Iodine v. Flouride

[Melendwyr]

I'll admit that I'm partial to the "flouride is used by the body" crowd, as I once had a dentist prescribe a toothpaste with a higher percentage flouride than you can normally get to repair damage that I'd done to my teeth (Kids, don't chew tobacco...it can ruin your teeth. This PSA brought to you by, Me.).

That's not an example of the body using fluoride. When it bonds with tooth enamel, it tends to seal over small cracks and holes. Such toothpaste would also ensure that any worn areas on your teeth would have become completely covered by the fluoride compound, reducing the chance that they'd start eroding around the rest of the tooth.

Also, if flouride cannot be absorbed into the body, then how can it turn the teeth brown?

It's not actively absorbed by the body. If you ingest it, it will be present in blood, and react with calcium throughout the body.

Lead and mercury aren't actively absorbed by the body either, yet they show up in all kinds of places once ingested.

 

[kmortis]

It's not actively absorbed by the body. If you ingest it, it will be present in blood, and react with calcium throughout the body.

Ok...what's the difference between active and passive absorption. To me, the admitted layman, the former makes it sound as if the body hunts down the wiley flouride ion, kills it, eats it's liver for its courage and runs away whooping a victory whoop.

The later sounds more like a drunken college guy trying to pick up wahtever chick he happens to be standing next to at the bar.

"Hey, Flora...can I buy ya" {hic}"a drink?"

 

[Melendwyr]

Ok...what's the difference between active and passive absorption. To me, the admitted layman, the former makes it sound as if the body hunts down the wiley flouride ion, kills it, eats it's liver for its courage and runs away whooping a victory whoop.

Iodine is actively absorbed. Ingesting even tiny amounts results in the iodine being captured and concentrated in the thyroid, where it's essential for making various hormones. This is why radioactive fallout can be so dangerous (an unstable isotope of iodine is one of the components of fallout, and the concentration in the thyroid means that organ experiences much higher doses of radiation than the rest of the body) and why taking iodine pills helps prevent radiation poisoning (if the body has more than enough iodine, it stops bringing the stuff to the thyroid, so trace amounts of the isotope are ignored).

The body doesn't seek out fluoride. Fluoride is not part of the process of developing teeth at all. If sufficient amounts of the ion are ingested, dissolved fluoride will chemically enter the developing teeth, one of the effects of which is an increased resistance to acid.

Whether there are other effects, and whether those effects are harmful, is something that I'm not completely sure of. It seems no one else in this thread actually knows, either, or we wouldn't have all of this intentional misreading and smoke-blowing.

 

[Nex]

Melandwyr, your aggressive attitude is really uncalled for. Misunderstandings occur, and there's no need for you to blame them on everyone else -- it takes two to create a misunderstanding. Your implication that it is intentional is simply rude.

I would guess then, since you've rephrased, we should define what you mean by "the body seeking out" a nutrient.

As you've stated, iodine is stored in the thyroid. Vitamin C is not stored anywhere, but yet we need that in order to live.

Also, what do you mean by "actively absorbed"? Do you mean active cellular transport?

(if the body has more than enough iodine, it stops bringing the stuff to the thyroid, so trace amounts of the isotope are ignored)

Excess iodine is still transported to the thyroid. Iodine toxicity is called thyrotoxicosis, and in the USA there is an upper intake level (UL) set for iodine (1100 mcg).
(source: Foundations and Clinical Applications of Nutrition, 3rd Edition, page 228)

 

[Melendwyr]

Misunderstandings occur, and there's no need for you to blame them on everyone else -- it takes two to create a misunderstanding.

No, it just takes one stupid person. We've met that requirement several times over in this thread.

 

[Nex]

Be careful Melandwyr -- you may get swept away by the river of tears your comment has caused.

 

[Ririon]

Be careful Melandwyr -- you may get swept away by the river of tears your comment has caused.

Careful with the crying part. The body doesn't actively absorb water, you know...

 

[John Jackson]

No, it just takes one stupid person. We've met that requirement several times over in this thread.

Yes, it does get rather annoying when you get an egotistical fool who's clearly wrong but doesn't have the humilty to acknowledge the fact.

You can always tell when these condescending know-alls are losing the argument, as the pattern is always the same. They get angry, and they start insulting people.

Now who has displayed those characteristics in this thread (and this) I wonder?

