/sci/ - Science & Math

Its a conspiracy. Flouride damages brain cells and causes people to believe in global warming.

nice get

Nice get.

It's nonsense drummed up by companies selling things like water ionizers and homeopathic remedies, and pushed through Prisonplanet and other fringe hysteria sites for paranoid schizophrenics.

nice get mane

Economics is not a science

SON OF A BITCH

WHY RUIN THE FUCKING GET?

RELEVANT CITATION from the POL thread:

IF YOU DISREGARD THIS PEER-REVIEWED RESEARCH FUCK YOU.

>>1776650
>>1776758
>>1776836
>>1776968

The research shows that:
1. Fluoridated students are 5 times more likely to be low IQ, and have a mean IQ 8 points lower than on fluoridated students (in China).

2. Fluoridated water increases the risk of hip fracture in women.

3. Fluoridated water increases the risk of bone cancer in young men.

4. Fluoridated water increases the risk of dental fluorosis, associated with low IQ (and also make teeth look nasty as fuck pic related).

5. Does not improve oral health.

I was once told, in a matter-of-fact manner, that "...fluoride is a heavy metal. Why would we need a heavy metal in our water? It serves no purpose."

I have no respect for such conspiracy theorists.

boards.4chan.org/pol/res/1776616

>>4394279
>citation posted

>First rebuttal is anecdote ad hominem.

Stay classy /sci/

>>4394279
Hahaha, I love when the other boards try to tell me how chemistry works with Wikipedia articles they don't understand.

>>4394285
>implying they are wikipedia articles.

Nope.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21237562

China created a nationwide ban on artificially fluoridated water supplies because of this study.

Keep the lack of substance coming /sci/.

>>4394284
It might help if you actually linked to the citations. You kind of failed at that, bro.

>>4394284

Aside from the citation being invalid, it is not ad hominem.

Were I to say, "Conspiracy theorists are idiots, therefore they are wrong." then that is ad hominem.

Were I to say, "Conspiracy theorists think that fluoride is a heavy metal, therefore they are idiots", then that is not ad hominem.

>is fluoride in public drinking water perfectly safe?

Yes, it's perfectly safe. Sodium Fluoride (NaF) the compound used to fluoridate drinking water is only toxic in quantities on the order of a few grams.

Typical NaF concentration in drinking water is only half a milligram per liter. Since NaF isn't retained very well by the body, you would need to consume several THOUSAND liters of water in a relatively short period in order to actually die from Sodium Fluoride poisoning.


You would actually die of water poisoning first. (you can actually slip into a coma and die if you consume too much water without replenishing your electrolytes)


I hope this answer's /pol/'s questions.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21237562
scroll down

>There has been public concern about children's intellectual performance at high levels of fluoride exposure, but few studies provide data directly to the question of whether low fluoride exposure levels less than 3.0 mg/L in drinking water adversely associated with children's intelligence. In this survey, we investigated the effects of low fluoride exposure on children's intelligence and dental fluorosis. 331 children aged from 7 to 14 were randomly recruited from four sites in Hulunbuir City, China. Intelligence was assessed using Combined Raven Test-The Rural in China while dental fluorosis was diagnosed with Dean's index. Mean value of fluoride in drinking water was 1.31±1.05 mg/L (range 0.24-2.84). Urine fluoride was inversely associated with IQ in the multiple linear regression model when children's age as a covariate variable was taken into account (P<0.0001). Each increase in 1 mg/L of urine fluoride associated with 0.59-point decrease in IQ (P=0.0226). Meanwhile, there was a dose-response relationship between urine fluoride and dental fluorosis (P<0.0001). In conclusion, our study suggested that low levels of fluoride exposure in drinking water had negative effects on children's intelligence and dental health and confirmed the dose-response relationships between urine fluoride and IQ scores as well as dental fluorosis.

TL;DR (sci is low-iq from what I see in this thread so far, so you probably need a summary of a summary):

>In conclusion, our study suggested that low levels of fluoride exposure in drinking water had negative effects on children's intelligence and dental health and confirmed the dose-response relationships between urine fluoride and IQ scores as well as dental fluorosis.

>>4394288
>four sites in Hulunbuir City

China cannot into independent replication, apparently.

>>4394294

>using IQ tests
>calling it a scientific study

>>4394288
I thought china made a nation wide ban when they were unable to maintain any kind of consistency and it resulted in several deaths when they used an entire year's supply in one week?

Also, one study, by the chinese government. After the deaths which absolves the chinese government of any responsibility.

>>4394300
>okay

So then let's talk about physical health problems instead, shall we?

http://www.nature.com/scientificamerican/journal/v298/n1/full/scientificamerican0108-74.html

>Researchers are intensifying their scrutiny of fluoride, which is added to most public water systems in the U.S. Some recent studies suggest that overconsumption of fluoride can raise the risks of disorders affecting teeth, bones, the brain and the thyroid gland.
>A 2006 report by a committee of the National Research Council recommended that the federal government lower its current limit for fluoride in drinking water because of health risks to both children and adults.

http://www.dartmouth.edu/~news/releases/2001/mar01/flouride.html
Suggests that fluoridated water is dangerous to human health.

http://www.rense.com/politics6/fl.htm

>Fluoride in drinking water increases risk of hip fracture in older people.

>"The scientific evidence clearly shows that fluoride damages bone even at levels added to public drinking water," says Dr. John R. Lee, physician and authority on fluoride and its bone effects.

>Kurttio and colleagues studied over 144,000 elderly rural Finnish people admitted to hospitals with their first hip fracture, who lived at the same address from 1967 to 1980. They found that women aged 50-64 years old exposed to natural water fluoride levels greater than 1.5 mg/liter had significantly more hip fractures than similar women least exposed to fluoride at 0.1 mg/liter or less.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,190977,00.html
>fluoridated water supplies linked to bone cancer in men

I guess Nature is full of shit too right? Cognitive dissonance much /sci/? Redeem yourself, this could be an epic get.

>chinese science

really now guys?

>>4394300
Not sure if trolling, but one of the common objections to flouridation is that it allegedly lowers IQ and that study came to the same conclusion.

>>4394303
FUCK YOU, IF YOU DON'T AGREE YOU GOT BRAINWASHED BY THE FLUORIDE!

>>4394303
>propaganda

wow sci, really?

"i didn't already have this conclusion in my head before i came to this thread, so it's fake!"

>>4394306
foxnews;dr

so when scientific research agrees with sci, conspiracy is impossible, but when scientific study shows fluoride in drinking water to be HEAVILY correlated with low IQ, and shown to increase risk of bone cancer, and shown to increase risk of hip fracture, and shown to increase risk of dental fluorosis, then it's a conspiracy of evil scientists lying?

>>4394320
>implying only one link was posted
>implying fox news did the research

>>4394321
Do you own a Ron Paul bumper sticker?

>>4394306
The problem with these types of "studies" is that they're merely built on correlation, not causation.

