the-brain-no-margin-of-safety.aspx?e_cid=20110812_DNL_art_1#_edn17" target="_blank"><sup>17</sup></a>
</h2>
<blockquote>
<p>An updated version of Xiang et al.'s (2003a) work<a name="1328652f49512c7f__ednref18" href="http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2011/08/12/fluoride-and-the-brain-no-margin-of-safety.aspx?e_cid=20110812_DNL_art_1#_edn18" target="_blank"><sup>18</sup></a>,
which included new information about the relationship between
the level of fluoride in the children's plasma and IQ was
accepted for publication in <i>Environmental Health
Perspectives</i> (the journal of the National Institute of
Environmental Health Sciences) and made available online on
December 17, 2010. </p>
<p>This article was later withdrawn when it was found that some of
the material had been previously published. However, for those
who have used criticisms of the methodologies of some of the 24
IQ studies to justify ignoring the issue completely, it is
important to note that the Xiang et al. paper successfully
passed the peer-review process of this important journal. </p>
</blockquote>
<h2>Another Important Fluoride IQ Study</h2>
<blockquote>
<p>An IQ study published in 2011 by Ding et al.<a name="1328652f49512c7f__ednref19" href="http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2011/08/12/fluoride-and-the-brain-no-margin-of-safety.aspx?e_cid=20110812_DNL_art_1#_edn19" target="_blank"><sup>19</sup></a>
investigated the effects of low levels of fluoride on IQ.
Children were exposed to 0.3 to 3 mg F/L fluoride via drinking
water. The authors found a very significant linear correlation
(p <0.0001) between fluoride levels in the children's urine
and lowered IQ (Figure 3). They calculated that there will be a
lowering of IQ by 0.59 points for each increase of 1 mg/L
urinary fluoride. </p>
<p><img src="cid:part3.08030506.01080508@westnet.com.au" alt="Figure 3" style="display: block; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><br>
<b><i>Figure 3.</i></b><i> The relationship between
IQ differences and urine fluoride concentrations. </i><i>Multiple
linear regression model was carried out to confirm the
association with urine fluoride exposure and IQ scores
(F=9.85, p < 0.0001) (Figure 2, Ding et al., 2011)</i><i>
</i></p>
</blockquote>
<h2>Margin of Safety: The Safety Factors Used in Toxicological
Assessments</h2>
<blockquote>
<p>Promoters of fluoridation, either through ignorance or design,
betray little understanding of the concept of margin of safety.
This is revealed when they dismiss studies carried out at levels
higher than 1 ppm as being irrelevant for assessing the risks
posed by water fluoridation. </p>
<p>This indicates that they have no appreciation of the difference
between concentration and dose. </p>
<p>Someone drinking three liters of water with 1 ppm fluoride
would get a higher dose (3 mg) than someone drinking one liter
of water with 2 ppm fluoride (2 mg). In other words, it is the
dose that hurts people, and thus finding harm at levels as high
as 4 ppm are still relevant to a high water consumer drinking
water at 1 ppm. </p>
<p>Toxicologists usually have to work from high dose animal
experiments to extrapolate to a safe level for humans. </p>
<p>This typically requires the application of a safety factor of
10, when extrapolating from the dose that causes harm in animals
to predict a safe dose for humans (in order to account for the
potential variation between species). Then a second safety
factor of 10 is commonly applied to take into account the full
range of sensitivity to any toxic substance that is to be
expected in any large population. In other words some
individuals are likely to be 10 times more sensitive to fluoride
than others. </p>
<p>In the case of fluoride we are in the unusual situation of
having quite a large amount of human data to work with,
especially in the case of its neurotoxic effects, so it is only
necessary to address the variation in sensitivity expected in a
large population.</p>
<p>In its January 7, 2011, draft risk assessment the EPA Office of
Water took the most unusual tack of not using any safety factor
at all when extrapolating from the dose that causes severe
dental fluorosis<a name="1328652f49512c7f__ednref20" href="http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2011/08/12/fluoride-and-the-brain-no-margin-of-safety.aspx?e_cid=20110812_DNL_art_1#_edn20" target="_blank"><sup>20</sup></a>.