Once you see a comment like, "For self-labeled skeptics, quite a few of you people are awfully bad at critical thought." it's a telltale sign that an egoist has realised that they are wrong.

Now I believe the actual topic of this thread was: why doesn't Iodine get targeted the way fluoride does by the anti brigade. Let's see if we can get back on topic.

 

[Melendwyr]

We haven't left the topic.

Iodine is a nutrient whose dearth directly results in dramatic health problems for people of all ages and mental retardation in developing fetuses. Fluoride is not a nutrient and isn't necessary for healthy teeth, and is only beneficial in water for children whose adult teeth are still developing.

Given those facts, it's easy to see why there are more people convinced that water fluoridation is harmful than salt iodination.

(By your "reasoning", John Jackson, Randi demonstrates that he knows his opponents are correct every time he insults them. There's another reason Randi gets angry. Can you guess what it is?)

 

[kmortis]

We haven't left the topic.

Iodine is a nutrient whose dearth directly results in dramatic health problems for people of all ages and mental retardation in developing fetuses. Fluoride is not a nutrient and isn't necessary for healthy teeth, and is only beneficial in water for children whose adult teeth are still developing.

Given those facts, it's easy to see why there are more people convinced that water fluoridation is harmful than salt iodination.

(By your "reasoning", John Jackson, Randi demonstrates that he knows his opponents are correct every time he insults them. There's another reason Randi gets angry. Can you guess what it is?)

Except:
1) I was well into my 20's when I got that high-F toothpaste. Not exactly a "devloping child whose adult teeth are still devloping", eh?
2) Most of us have already agreed that F is not necessary, but definatly aids in the building and rebuilding of teeth. Iodine is necessary for good health; but in large amounts will have the opposite effect.

 

[Melendwyr]

Except:
1) I was well into my 20's when I got that high-F toothpaste. Not exactly a "devloping child whose adult teeth are still devloping", eh?

That's a surface-applied treatment, kmortis. There's really no way for fluoride to act as a nutrient in that situation.

2) Most of us have already agreed that F is not necessary, but definatly aids in the building and rebuilding of teeth.

Sorry, but I have to disagree with this. Teeth are built just fine without any amount of fluoride. Sufficient water fluoridation to cause a change in tooth development changes the way teeth develop. Similarly, topical fluoride may cause cracks and holes to be filled in with the new compound, but that's not how the body would attempt to repair teeth (it really can't).

Fluoride doesn't make it easier for the body to build teeth the way it normally would - it changes teeth to something different. That does not, in itself, make the change bad. But it's not at all like vaccination, which causes the immune system to generate the same protective antibodies that it would to an actual infection.

 

[kmortis]

Sorry, but I have to disagree with this. Teeth are built just fine without any amount of fluoride.

Ok, I think this is a point that everyone has stated.

Sufficient water fluoridation to cause a change in tooth development changes the way teeth develop. Similarly, topical fluoride may cause cracks and holes to be filled in with the new compound, but that's not how the body would attempt to repair teeth (it really can't).

This seems to be where some of the debate occurs. I'm not qualified to discuss it. Maybe one of our resident MDs or DDSs can address it.

Fluoride doesn't make it easier for the body to build teeth the way it normally would - it changes teeth to something different.

I HAVE MUTANT TEETH????

That does not, in itself, make the change bad. But it's not at all like vaccination, which causes the immune system to generate the same protective antibodies that it would to an actual infection.

I don't remember anyone equating flouride usage (or non-usage, if you'd like) to the immune system. I've equated it to steel v. iron usage.

 

[LTC8K6]

But seawater has even higher average levels of fluoride.....

Fluoride is naturally in just about everything we eat.

 

[Melendwyr]

I HAVE MUTANT TEETH????

Not in any literal sense.

I don't remember anyone equating flouride usage (or non-usage, if you'd like) to the immune system. I've equated it to steel v. iron usage.

I don't tthink you understood what I said, kmortis.

 

[kmortis]

Not in any literal sense.

Oh, I dunno, you've never seen my teeth.

I don't tthink you understood what I said, kmortis.

Fluoride doesn't make it easier for the body to build teeth the way it normally would - it changes teeth to something different. That does not, in itself, make the change bad. But it's not at all like vaccination, which causes the immune system to generate the same protective antibodies that it would to an actual infection.