There's rarely, if ever, any actual research into whether or not fluoride is causing these health issues or even under what circumstances it could... only the statistical observation that they happen to correlate.

How do you get rid of the flouride in the water then ?

ITT: OP Learns that /sci/ is just as retarded as /pol/ when it comes to challenging predetermined beliefs.

>>4394332
Dont Distill it. You die within a year if you do.

http://www.fluoride-osteosarcoma-law.com/fluoride_osteosarcoma.html

(non fox news source, a bone cancer advocate site).

In case you "refuse to read" that too:


>In 1990, the National Toxicology Program (NTP) found that rats exposed to higher levels of fluoride were more likely to develop osteosarcoma.
>That same year, the National Cancer Institute found that young males living in fluoridated communities were at a higher risk of osteosarcoma than those living in non-fluoridated areas. Independent researchers confirmed the results of this study in 1993.
>In 1992, the New Jersey Department of Health found that for children under the age of 20, the risk of osteosarcoma was up to SEVEN times greater than for those living in areas with fluoridated drinking water.
>In 2001, the PhD dissertation produced by Elise Bassin of the Harvard School of Dental Medicine shows a strong link between fluoride and osteosarcoma. Her work indicates a statistically strong link between exposure to fluoride between the ages of six and eight (during which the ‘mid-childhood growth spurt’ takes place) and the development of osteosarcoma in young boys.

>>4394306

Those studies are bullshit just as well. There's no control.

Unless you can monitor the intake of fluoride constantly and consistently, you cannot make the correlation.

>>4394321
Um. One study with 4 sites, 331 samples. Note that the margin of error of the study is greater than the findings. HEAVILY correlated?...

>>4394321
man, I have a friend who refuses to brush his teeth with toothpaste because he's afraid of the small amounts of flouoride.

He also thinks you can cure cancer with a good diet. And that taxes should be abolished. He also visits the tanning bed everyday and says the vitamin D will outweigh the melanoma risk.

I'm healthy and all I need to do is not drink 3 fucking sodas a day. People get their nuts tied up over the stupidest things.

THIS CAUSES THIS THAT CAUSES THAT! EVERYTHING IS TOXIC! LIVE IN THE WOODS FOR TRUE HEALTH!

>>4394321
What "heavy correlation"? That Chinese study is pseudoreplicated garbage that shouldn't have been published at all.

>>4394331
Why didn't fluoride undergo any human testing before it was added to the water supply?
Does the FDA normally approve things without human testing?

You are honestly just spouting conjecture, the study is solid.

>Urine fluoride was inversely associated with IQ in the multiple linear regression model when children's age as a covariate variable was taken into account (P<0.0001).

That's not likely a coincidence.

>Each increase in 1 mg/L of urine fluoride associated with 0.59-point decrease in IQ (P=0.0226).

Now it's far less likely a coincidence, since it's predictive.

so:
>In conclusion, our study suggested that low levels of fluoride exposure in drinking water had negative effects on children's intelligence and dental health and confirmed the dose-response relationships between urine fluoride and IQ scores as well as dental fluorosis.

>>4394349
Paranoid schizophrenia with delusions of persecution is no laughing matter.

>>4394321
Mustaches are heavily correlated with being a dictator... this does not imply causation.


This is where many of these studies fail - they provide an argument with nothing but statistical observations to back it up, they offer no explanation as to how exposure to exposure to such small quantities of sodium fluoride is supposed to magically cause a drop in IQ... they simply imply it and call it a day.

>>4394271
Bad science general

>Fluoridated students are 5 times more likely to be low IQ, and have a mean IQ 8 points lower than on fluoridated students (in China)

This doesn't prove fluoridated students are 5 times higher, it could simply mean the poor area (thus low quality tap water) have lower iq results.
The fluoridation could actually have no correlation to the iq whatsoever.


>Fluoridated water increases the risk of hip fracture in women.

Source? I bet this is another bad correlation.

>Fluoridated water increases the risk of bone cancer in young men.


Source? I bet this is another bad correlation.

>Fluoridated water increases the risk of dental fluorosis, associated with low IQ

Source? I bet this is another bad correlation.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h4MhbkWJzKk

These findings sound like those bullshit coffee improves rates of cancer. Every time you hear a statistic of 'increase' or 'decrease' of a specific illness claimed to be due to one factor you should instantly be suspicious as to the method used.
It could (and almost always is) due to other factors, i need to see the method used and the amount of people used in the statistics.

What does "nice get" mean?

>>4394293
basically everything we've told them back on /pol/

>>4394364
I linked to /sci/ from /pol/ with a sextuplet get.

>>4394362

nigger beat me to it by a few seconds >>4394363

>>4394357
>the study is solid

>uses ANCOVA without meeting all assumptions
>uses regression analysis without meeting all assumptions

>>4394357

>>4394380
This is amazing

>>4394363
Isn't IQ mostly genetic?
An 8 point difference seems a bit too big to be just due to poverty.

Anyone wanna fetch a bunch of twins? for science!

Let's concede the IQ study as bad science then, and talk about the Nature study, and the other studies cited instead, which talk about the physical health risks of drinking fluoridated water.

AND:

The lack of benefit of drinking fluoridated water:

http://www.icnr.com/articles/national-fluoride-tooth-decay-study.html

Also, even if you scifags think it's dandy to drink fluoridated water, can you give me some easy methods that I can filter most of it out of mine? I don't care about getting 100% of the concentration out, but if I can get most of it I'd be happy. I see no reason to drink something that provides me no benefit (I use fluoridated toothpaste) and that simply increases my risk of various cancers and fluorosis of the teeth (which is ugly).

I really hope it's only just the one guy who actually believes this shit...

>people who actually know their shit
>/sci/

Wrong place, OP. Wrong place.

>>4394331
>>4394362
While it's possible, hypothetically, that flouridation isn't the cause, doesn't the correlation still bother you? Shouldn't flouridation perhaps be put on hold, while waiting for better studies, all according to the precautionary principle?

>>4394363
>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h4MhbkWJzKk
>These findings sound like those bullshit coffee improves rates of cancer.
Started watching that video and he starts talking about how cancer reportedly both causes and prevents cancer and makes it sound contradictory. It isn't necessarily contradictory at all. There are many forms of cancer and X (such as coffee) might both cause one type of cancer and help prevent another.

>>4394399
Trying to avoid cancer is mostly impossible, its basically just what happens to your body as you grow old.

>>4394399
>There are many forms of cancer

Do you actually think a internationally famous Doctor and epidemiologist doesn't know that?
Do you think the articles he is criticizing even bother mentioning the specific cancers?
Do you think it even matters to the video? Keep watching tinfoil

>correlated to low IQ
>shown as likely to increase risk of hip fracture
>shown as likely to increase risk of bone cancer
>shown to provide no benefit over non fluoridated populations in most comprehensive study ever performed on the subject

>let's keep forcing people to drink it because the correlations might not be causal, also, let's not check!

