• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

New study links lower IQs with consumption of fluoridated water during pregnancy

We Never Know

No Slack

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
A new study indicates a link between lower intelligence quotient of children and whether their mothers drank fluoridated water during pregnancy. The study was published in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA).

Association Between Maternal Fluoride Exposure During Fetal Development and IQ Scores in Offspring in Canada
A red flag from the abstract: they found a statistically significant result for boys, but not for girls. Unless there's some mechanism to explain this difference, the most likely explanation is that the statistically significant finding was just a fluke.
 

We Never Know

No Slack
A red flag from the abstract: they found a statistically significant result for boys, but not for girls. Unless there's some mechanism to explain this difference, the most likely explanation is that the statistically significant finding was just a fluke.

Maybe it has something to do with the mtdna.
Maybe they don't know.
Maybe it needs more studying.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
A red flag from the abstract: they found a statistically significant result for boys, but not for girls. Unless there's some mechanism to explain this difference, the most likely explanation is that the statistically significant finding was just a fluke.
I made a very similar observation on the other thread on this topic. It could be sociological, it is highly unlikely to be biological.
 

Shaul

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
A red flag from the abstract: they found a statistically significant result for boys, but not for girls. Unless there's some mechanism to explain this difference, the most likely explanation is that the statistically significant finding was just a fluke.
Re-read the abstract. The gender difference was only for the group with the lower fluoride dosage. At the higher dosage both boys and girls had lowering of IQ. The findings could simply show that the threshold is lower for boys. But both boys and girls demonstrate the effect.
 

Shaul

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
I made a very similar observation on the other thread on this topic. It could be sociological, it is highly unlikely to be biological.
Re-read the abstract. Both boys and girls demonstrate the effect at the higher fluoride dosage. Sociological factors could not explain the results.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Re-read the abstract. Both boys and girls demonstrate the effect at the higher fluoride dosage. Sociological factors could not explain the results.
But strangely enough it seems that the boys intelligence actually increased with the higher dosage than at the lower dosage. The results appear to be inconsistent at best and self contradictory at the worst. I would say that at best this justifies further research, but there are no conclusive results to hang one's hat on yet.
 

Shaul

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
But strangely enough it seems that the boys intelligence actually increased with the higher dosage than at the lower dosage. The results appear to be inconsistent at best and self contradictory at the worst. I would say that at best this justifies further research, but there are no conclusive results to hang one's hat on yet.
Another question is this, why weren’t such studies done before exposing everybody to a potential risk?
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Another question is this, why weren’t such studies done before exposing everybody to a potential risk?

What makes you think that studies were not done? Now this particular variation may not have been studied, but one cannot study all possibilities. Time to quit grasping at straws. The best that you can do is to advocate for a better study.

Tell me, if a better study, that did not have conflicting results, showed that there was nothing to this claim would you drop this silly belief?
 

Shaul

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
What makes you think that studies were not done? Now this particular variation may not have been studied, but one cannot study all possibilities. Time to quit grasping at straws. The best that you can do is to advocate for a better study.

Tell me, if a better study, that did not have conflicting results, showed that there was nothing to this claim would you drop this silly belief?
I know the studies were not done because because a news article mentioned that this study was done precisely because only a few flawed studies were previously done.

Pregnancy is a common condition. Any product must be tested for against reasonable exposures. That isn’t a “silly belief”. It is due diligence. Especially when alternative delivery mechanisms, which would not expose potentially vulnerable segments of society such as pregnant women, are certainly possible. Fluoride could be delivered via delivery systems that would not expose pregnant women. By electing to use a general public means for delivering the fluoride, those who made that choice have the onus to make sure it is safe.

This doesn’t even consider groups who could derive no benefits whatsoever from fluoride but still be exposed to potential harm and other groups who, although they might have fewer cavities, face grave consequences being exposed to fluoride that far, far out way the benefits.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
I know the studies were not done because because a news article mentioned that this study was done precisely because only a few flawed studies were previously done.

Pregnancy is a common condition. Any product must be tested for against reasonable exposures. That isn’t a “silly belief”. It is due diligence. Especially when alternative delivery mechanisms, which would not expose potentially vulnerable segments of society such as pregnant women, are certainly possible. Fluoride could be delivered via delivery systems that would not expose pregnant women. By electing to use a general public means for delivering the fluoride, those who made that choice have the onus to make sure it is safe.