</p>
<p>In other words they believed that they had enough data to state
– with no uncertainty—that no one consuming less than 0.08 mg of
fluoride per kilogram bodyweight per day would develop severe
dental fluorosis. For them to legitimately forego any safety
factor they need to demonstrate that this purported "threshold"
dose is based on sufficiently large numbers of subjects to
represent the full range of different vulnerabilities and
sensitivities in the U.S. population. </p>
<p>Such variations include: age, income levels, nutritional
status, genetic and ethnic variability. </p>
<p>It is notable therefore, that the study on which the EPA's
calculations were based<a name="1328652f49512c7f__ednref21" href="http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2011/08/12/fluoride-and-the-brain-no-margin-of-safety.aspx?e_cid=20110812_DNL_art_1#_edn21" target="_blank"><sup>21</sup></a>
did not include African American or Mexican-American children,
or children from a full range of family income levels. </p>
<p>Dr. Paul Connett, director of the Fluoride Action Network
believes that the EPA Office of Water was forced to choose this
"uncertainty factor" of 1 in order to produce a "safe reference
dose" that was higher than the dose deemed necessary to protect
teeth against decay<b>. </b>In other words, this was
a political decision made to protect the water fluoridation
program. Even more political was the EPA's willingness to ignore
the studies that indicate that fluoride lowers IQ.</p>
</blockquote>
<h2>No Margin of Safety for Fluoride </h2>
<blockquote>
<p>The level at which Ding et al. (2011) researchers found a
lowering of IQ (0.3-3 ppm) overlaps the range at which fluoride
is added to water in the US (0.7 – 1.2 ppm). Even without
applying a safety margin to this finding, it would suggest that
there is no safe level that would protect ALL of America's
children from potential interference with mental development
from fluoride exposure via the water supply.</p>
<p>However, Ding et al. state that this is a preliminary finding,
and more work should be done to control for possible confounding
factors. Meanwhile, it is possible to use the findings of Xiang
et al.<a name="1328652f49512c7f__ednref22" href="http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2011/08/12/fluoride-and-the-brain-no-margin-of-safety.aspx?e_cid=20110812_DNL_art_1#_edn22" target="_blank"><sup>22</sup></a>
to estimate a safe reference dose to protect all American
children from this effect. </p>
<p>This is the task that the EPA Office of Water should have
undertaken. </p>
<p>However, as indicated above, their preliminary calculations for
the safe reference dose published on January 7, 2011, failed to
consider fluoride's potential to lower IQ. The EPA defended its
decision to only consider severe dental fluorosis, by claiming
that this is the most sensitive endpoint of fluoride's toxicity.
The EPA made this claim despite the fact that, in both the Ding
and Xiang studies, reductions in IQ were observed among children
without severe dental fluorosis. This clearly challenges the
EPA's claim that severe dental fluorosis is the most sensitive
adverse effect of fluoride.</p>
</blockquote>
<h2>Other Human Brain Studies</h2>
<blockquote>
<p>Three other studies from China<a name="1328652f49512c7f__ednref23" href="http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2011/08/12/fluoride-and-the-brain-no-margin-of-safety.aspx?e_cid=20110812_DNL_art_1#_edn23" target="_blank"><sup>23</sup></a>
indicate that aborted fetuses in endemic areas for fluorosis
show signs of brain changes compared to aborted fetuses in
non-endemic areas.</p>
<p>Moreover, in a study from Mexico<a name="1328652f49512c7f__ednref24" href="http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2011/08/12/fluoride-and-the-brain-no-margin-of-safety.aspx?e_cid=20110812_DNL_art_1#_edn24" target="_blank"><sup>24</sup></a>,
Rocha-Amador et al found that children exposed to moderate
levels of fluoride had impaired visual-spatial recognition
abilities. Such impairments could affect a child's development.
In 2009 the Rocha-Amador team performed tests<a name="1328652f49512c7f__ednref25" href="http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2011/08/12/fluoride-and-the-brain-no-margin-of-safety.aspx?e_cid=20110812_DNL_art_1#_edn25" target="_blank"><sup>25</sup></a>
on children exposed to various neurotoxicants (Fluoride,
Arsenic, Lead, DDT, DDE or PCBs). Fluoride exposed children were
selected if they had dental fluorosis (a bio-marker for fluoride
over-exposure). </p>
<p>All the children exposed to the various neurotoxicants "had
very poor performance in Copy and Immediate Recall tests and in
general they recalled less information on the
Construction/Memory score." </p>
<p>As the authors of these studies note, fluoride's impact on the
brain may be evident in the absence of crude reductions in IQ.