>Human trials never occurred before added to water supply, they essentially just said "well these animals didn't die in two years so it's non harmful even if you drink it for 60!"

Correlation != Causation, but it is a place to start looking for it.

>>4394386
>Isn't IQ mostly genetic?
Yes, mostly, but not exclusively. It's been estimated that .75-.85 of the variance in IQ (observed in the U.S.) is ascribable to genetic factors. Brain damage (be it due to toxins or disease or whatever) could probably have a substantial effect though.

>>4394399
>While it's possible, hypothetically, that flouridation isn't the cause, doesn't the correlation still bother you?

No, why should it? There's a correlation between being in New York City and being killed in a terrorist attack... that doesn't stop me from visiting almost once a month.

Just because two things happen to coincide does not imply one is the cause of the other. Again - this is why I don't approve of "research" built purely on statistical observation.

>>4394388
>http://www.icnr.com/articles/national-fluoride-tooth-decay-study.html

>summary statement with no statistical analysis cited
>tries to sell you expensive "Fluoride-Free, Anti-Oxidant, Vegan-Certified Toothpaste"

>>4394406
Okay so why the restrictions on cigarettes then? It's just getting old after all.

The bone cancer study was about teenagers/young adults developing it, by the way, not "old people."

The increased likelihood for hip fracture was for old people though.

studies that correlate fluoride to low iq (over 100 incoming)

Twenty-three human studies that report an association of lowered IQ with fluoride exposure.

Y. Chen, F. Han, Z. Zhou, et al., “Research on the Intellectual Development of Children in High Fluoride Areas,” Fluoride 41, no. 2 (2008): 120–24, (originally published in 1991 in Chinese Journal of Control of Endemic Diseases), http://www.fluorideresearch.org/412/files/FJ2008_v41_n2_p120-124.pdf

X. Guo, R. Wang, C. Cheng, et al., “A Preliminary Investigation of the IQs of 7–13 Year Old Children from an Area with Coal Burning-Related Fluoride Poisoning,” Fluoride 41, no. 2 (2008): 125–28 (originally published in 1991 in Chinese Journal of Endemiology), http://www.fluorideresearch.org/412/files/FJ2008_v41_n2_p125-128.pdf

F. Hong, Y. Cao, D. Yang, and H. Wang, “Research on the Effects of Fluoride on Child Intellectual Development Under Different Environmental Conditions,” Fluoride 41, no. 2 (2008): 156–60 (originally published in 2001 in Chinese Primary Health Care), http://www.fluorideresearch.org/412/files/FJ2008_v41_n2_p156-160.pdf

X. S. Li, J. L. Zhi, and R.O. Gao, “Effect of Fluoride Exposure on Intelligence in Children,” Fluoride 28, no. 4 (1995): 189–92, http://fluoridealert.org/scher/li-1995.pdf

>>4394425

I'm sure one of us doesn't need to explain correlation does not equal causation again.

If you think the study holds water post it so we can look at it.

Y. Li, X. Jing, D. Chen, L. Lin, and Z. Wang, “Effects of Endemic Fluoride Poisoning on the Intellectual Development of Children in Baotou,” Fluoride 41, no. 2 (2008): 161–64 (origi­nally published in 2003 in Chinese Journal of Public Health Management), http://www.fluorideresearch.org/412/files/FJ2008_v41_n2_p161-164.pdf

F. F. Lin, Aihaiti, H. X. Zhao, et al., “The Relationship of a Low-Iodine and High-Fluoride Environment to Subclinical Cretinism in Xinjiang,” Xinjiang Institute for Endemic Disease Control and Research; Office of Leading Group for Endemic Disease Control of Hetian Prefectural Committee of the Communist Party of China; and County Health and Epidemic Prevention Station, Yutian, Xinjiang, Iodine Deficiency Disorder Newsletter 7, (1991): 3, http://fluoridealert.org/scher/lin-1991.pdf -also see http://www.fluoridealert.org/IDD.htm

S. Liu, Y. Lu, Z. Sun, et al., “Report on the Intellectual Ability of Children Living in High-Fluoride Water Areas,” Fluoride 41, no. 2 (2008): 144–47 (originally published in 2000 in Chinese Journal of Control of Endemic Diseases), http://www.fluorideresearch.org/412/files/FJ2008_v41_n2_p144-147.pdf

Y. Lu, Z. R. Sun, L. N. Wu, et al., “Effect of High-Fluoride Water on Intelligence in Children,” Fluoride 33, no. 2 (2000): 74–78, http://www.fluorideresearch.org/332/files/FJ2000_v33_n2_p74-78.pdf

L. Qin, S. Huo, R. Chen, et al., “Using the Raven’s Standard Progressive Matrices to Determine the Effects of the Level of Fluoride in Drinking Water on the Intellectual Ability of School-Age Children,” Fluoride 41, no. 2 (2008): 115–19 (originally published in 1990 in Chinese Journal of the Control of Endemic Disease), http://www.fluorideresearch.org/412/files/FJ2008_v41_n2_p115-119.pdf

>>4394441
When over 100 studies show it, something's up.

D. Ren, K. Li, and D. Liu, “A Study of the Intellectual Ability of 8–14 Year-Old Children in High Fluoride, Low Iodine Areas,” Fluoride 41, no. 4 (2008): 319–20 (originally published in 1989 in Chinese Journal of Control of Endemic Diseases), http://www.fluorideresearch.org/414/files/FJ2008_v41_n4_p319-320.pdf

D. Rocha-Amador, M. E. Navarro, L. Carrizales, et al., “Decreased Intelligence in Children and Exposure to Fluoride and Arsenic in Drinking Water,” Cadernos de Saúde Pública 23, suppl. 4 (2007): S579–87.

B. Seraj, M. Shahrabi, M. Falahzade, et al., “Effect of High Fluoride Concentration in Drinking Water on Children’s Intelligence,” Journal of Dental Medicine 19, no. 2 (2007): 80–86. Note: English translation forwarded by lead author (B. Seraj, department of pediatric dentistry, faculty of dentistry, Tehran University of Medical Sciences), http://fluoridealert.org/scher/seraj-2007.trans.pdf

M. H. Trivedi, R. J. Verma, N. J. Chinoy, et al., “Effect of High Fluoride Water on Intelligence of School Children in India,” Fluoride 40, no. 3 (2007): 178–83, http://www.fluorideresearch.org/403/files/FJ2007_v40_n3_p178-183.pdf

G. Wang, D. Yang, F. Jia, and H. Wang, “A Study of the IQ Levels of Four- to Seven-Year-Old Children in High Fluoride Areas,” Fluoride 41, no. 4 (2008): 340–43 (originally published in 1996 in Endemic Diseases Bulletin [China]), http://www.fluorideresearch.org/414/files/FJ2008_v41_n4_p340-343.pdf