This doesn’t even consider groups who could derive no benefits whatsoever from fluoride but still be exposed to potential harm and other groups who, although they might have fewer cavities, face grave consequences being exposed to fluoride that far, far out way the benefits.


You did not pay attention. This one silly study was not done. Other studies were done. And yes, your beliefs are silly.

By the way, you dodged my question. An indicator that you know that you are wrong.
 

Milton Platt

Well-Known Member
A new study indicates a link between lower intelligence quotient of children and whether their mothers drank fluoridated water during pregnancy. The study was published in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA).

Association Between Maternal Fluoride Exposure During Fetal Development and IQ Scores in Offspring in Canada

I have always thought the anti-flouride movement was misguided. I am slowly coming around to believing flouride in drinking water was a bad idea.
This study needs to be repeated on a larger scale to confirm the conclusions, but it seems pretty solid.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
I have always thought the anti-flouride movement was misguided. I am slowly coming around to believing flouride in drinking water was a bad idea.
This study needs to be repeated on a larger scale to confirm the conclusions, but it seems pretty solid.

I would not be so quick to change my mind. The findings of the study are self contradictory. I would say that the study does mean that others like it should be made. I would not be so quick to drop what has been a benevolent product without solid evidence.
 

Enoch07

It's all a sick freaking joke.
Premium Member
A new study indicates a link between lower intelligence quotient of children and whether their mothers drank fluoridated water during pregnancy. The study was published in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA).

Association Between Maternal Fluoride Exposure During Fetal Development and IQ Scores in Offspring in Canada

Flouride is naturally present in most water, if only trace amounts. The highest I've ever personally tested is a concentration of .20 mg/l out of a well.

Water treatment facilities add flouride to the water to help prevent tooth decay in the population. Now the desired amount to have to prevent tooth decay is 1.0 mg/l after treatment. So keep that in mind.

But what your not taking into consideration is the amount of iron and manganese that are taken out of the water that result in what's known as Nitrate - Wikipedia and Parkinson's disease - Wikipedia.

And let's not forget Cryptosporidium - Wikipedia and Giardia - Wikipedia both of which are removed/disinfected via the treatment process. Both can be deadly to the young, elderly, or anyone with a compromised immune system. Without treatment to provide water for civilization, civilization would grind to a halt extremely fast. And would not have developed as quickly as it has in the years since it had been put in place.
 

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
I made a very similar observation on the other thread on this topic. It could be sociological, it is highly unlikely to be biological.
I'm sure there are a ton of sociological confounding factors, especially since the way they got their "high flouride" and low flouride" groups is by going to entirely separate cities.

I don't know about the specific IQ test they used, but a general problem with many IQ tests is cultural bias. One of the "flouridated" cities they got test subjects from was Toronto. Toronto is probably the most multicultural city of Earth, with a higher proportion of people whose first language isn't English than any other primarily English-speaking city. I have to wonder what effect just this factor had.
 

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
Water treatment facilities add flouride to the water to help prevent tooth decay in the population. Now the desired amount to have to prevent tooth decay is 1.0 mg/l after treatment. So keep that in mind.

But what your not taking into consideration is the amount of iron and manganese that are taken out of the water that result in what's known as Nitrate - Wikipedia and Parkinson's disease - Wikipedia.
The paper did say that they tested the maternal urine sample for other minerals to check for any correlations in the data due to them - they definitely mentioned manganese; I can't remember if iron was on the list.
 

Enoch07

It's all a sick freaking joke.
Premium Member
The paper did say that they tested the maternal urine sample for other minerals to check for any correlations in the data due to them - they definitely mentioned manganese; I can't remember if iron was on the list.

Iron is usually more prevalent in water. At least in my experience. Most test results between .050 mg/l to .150 mg/l range that's raw water mind you. After treatment it is reduced down to .000-.005 mg/l. But that's normal. Iron oxide - Wikipedia is everywhere. So everytime it rains it washes it into the streams. It does settle out but it takes a few days, and some inevitably gets dissolved into the water basically (it's still there just so small you can't see it).

Manganese runs about .010 to .030 mg/l range usually after treatment it is reduced to about .000-.005 mg/l.
 

Milton Platt

Well-Known Member
I would not be so quick to change my mind. The findings of the study are self contradictory. I would say that the study does mean that others like it should be made. I would not be so quick to drop what has been a benevolent product without solid evidence.

I agree and stated that further studies to provide confirmation are needed. My point was that although I am not anti-fluoride at the moment, I am open to evidence to the contrary.
 
Top