Flash Flash Revolution - View Single Post

**Cavernio** · 08-1-2013, 08:22 AM

"All of the *scientific* studies done on the subject recognize what levels of fluoride are safe and what aren't and fluoride levels coming from regulated sources have ppms well below toxic levels."

I don't give a shit about fluoride one way or the other, but there are multiple problems when going by such studies in regards to toxicity. Firstly, and by far the most important, is how toxicity levels, for pretty much anything, rely on LD50's and look at obvious, serious issues like cancer that cause the death. If something isn't going to kill you or give you cancer, but would otherwise fuck you up, toxicity studies aren't going to find anything wrong, even though there could still be serious health concerns with much smaller amounts. This is why endocrine disruptors are ubiquitous in our society.
Secondly, the ppm's you might get of fluoride in, say, a glass of water or even 8 glasses of water might not be harmful, but if it's then in your food and your toothpaste or somewhere else (I'm assuming food has to have some), you get a lot more of it than 1 serving's worth. I presume fluoride's been studied enough such that this has been considered. Even then though, using something I can draw on from experience, things like ppm of gluten and overall gluten consumption has also been considered, but if I ate 5ppm gluten food all the time, I would technically be eating quite safely and properly from a doctor's standpoint, yet still be sick.
Thirdly, different levels of the same thing can affect your body differently. Endocrine disruptor example again, BPA. In small quantities that are something 100-1000 times less (I forget how much, but it's a lot) than what will cause cancer, your body treats them differently.
Fourthly, what holds true for the population in general doesn't have to hold true to any 1 individual, ever. Obvious example: any allergy.

True safety studies regarding suspected harmful substances are ideally use amounts similar to what a person will be exposed to as well as upper tolerable limits and what causes death etc, and have some sort of duration taken into consideration.

I presume any doctor who advocates snake oil is taking advantage of the positive side of placebo.

08-1-2013, 08:22 AM	#1791
Cavernio sunshine and rainbows Join Date: Feb 2006 Age: 41 Posts: 1,987	Re: The Fitness Thread "All of the scientific studies done on the subject recognize what levels of fluoride are safe and what aren't and fluoride levels coming from regulated sources have ppms well below toxic levels." I don't give a shit about fluoride one way or the other, but there are multiple problems when going by such studies in regards to toxicity. Firstly, and by far the most important, is how toxicity levels, for pretty much anything, rely on LD50's and look at obvious, serious issues like cancer that cause the death. If something isn't going to kill you or give you cancer, but would otherwise fuck you up, toxicity studies aren't going to find anything wrong, even though there could still be serious health concerns with much smaller amounts. This is why endocrine disruptors are ubiquitous in our society. Secondly, the ppm's you might get of fluoride in, say, a glass of water or even 8 glasses of water might not be harmful, but if it's then in your food and your toothpaste or somewhere else (I'm assuming food has to have some), you get a lot more of it than 1 serving's worth. I presume fluoride's been studied enough such that this has been considered. Even then though, using something I can draw on from experience, things like ppm of gluten and overall gluten consumption has also been considered, but if I ate 5ppm gluten food all the time, I would technically be eating quite safely and properly from a doctor's standpoint, yet still be sick. Thirdly, different levels of the same thing can affect your body differently. Endocrine disruptor example again, BPA. In small quantities that are something 100-1000 times less (I forget how much, but it's a lot) than what will cause cancer, your body treats them differently. Fourthly, what holds true for the population in general doesn't have to hold true to any 1 individual, ever. Obvious example: any allergy. True safety studies regarding suspected harmful substances are ideally use amounts similar to what a person will be exposed to as well as upper tolerable limits and what causes death etc, and have some sort of duration taken into consideration. I presume any doctor who advocates snake oil is taking advantage of the positive side of placebo. Last edited by Cavernio; 08-1-2013 at 08:33 AM..