>implying a correlation is not a place to start looking for a cause

Q. Xiang, Y. Liang, L. Chen, et al., “Effect of Fluoride in Drinking Water on Children’s Intelligence,” Fluoride 36, no. 2 (2003): 84–94, http://www.fluorideresearch.org/362/files/FJ2003_v36_n2_p84-94.pdf - Also see Q. Xiang, Y. Liang, M. Zhou, and H. Zang, “Blood Lead of Children in Wamiao -Xinhuai Intelligence Study” (letter), Fluoride 36, no. 3 (2003): 198–99, http://www.fluorideresearch.org/363/files/FJ2003_v36_n3_p198-199.pdf

L. B. Zhao, G. H. Liang, D. N. Zhang, and X. R. Wu, “Effect of High-Fluoride Water Supply on Children’s Intelligence,” Fluoride 29, no. 4 (1996): 190–92, http://fluoridealert.org/scher/zhao-1996.pdf

The following five Chinese I.Q. studies have not yet been translated:

J. A. An, S. Z. Mei, A. P. Liu, et al., “Effect of High Level of Fluoride on Children’s Intelligence” (article in Chinese), Zhong Guo Di Fang Bing Fang Zhi Za Zhi 7, no. 2 (1992): 93–94.

Z. X. Fan, H. X. Dai, A. M. Bai, et al., “Effect of High Fluoride Exposure on Children’s Intelligence” (article in Chinese), Huan Jing Yu Jian Kang Za Zhi 24, no. 10 (2007): 802–3.

Y. L. Xu, C. S. Lu, and X. N. Zhang, “Effect of Fluoride on Children’s Intelligence” (article in Chinese), Di Fang Bing Tong Bao 9 (1994): 83–84.


all these fuckers are just making shit up and fake scientists!

>>4394407
>Do you actually think a internationally famous Doctor and epidemiologist doesn't know that?
I think he does, but he pretty much opens his speech by making a fallacious point and should be called out on it, regardless of his renown or titles.

>Do you think the articles he is criticizing even bother mentioning the specific cancers?
Yes, at least where I live the articles usually do.

>Do you think it even matters to the video?
Yes, it does, it reduces his credibility and also demonstrates the dangers of blind faith in authority ("a [sic] internationally famous Doctor and epidemiologist").

>Keep watching tinfoil
I will finish watching it now, but it is sad to see that not even /sci/ is exempt from the cancer that is ad hominem.

L. M. Yao, Y. Deng, S. Y. Yang, et al., “Comparison of Children’s Health and Intelligence Between the Fluorosis Area with Altering Water Source and Those without Altering Water Source” (article in Chinese), Yu Fang Yi Xue Wen Xian Xin Xi 3, no. 1 (1997): 42–43.

J. W. Zhang, H. Yao, and Y. Chen, “Effect of High Level of Fluoride and Arsenium on Children’s Intelligence” (article in Chinese), Zhong Guo Gong Gong Wei Sheng Xue Bao 17, no. 2 (1998): 119.


S. Ochoa, “‘Coupling’ of Phosphorylation with Oxidation of Pyruvic Acid in Brain,” The Journal of Biological Chemistry 138 (1941): 751–73, http://www.jbc.org/content/138/2/751.full.pdf+html

E. Racker and H. Kabat, “The Metabolism of the Central Nervous System in Experimental Poliomyelitis,” The Journal of Experimental Medicine 76, no. 6 (1942): 579–85, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2135281/

D. Nachmansohn and A. L. Machado, “The Formation of Acetylcholine. A New Enzyme: ‘Choline Acetylase,’” Journal of Neurophysiology 6 (1943): 397–403.

G. Cimasoni, “Inhibition of Cholinesterases by Fluoride In Vitro,” The Biochemical Journal 99, no. 1 (1966): 133–37, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1264967/

J. P. Perkins and M. M. Moore, “Adenyl Cyclase of Rat Cerebral Cortex. Activation of Sodium Fluoride and Detergents,” The Journal of Biological Chemistry 246, no. 1 (1971): 62–68, http://www.jbc.org/content/246/1/62.long

R. A. Johnson and E. W. Sutherland, “Detergent-Dispersed Adenylate Cyclase from Rat Brain. Effects of Fluoride, Cations, and Chelators,” The Journal of Biological Chemistry 248, no. 14 (1973): 5114–21, http://www.jbc.org/content/248/14/5114.long

S. Katz and A. Tenenhouse, “The Relation of Adenyl Cyclase to the Activity of Other ATP Utilizing Enzymes and Phosphodiesterase in Preparations of Rat Brain; Mechanism of Stimulation of Cyclic AMP Accumulation by NaF,” British Journal of Pharmacology 48, no. 3 (1973): 505–15, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1776132/pdf/brjpharm00545-0143.pdf

(plenty more "correlation" incoming)

K. Czechowicz, A. Osada, and B. Slesak, “Histochemical Studies on the Effect of Sodium Fluoride on Metabolism in Purkinje’s Cells,” Folia Histochemica et Cytochemica (Krakow) 12, no. 1 (1974): 37–44.

L. I. Popov, R. I. Filatova, and A. S. Shershever, “Aspects of Nervous System Affections in Occupational Fluorosis” (article in Russian), Gigiena Truda I Professional’nye Zabolevaniia, no. 5 (1974): 25–27.

S. L. Manocha, H. Warner, and Z. L. Olkowski, “Cytochemical Response of Kidney, Liver and Nervous System to Fluoride Ions in Drinking Water,” Histochemical Journal 7, no. 4 (1975): 343–55.

C. O. Brostrom, M. A. Brostrom, and D. J. Wolff, “Calcium-Dependent Adenylate Cyclase from Rat Cerebral Cortex. Reversible Activation by Sodium Fluoride,” The Journal of Biological Chemistry 252, no. 16 (1977): 5677–85, http://www.jbc.org/content/252/16/5677.long

V. I. Tokar’ and O. N. Savchenko, “Effect of Inorganic Fluorine Compounds on the Functional State of the Pituitary-Testis System” (article in Russian), Problemy E’ndokrinologii (Mosk) 23, no. 4 (1977): 104–7.

M. Hebdon, H. Le Vine III, N. Sahyoun, et al., “Properties of the Interaction of Fluoride- and Guanylyl-5’-Imidodiphosphate-Regulatory Proteins with Adenylate Cyclase,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 75, no. 8 (1978): 3693–97, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC392852/pdf/pnas00020-0163.pdf

http://www.cnn.com/2011/HEALTH/01/07/fluoride.recommendations/index.html
>CNN reports that US government recommends lowering fluoride concentrations (2007)
(never happened though).

>>4394473

Just stop. We get it.

That still doesn't make it true.

>>4394452
>When over 100 studies show it, something's up.
Not necessarily, there may be twice as many studies showing the complete opposite for all we know. That is why we need proper meta-analysises. But it definitely warrants looking into.