Indeed, the authors note that IQ tests may well fail to detect
fluoride's more subtle effects on cognitive function. </p>
<p>Consistent with Rocha-Amador's research on non-IQ effects, Li
et al.<a name="1328652f49512c7f__ednref26" href="http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2011/08/12/fluoride-and-the-brain-no-margin-of-safety.aspx?e_cid=20110812_DNL_art_1#_edn26" target="_blank"><sup>26</sup></a>
reported that infants born in areas with high fluoride levels
had "significant differences in the non-biological visual
orientation reaction and biological visual and auditory
orientation reaction" compared to infants born in areas with low
fluoride levels. </p>
</blockquote>
<h2>Establishing a Safe Drinking Water Level for Fluoride MCLG</h2>
<p>The most important step in setting a federally enforceable safe
drinking water standard (maximum contaminant level or MCL) is the
determination of the Maximum Contaminant Level <i>Goal</i>
(MCLG). This determination is made by the EPA's Office of Water.
The MCLG is the level of a contaminant in water below which there
is no known or reasonably anticipated risk to health. </p>
<p>The MCLG is the basis for setting the enforceable standard (MCL).
</p>
<p>This enforceable standard takes into account the cost of removing
the contaminant and is therefore not as protective as the MCLG
level. For example the MCLG for arsenic is zero, but the MCL is
set at 15 ppb (parts per billion) due to the costs of removing
natural arsenic from some water supplies. For fluoride, Xiang et
al. (2003a, b) estimated that the lowest water concentration
associated with a lowering of IQ was 1.9 mg F/L. Ironically, this
is the same threshold that the EPA's Office of Water offers for
severe dental fluorosis. </p>
<p>We convert this to a dose by assuming that the children in the
Xiang study were consuming on average one liter of water a day.
One liter of water at 1.9 mg F/L translates into a dose of 1.9
mg/day. This is called the lowest observable adverse effect level
(LOAEL).</p>
<p>Because these studies only dealt with 500 children, with fairly
similar genetics, lifestyles and nutritional status, we would need
at least the standard uncertainty factor of 10 to account for the
full range of sensitivity expected in the whole population in the
U.S. to arrive at a safe daily dose. 1.9 mg F/day divided by 10
equals 0.19 mg F/day and thus a safe daily dose should be set no
higher than this. Such a dose would be exceeded by a child
drinking less than one glass of water (250 ml) at 1 ppm (1 ppm = 1
mg/liter). </p>
<p>In other words water fluoridation is not safe; some children
could have their mental development impaired by drinking as little
as one glass of fluoridated water on a daily basis.</p>
<p>As far as setting a maximum contaminant level goal (MCLG) for
safe drinking water is concerned, we should note that this safe
daily dose of 0.19 mg/day is already being exceeded from other
sources. </p>
<p>For example the EPA OW estimates that mean fluoride ingestion
from toothpaste among children between the ages of 1 and 4 is 0.34
mg/day<a name="1328652f49512c7f__ednref27" href="http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2011/08/12/fluoride-and-the-brain-no-margin-of-safety.aspx?e_cid=20110812_DNL_art_1#_edn27" target="_blank"><sup>27</sup></a>.
Fluoride intake from toothpaste alone, therefore, contributes
twice the safe daily dose of 0.19 mg/day. Thus, since some
children will exceed the safe dose of fluoride from non-water
sources alone, it is difficult to understand how the MCLG for
fluoride could be set any higher than ZERO if the EPA were to
acknowledge the existence of these IQ studies and follow routine
procedures. </p>
<p>Of all the dangers posed by fluoridation (and there are many
others) the potential to impact a child's mental development must
be considered one of the most serious. Just how long can promoters
continue to ignore the voluminous evidence of these dangers? </p>
<p>And how long will the public let them?</p>
</div>
</div><br><br clear="all"><br>-- <br>P2P Foundation: <a href="http://p2pfoundation.net" target="_blank">http://p2pfoundation.net</a> - <a href="http://blog.p2pfoundation.net" target="_blank">http://blog.p2pfoundation.net</a> <br>
<br>Connect: <a href="http://p2pfoundation.ning.com" target="_blank">http://p2pfoundation.ning.com</a>; Discuss: <a href="http://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation" target="_blank">http://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation</a><div>
<br>Updates: <a href="http://del.icio.us/mbauwens" target="_blank">http://del.icio.us/mbauwens</a>; <a href="http://friendfeed.com/mbauwens" target="_blank">http://friendfeed.com/mbauwens</a>; <a href="http://twitter.com/mbauwens" target="_blank">http://twitter.com/mbauwens</a>; <a href="http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens" target="_blank">http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens</a><br>
</div><br>