In this passage, you equated flouridation with vaccination. Granted, you did it in a negative way.

What I am curious about is, what is it that the teeth are changed into? I assume that you mean that the enamel is altered in some way?

 

[Melendwyr]

In this passage, you equated flouridation with vaccination.

Only in the sense that they're both interventions. Otherwise, they're almost completely different.

Vaccination induces an immune response. There's nothing unnatural (perhaps you feel 'nonnatural' is a more neutral term) about immune responses or the immune system learning to recognize and attack things it's been previously exposed to.

Fluoridation, in contrast, does not assist or complement normal tooth development in any way.

What I am curious about is, what is it that the teeth are changed into? I assume that you mean that the enamel is altered in some way?

I don't remember the name of the compound that results when fluoride ions bond to the calcium compounds in enamel. I do recall that it's significantly more resistant to acid dissolution, as well as being slightly softer.

 

[kmortis]

Only in the sense that they're both interventions. Otherwise, they're almost completely different.

Vaccination induces an immune response. There's nothing unnatural (perhaps you feel 'nonnatural' is a more neutral term) about immune responses or the immune system learning to recognize and attack things it's been previously exposed to.

Fluoridation, in contrast, does not assist or complement normal tooth development in any way.

I don't remember the name of the compound that results when fluoride ions bond to the calcium compounds in enamel. I do recall that it's significantly more resistant to acid dissolution, as well as being slightly softer.

Ok

 

[EatatJoes]

I was speaking with a woman at work today that actively seeks out non-fluoride toothpaste. She didn't state why exactly she is (I didn't ask), but I began to wonder if one should actively avoid fluoride in general. Let's assume that Fl is not necessary or even helpful in preventing tooth decay. Should one spend the energy trying to avoid it considering all the places you find it? Assuming quote is true.

But seawater has even higher average levels of fluoride.....

Fluoride is naturally in just about everything we eat.

Has "regular" consumption of Fl (assuming that you use fluoride toothpaste and you live a community where it is added to the water) been linked to any negative heath effects? Is is worth the time to avoid it?

 

[kmortis]

I was speaking with a woman at work today that actively seeks out non-fluoride toothpaste. She didn't state why exactly she is (I didn't ask), but I began to wonder if one should actively avoid fluoride in general. Let's assume that Fl is not necessary or even helpful in preventing tooth decay. Should one spend the energy trying to avoid it considering all the places you find it? Assuming quote is true.



Has "regular" consumption of Fl (assuming that you use fluoride toothpaste and you live a community where it is added to the water) been linked to any negative heath effects? Is is worth the time to avoid it?

I think, and I'm sure I'll be corrected vociferously if I'm wrong, that the short of it is that while F isn't NECESSARY, it isn't harmful, and can be a help in the doses normally found.

Anyone know the LD50 of F?

 

[PatKelley]

I think, and I'm sure I'll be corrected vociferously if I'm wrong, that the short of it is that while F isn't NECESSARY, it isn't harmful, and can be a help in the doses normally found.

Anyone know the LD50 of F?

Depends on its form. Hydrofluoric acid has a rather low LD50, and is cited on occasion to bolster the argument that fluoride is dangerous. Humans have died from 1.5 g orally.

However, fluoride salts don't appear to have an LD50... there is a listing that at constant exposure at 30 times the water fluoridation levels (30ppm vs 1ppm) causes skeletal fluoridosis which can cause joint pain and essentially spine immotility.

Fluoride occurs naturally in many groundwaters, specifically those that have alkaline soil such as limes and carbonates. If it was simply an ion concentration, then folks in northwest Texas should have a much lower rate of cavities than anyone else- they have the limiest water around; comes out of the fountains opaque white. But it turns out the correlation is fluoride salts.

The happenstance of increased resistance to cavities is enough to warrant fluoride addition to water supplies. While it is seen as 'forced medication' to some, it really comes down to civic responsibility. Same arguments could be made for public schooling and truancy laws. But both are effective; there is not doubt about that. Neither is detrimental; this has also been shown in an epidemiological study done between two Canadian towns, one of which had fluoridation for twenty-five years, the other of which did not. Same lattitude, same region, same population size. There was no significant difference. There was a small difference in male osteoporosis, but again; not significant: within the realm of chance occurance rather than representing a trend.

That was it. One slight difference over twenty-five years.