A. R. Kay, R. Miles, and R. K. Wong, “Intracellular Fluoride Alters the Kinetic Properties of Calcium Currents Facilitating the Investigation of Synaptic Events in Hippocampal Neurons,” The Journal of Neuroscience 6, no. 10 (1986): 2915–20, http://www.jneurosci.org/cgi/reprint/6/10/2915

"correlation"

>Intracellular Fluoride Alters the Kinetic Properties of Calcium Currents Facilitating the Investigation of Synaptic Events in Hippocampal Neurons

"correlation"

>>4394487
If you look at these studies, they aren't just "correlations."

Such as:

A. R. Kay, R. Miles, and R. K. Wong, “Intracellular Fluoride Alters the Kinetic Properties of Calcium Currents Facilitating the Investigation of Synaptic Events in Hippocampal Neurons,” The Journal of Neuroscience 6, no. 10 (1986): 2915–20, http://www.jneurosci.org/cgi/reprint/6/10/2915

>>4394487
My only argument is that I shouldn't be forced to drink it when this research exists and it needs looking into.

Chemicals shouldn't be artificially added to the water supply by the government that "need looking into."

>A Preliminary Investigation of the IQs of 7–13 Year Old Children from an Area with Coal Burning-Related Fluoride Poisoning

wat

>>4394496
I'm not the one you need to convince. I agree with you that it definitely needs looking into and I wouldn't drink flouridated water either.

>post short list of cherry picked studies supporting low-iq/fluoridated water correlation
>none of them actually offer an explanation as to "how" low NaF concentrations are leading to lower brain development... just implying they happen to coincide
>almost all of them are from China and India

>>4394497
Do I need to post the 60 or so remaining studies I've compiled?

>>4394544
>Do I need to post the 60 or so remaining studies I've compiled?

Translation - the 60 or so studies he found on some "STOP DA FLORIDE NAO!" conspiracy site

>>4394547
So far the proponents of fluoridated water in this thread haven't presented a single fucking study backing their claims up. Just something to think about.

i'm a phd in community oral health and you are all retarded

flourided public water is safe

>>4394519
Cherrypicking.

Why don't you try this search for yourself?

fluoride does not harm IQ
Also, pick related. It's another search term you should try.

>cherrypicking

Can you post even the small number of studies I posted here affirming the opposite?

>>4394559
knock yourself out: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=flouride%20water

>>4394573
Forgot pic.

>>4394576

sorry: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=fluoride%20water&cmd=correctspelling

http://www.chemeurope.com/en/publications/345262/fluoride-in-drinking-water-and-defluoridation-of-wa
ter.html

Is there any way to access this study?

>>4394577

flouridealert
dentalheroes
naturalnews
wddty
wikipedia
answers.yahoo

china/india studies, where fluoridation it's not regulated

go back to /b/

>cherrypicking

>>4394609
Fluoride is regulated in China, they banned it from the water supply nationwide.

>ad hominem

>>4394559
The burden of proof is on you to prove your case, not on us to prove your wrong.

That the best you can manage is a handful of correlative studies from China shows how woefully unprepared to argue your case you are.

>>4394621
It's being put into our water supply, and was never tested for human safety.

The burden of proof is on you to show that fluoride is safe, if you want it to be in the drinking water.

The evidence suggests that it is not, so far. That you attack it with ad hominem is meaningless.

>>4394621
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precautionary_principle
>The precautionary principle or precautionary approach states that if an action or policy has a suspected risk of causing harm to the public or to the environment, in the absence of scientific consensus that the action or policy is harmful, the burden of proof that it is not harmful falls on those taking the action.

>>4394611
google, alarmism, not peer-reviewed and politicaly-free

>>4394615
>ad hominem

wut?

regulated? china? does not compute
http://www.toranacleanair.com/BeijingAirQualityFeed.html

>>4394621
>The burden of proof is on you to prove your case, not on us to prove your wrong.
How the fuck does the burden of proof lie with anyone but you?

>cherrypicking

>>439462
>>4394632


http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=fluoride%20water

>>4394622
You are the ones deliberately putting a substance we fear is harmful to our and others' health into OUR water supplies. You are FORCING it on us. The burden of proof is on you.

>>4394634
http://www.actionpa.org/fluoride/countries.pdf

List of countries that ban artificial water fluoridation.
>China:
>Fluoridation is banned: “not allowed”
>Naturally high fluoride levels in water are a serious problem in China.
>“Bartram said there were many other ‘silent threats,’ including excessive fluoride in the water supply in China,
>India and the Rift Valley in Africa. In China alone, 30 million people suffer crippling skeletal fluorosis.” (Jamie
>Bartram, Coordinator of the WHO's Water, Sanitation and Health Program, March 22, 2002)
>The Chinese government now considers any water supply containing over 1 ppm fluoride a risk for skeletal
>fluorosis. (Bo Z, et al. (2003). Distribution and risk assessment of fluoride in drinking water in the West Plain
>region of Jilin Province, China. Environmental Geochemistry and Health 25: 421-431.)
>In China, the World Health Organization has estimated that 2.7 million people have the crippling form of
skeletal fluorosis.

>The Chinese government now considers any water supply containing over 1 ppm fluoride a risk for skeletal fluorosis.

Luxembourg bans it and so does Germany and Austria. Many countries ban water fluoridation.

>>4394648
>posts pubmed

You realize that most of the studies regarding fluoride and IQ on pubmed correlate it with low IQ? Did you even read this thread at all?

Andrew Wakefield once proved MMR caused autism.

A bunch of google results are like the equivilant of one hundred andrew wakefield's

even Japan banned Thimerosal from their vaccines and saw an INCREASE in autism. countries banning shit dont mean shit.

Op is a fag too.

>>4394648
I'm not sure what your point is, but as has been made evident by the numerous studies listed in this thread and the fact that fluoridation has been either rejected, stopped or banned in many countries, clearly there is NOT a scientific consensus that fluoridation is harmless.

I saw Dr strange love on AMC today too , what a great movie.Ok so my dad has a phd in physical chemistry and he never had a problem with fluoride however when ritalin was recommended for me back during the 90s ADD crazy by doctors he said lol NO.
So yes there are chemicals out there that may be being pushed for the wrong reasons but not ever one of them.

>>4394639
>How the fuck does the burden of proof lie with anyone but you?

In the same way that the burden of proof in court lies on the accuser, not the accused.

We've been fluoridating water for decades, and products and pharmaceuticals containing NaF HAVE been approved by agencies like the FDA for human consumption in safe levels.

Also using the Mean in a study is like half retarded and almost makes your study bullshit.

Numbers pull the shit up and down.....duh

>>4394654

political questions. every undergrade from any dental school knows that

in germany there is a real lobby from dental associations to water fluoridation. i mean dental professionals, not the big fluor corporations (sigh)...

>>4394652

tinfoil much?
what about all food regulations and health guidelines? is that forcing "health"?

>>4394684
The FDA also approved asbestos for use in places where people would be prone to inhale it and it was later found to be harmful. Yes, we've had fluoride for decades, and now it's being shown to increase risk of bone cancer, increase risk of hip fracture, and is correlated with low IQ.

>>4394672

no it don't

actually, it has been decades since this discution in serious science is over. regulation and monitoring is still a concern

>>4394687
You seem to be grasping at straws.

>>4394694

no...it...don't...

>>4394654
China, are you for real?
Those guys have 12 toes ,15 fingers and maybe even 2 dicks plus 3 balls their environment and food is so bad.Fluoride is the least of their problems!

>>4394698
You are now just making shit up, I've already shown that's not the case in this thread.

Just a year ago the US government was talking about lowering the fluoride levels.

http://www.cnn.com/2011/HEALTH/01/07/fluoride.recommendations/index.html

You don't get to arbitrarily decide what "serious science" is.

>>4394706
>Luxembourg
>Germany
>Japan
>Netherlands
>Norway
>Sweden
>Switzerland
>Austria
>Ireland
>Scotland
>Israel

All ban it.

>>4394694
It's not being SHOWN to cause increase bone cancer, it's not being SHOWN to increase hip fractures, it's not being SHOWN to cause low IQ

There are some vague correlations that take NOTHING into account other than the coincidental presence of fluoride in drinking water.

SHOWING that fluoride causes any of these things involves demonstrating a hypothetical model of HOW it would cause these things - causing abnormal growths in bone cells, degeneration of the skeletal structure, damage to neurons or the development of the brain - these studies show NO cause, no model of HOW... only the loosely supported observation that the presence of one happens to correspond to the presence of another.

>>4394687
>what about all food regulations and health guidelines?
Are you suggesting I can get sick from NaF deficiency if my tap water is not artificially fluoridated?

Are you suggesting certain food additives that I fear are harmful to my health are FORCED on me by the government?

Are you suggesting I'm not allowed to refuse to take the medication my doctor prescribes (such as the Ritalin/ADD case mentioned above), if I fear the side effects?

I don't get your point at all.

>is that forcing "health"?
Uhm, yeah?

>>4394701


whatever. water fluoridation is our fight, and we will keep hoping that someday the poor people that can't have good secundary oral health care can beneficiat from a good intake of fluor in their youth

>>4394719
>implying you've even so much as looked at the titles of these studies before posting.

They aren't all talking about "correlations." Keep grasping at straws without even looking into the subject like a retard.


see:
>>4394489

as just one example.

>>4394724
Why aren't you using any science to fight this battle, it seems like you're "fighting" with propaganda against a mound of peer-reviewed research and most of the civilized world having already banned it from the water supply. Your emotional battle is harmful to the advancement of science and our society.

>>4394723
>>4394718
>>4394710

you are the reason why i hate people

you egoist bastards

i'm out

>>4394464
No answer to this yet? I am disappointed /sci/.

Btw, I finished watching the video and thought it was good overall.

>>4394729

and you are the reason for cavities in poor children

congrats

btw, read ANY book in community oral care from the last 50 years

>>4394687
>implying that fluoride is only in the water if it's in the water supply

Plants and animals are drinking up the same shit before you eat it. You literally cannot avoid it even if you somehow filter it, because when you eat you're still taking it in (though you could reduce the level of your intake by doing that).

>>4394727
That study has a _tiny_ sample size and no statistical analysis at all.

>>4394729
>mound of peer-reviewed research
one study, from china with a tiny sample and it's not peer reviewed. pro-tip: published != peer reviewed.

>>4394682
I love today's hot ticket diagnosis to get monies out of people: Autism.

>>4394718
All have bad teeth.

>>4394724
Why must you fluoridate the water supplies though? If you genuinely think fluor is such a great idea, why not lobby for free handouts of fluoridated mouthwash for the poor instead? That way you won't have to force it on anyone and the people using it won't have to swallow the fluoride (thus minimizing any health risks). I don't drink fluoridated water, but I still use toothpaste and mouthwash with fluor before going to bed. It's a bit like carpet bombing vs precision bombing.

>>4394773
Out of curiosity, are you against governments adding iodine to salt? It's ten times as toxic to humans as fluoride. Just 2 grams would kill an adult human.

>>4394767
I'm a Swede in my 20s and I've had zero dental cavities in my entire life. (Last time I went to the dentist to check was last year.) I don't even use flouridated toothpaste, but I do try to brush my teeth most nights (with fluoride-free toothpaste).

>>4394767
Can you provide evidence that Luxembourg and Germany and etc have worse oral health than the US, and that it is caused by a ban on water fluoridation, or are you just making an assumption?

>>4394773

yes, that's not a bad ideia, but much more expensive
it wouldn't work in third world countries

>>4394780
When you provide research that suggests that adding trace amounts of iodonized salt does the same kind of damage that the studies in this thread suggest adding trace amounts of fluoride, then we can compare the two.

Until then your post is just an attempt to refute an argument that isn't there.

>>4394780
I wasn't even aware the government did? I would buy my table salt with iodine regardless, as you need it in small doses (it helps prevent iodine deficiency, which is very real).

>>4394806

there is no reliable study that shows that fluoride water isn't save

>>4394822
>pure propaganda

How could you possibly know that to be true, when you haven't even investigate the myriad studies in this thread? Because that's your assumption?

Sounds scientific!

>>4394825

because i study it in a real academic environment for 6 years

there is not even a debate about it

>>4394806
I'm pretty sure that I could find a study showing a statistical anomaly, we're basing this on the chinese study right? A few hundred samples taken next to each other, no control, OH AND OH WAIT, study didn't even deal with ingested fluoride, it was from air pollution from a nearby coal burning plant.

Ok, in any event, found one. 2010 Journal of Circulation, published by the association of American Society of Nephrology, showed that after sampling 200 people who had ingested iodized salt, they showed a 67% increase in pancreatic cancer.

There you go, irrefutable proof that iodine causes cancer.

>>4394825
>myriad studies
It's rather obvious you don't know what the word "myriad" means.

>>4394837
sounds like more propaganda. there's obviously a debate about from the citation in this thread alone.

>>4394844

in the real scientific community, there is not

>>4394843
So far the only research in this thread touching on IQ/fluoride suggests a either a causal relationship (yes several of the studies do) or a correlation to low iq.

If your best argument is that I used a hyperbole term to make my point, then that just shows how little you have to stand on.

>>4394855
that's not research by any means

>>4394840
So you found just one study? There are apparently at least over 100 studies linking flouridated water to lower IQ and/or other health issues.
>ingested iodized salt
How high doses? Just the normal ones you get from normal consumption of iodized salt? Was there a control group? (Does anyone actually not use iodized salt?)

But, let's assume normal consumption of iodized salt really does cause a 67% increase in pancreatic cancer. What's the alternative? I'd rather take my chances with a higher but still extremely low risk of getting pancreatic cancer, than suffer mental retardation due to iodine deficiency. But, yeah, the individual should still be the one who gets to choose which one he wants (not the government).

>>4394868
>stacks of scientific research that disagrees with me
>that's not real research!

>>4394855
Actually, only one study tries to pin a correlation on airborn fluoride pollution with IQ. Since the city in the study in question, Hulunbuir City, has some of the worst air pollution on earth resulting in tens of thousands of deaths each year. I do consider it reasonable to call into question the validity of the study.

A study with a control group would help your point immensely, especially if all other external factors were removed.

>>4394877

what do you think scientific reasearch means?
nobody that matters take this "stack" seriously

>>4394882
>>4394882

fucking this. there are thousands of reasons that could be affecting iq scores rather then high-flouride dose.

this is again, another example of why using the mean in a study can severely fuck with the said study

>>4394872
>apparently at least over 100
Except there's only 1.

There's 60 links to that same study. But in the end there's only one actual study. And the study doesn't have a control group, fancy that.

>>4394886

It's interesting that all you can do is make allegations about how the research isn't "taken seriously" as though science is a democracy.

>>4394854
Really? I know that at least one nobel prize winner (Arvid Carlsson) from my country has voiced his concerns about according to him too high (natural) fluoride levels are allowed in the tap water in many places here in Sweden.

>>4394888
Several of these studies do not mention mean IQ scores, and instead talk specifically about how various parts of the brain are inhibited. Keep grasping at those straws dissonance.

So proponents of non-fluoridated water, what are you doing on 4chan debating with a bunch of 12 year olds? Go out and convince the people who have the power to decide this stuff. Why aren't they budging on this?

>>4394901
>mfw when I'm Swedish and my tap water is not being fluoridated to begin with

>>4394892
that's true, and completely different from water fluoridation
in fact, the great concern among oral health researchers is how to regulate the concentration of fluorides
sometimes, in very rare cases, you have to lower this levels, for fluorosis IS a real problem

but using this has a reason to stop water fluoridation all together is stupid

>>4394889
>blatantly lies
(randomly copypasting from one of the posts)

They are all different studies that cover a similar subject, dumbass:

Y. Chen, F. Han, Z. Zhou, et al., “Research on the Intellectual Development of Children in High Fluoride Areas,” Fluoride 41, no. 2 (2008): 120–24, (originally published in 1991 in Chinese Journal of Control of Endemic Diseases), http://www.fluorideresearch.org/412/files/FJ2008_v41_n2_p120-124.pdf

X. Guo, R. Wang, C. Cheng, et al., “A Preliminary Investigation of the IQs of 7–13 Year Old Children from an Area with Coal Burning-Related Fluoride Poisoning,” Fluoride 41, no. 2 (2008): 125–28 (originally published in 1991 in Chinese Journal of Endemiology), http://www.fluorideresearch.org/412/files/FJ2008_v41_n2_p125-128.pdf

F. Hong, Y. Cao, D. Yang, and H. Wang, “Research on the Effects of Fluoride on Child Intellectual Development Under Different Environmental Conditions,” Fluoride 41, no. 2 (2008): 156–60 (originally published in 2001 in Chinese Primary Health Care), http://www.fluorideresearch.org/412/files/FJ2008_v41_n2_p156-160.pdf

X. S. Li, J. L. Zhi, and R.O. Gao, “Effect of Fluoride Exposure on Intelligence in Children,” Fluoride 28, no. 4 (1995): 189–92, http://fluoridealert.org/scher/li-1995.pdf

They vary from water fluoride, to coal burning fluoride, to all sorts of other shit including animal experimentation. They are not the same study, rather, all of these studies are compiled on to one long PDF.

http://www.fluorideresearch.org/412/files/FJ2008_v41_n2_p120-124.pdf

is not the same as:

http://www.fluorideresearch.org/412/files/FJ2008_v41_n2_p125-128.pdf

(none of them are).

>>4394891

even in a democratic, peer-reviewed, skeptical community, people have a sense of ridiculous

>>4394901
The research has been presented to them, in 2007 the US Government said:

http://www.cnn.com/2011/HEALTH/01/07/fluoride.recommendations/index.html

>the federal government is recommending changing the amount of fluoride in drinking water for the first time in 50 years.

>The Department of Health and Human Services and Environmental Protection Agency are proposing the change because of an increase in fluorosis -- a condition that causes spotting and streaking on children's teeth.

>The government is proposing that the recommended amount of fluoride in drinking water be set at 0.7 milligrams per liter of water. The recommended range has been 0.7 to 1.2 milligrams per liter since 1962. The EPA will determine whether the maximum amount of fluoride allowed in water will also be lowered.

Didn't happen though. Probably because of some lobby.

>>4394910
You have a keen ability at avoiding substance.

>>4394908

look, try to read this studies

they are not about the water fluoridation that exist in ocidental countries

and the data for all this studies are the same
this is just a research group milking their field job

>>4394893

you cant even recognize dissonance from fucking pure facts. fluoride is no where near concentrated in your water enough for it to hurt your brain. maybe in other shit-tier countries (ex. sweden) [no offense swede bro i just like the word shit-tier] but in good ol 'Murrica Fluoride aint doing shit to your brain nikka.

fucking dissonance. what are you a freshman in community college taking basic fallacies of arguments. hint,

YOUR SUFFERING FROM THE FALLIBILITY PRINCIPLE.

>>4394915

No they aren't using the same data sets, some of these studies are about the effects of water fluoridation on fetuses in the womb, some are about children 7-14, some are about neurological effects observed in animals and humans, and etc.

You are making shit up.

>>4394918

We fluoridate at 0.7 to 1.5, artificially.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21237562

>There has been public concern about children's intellectual performance at high levels of fluoride exposure, but few studies provide data directly to the question of whether low fluoride exposure levels less than 3.0 mg/L in drinking water adversely associated with children's intelligence. In this survey, we investigated the effects of low fluoride exposure on children's intelligence and dental fluorosis. 331 children aged from 7 to 14 were randomly recruited from four sites in Hulunbuir City, China. Intelligence was assessed using Combined Raven Test-The Rural in China while dental fluorosis was diagnosed with Dean's index. Mean value of fluoride in drinking water was 1.31±1.05 mg/L (range 0.24-2.84). Urine fluoride was inversely associated with IQ in the multiple linear regression model when children's age as a covariate variable was taken into account (P<0.0001). Each increase in 1 mg/L of urine fluoride associated with 0.59-point decrease in IQ (P=0.0226). Meanwhile, there was a dose-response relationship between urine fluoride and dental fluorosis (P<0.0001). In conclusion, our study suggested that low levels of fluoride exposure in drinking water had negative effects on children's intelligence and dental health and confirmed the dose-response relationships between urine fluoride and IQ scores as well as dental fluorosis.

>>4394266
nice get bro

>>4394914

discussing everythink is impossible

part of the modern scientific community job is focusing discussion in what is important and relevant

their is no debate about the benefits of a well regulate and controlled public water fluoridation, simple because it would be a waste of time

the questions came from outside the scientific community

>>4394935
You just keep making completely unsubstantiated claims in order to refute at least partially substantiated one.

I can confirm that the scientists are above are legitimate, even if you are what you say you are, your word doesn't override those cited above's.

>>4394928

dude, this is such a god awful shit-tier study it is not even funny.

not only is 331 a ridiculously low sample compared to the actual population of China the pollution could throw these studies of immensely.

not to mention 331 is a ridiculously low population sample. as well as .59 decrese in IQ score per 1mlg increase.

fuck outta here with that chinese shit. show me another study. im honestly on the fence about it but that shit aint doing anything to help your case.

>>4394923

even so, this are not the water fluoridation that exists in western countries

>>4394928
What part of 'that sample does not meet the assumptions of the tests employed therein and is consequently invalid' don't you understand? We already went over this a few hours ago.

>>4394954
You seem upset? I disagree and think you're bullshitting.

>>4394943

you are right, my claims are unsubstantiated

this happens for two reasons:

1 - it's 4:21 in the morning here, i'm sorry but i'm not going to search specific articles right now

2 - english is not my first language, i feel a little unconfortable trying to elaborate more (i'm kinda of a grammar nazi in my native language, i don't want to be "that guy" in other languages)

but you can always do a quick search in Pubmed with "water fluoridation"
it's quite elucidating

and yes, i did study public oral health care a lot, post-gradually.

and no, we don't really that in great account chinese research in this area. there is a lot of political influences.
in europe this is also a problem

>>4394967
Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) has a number of assumptions that must be met in order to conduct the test correctly and have it return legitimate results. One such assumption is 'independence of replication', which means that all samples must be drawn in such a way that they are not unduly linked - this requirement exists to ensure that a sample is representative of the overall population. When this assumption is not met, the results of the study can only draw conclusions about the cohort in question, rather than the population from which the cohort is drawn.

In this case, the sample is composed of pseudoreplicates - yes, they are drawn from different areas, but the areas themselves are not independent. They are all part of the same city, and are thus incapable of generating true replicates.

Bad statistics means bad science every single time.

>In this case, the sample is composed of pseudoreplicates - yes, they are drawn from different areas, but the areas themselves are not independent. They are all part of the same city, and are thus incapable of generating true replicates.

The gilgamesh dude:
I don't see why they need to be from different cities, can you explain this in another way?

To me it seems like you could get accurate results with people from the same city, as long as they weren't in the same area (school).

>>4394981

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hulunbuir

1 Hailar District 海拉尔区 Hǎilā'ěr Qū 260,000 1,440 181
2 Manzhouli City 满洲里市 Mǎnzhōulǐ Shì 160,000 696 230
3 Zhalantun City 扎兰屯市 Zhālántún Shì 440,000 16,800 26
4 Yakeshi City 牙克石市 Yákèshí Shì 400,000 27,590 14
5 Genhe City 根河市 Gēnhé Shì 170,000 19,659 9
6 Ergun City 额尔古纳市 É'ěrgǔnà Shì 90,000 28,000 3
7 Arun Banner 阿荣旗 Āróng Qí 320,000 12,063 27
8 New Barag Right Banner 新巴尔虎右旗 Xīnbā'ěrhǔ Yòu Qí 30,000 25,102 1
9 New Barag Left Banner 新巴尔虎左旗 Xīnbā'ěrhǔ Zuǒ Qí 40,000 22,000 2
10 Old Barag Banner 陈巴尔虎旗 Chénbā'ěrhǔ Qí 60,000 21,192 3
11 Oroqin Autonomous Banner 鄂伦春自治旗 Èlúnchūn Zìzhìqí 280,000 59,800 5
12 Evenk Autonomous Banner 鄂温克族自治旗 Èwēnkèzú Zìzhìqí 140,000 19,111 7
13 Morin Dawa Daur Autonomous Banner 莫力达瓦达斡尔族自治旗 Mòlìdáwǎ Dáwò'ěrzú Zìzhìqí 320,000 10,500 30

These are the cities that consist of it.

Try again Giglamesh, you have to understand that the study is translated. They WERE picked from differen REGIONS of Hulunbar, which is MASSIVE.

So now the study meets your standards, correct? Or will you invent a new one?

>>4395034
then why the fuck does it say
>331 children
>331
>3
>3
>1

DOES NOT COMPUTE AS ACCURATE SAMPLE SIZE

>>4395012
That's why learning about pseudoreplication is such a pain in the ass and so many people get it wrong - it's really insidious and varies heavily based upon what you're studying.

In this case, a single city serves as an individual treatment. Given that cities generally share (among other things) common infrastructure for guiding water to homes, choosing four locations within the same city does not actually create separate treatment groups - each of these locations shares many features that could confound the measurements the same way each time without being accounted for.

Further discussion of the subject can be found here:
http://www.ma.utexas.edu/users/mks/statmistakes/pseudorep.html

correlation is a place to start looking for causation but that doesn't mean there will be one, and until one is found you're just scaremongering for publicity and attention.

and doing a thousand tests on the same fucking place is not adequate for strengthening your case. you still need to test more widely, control for potential lurking variables, and come up with a reasonable explanation for why X causes Y.

>>4395040
You don't need more than that for this type of study though.

Hulunbuir is a huge area, it's not one city.

pic related.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hulunbuir

You don't need a huge sample size, you just need a good sample. 300 is more than enough for this study, and it raises a legitimate concern about fluoridated water.

whoops forgot pic

that aint no city.

>>4395034
Okay then, you've increased your sample size from one true replicate to four true replicates. That's still far too much pseudoreplication to draw any conclusion about the population.

>>4395053

Nope.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precautionary_principle
>The precautionary principle or precautionary approach states that if an action or policy has a suspected risk of causing harm to the public or to the environment, in the absence of scientific consensus that the action or policy is harmful, the burden of proof that it is not harmful falls on those taking the action.

This is in our water supply, precautionary principle says it should not be in light of these "correlations," especially because no human safety testing has ever been done, and in the US no studies like this seem to be being done at all. It's avoided even though there's evidence that it's harmful in various ways (low IQ correlation, bone cancer risk, cancer risk, gastrointestinal risks, and more).

Accusing me of "scaremongering" is absurd, I didn't op this topic.

>>4395076
So indeed, you changed the requirement after your initial was proved wrong.

here was your first requirement:
>>4394981
>In this case, the sample is composed of pseudoreplicates - yes, they are drawn from different areas, but the areas themselves are not independent. They are all part of the same city, and are thus incapable of generating true replicates.

>They are all part of the same city.

Now they are from four different regions of a huge area, this isn't to find out who they are voting for president. The fluoridated students, despite being from vastly different areas, exhibited lower IQ on an predictive basis based on how concentrated the fluoride in the water was.

this
>>4395042
see this
>>4395058

>>4395093
No requirement was ever changed - there was simply no need to explicate the problem further when it appeared as though every single sample was pseudoreplicated from one true replicate, rather than there being four different "flavors" of pseudoreplicates (which increases n from 1 to 4, a marginal improvement if it can even be deemed such).

If you spend thirty seconds reading the link I posted you will have a better understanding of this issue.

A sample size of four is insufficient to determine _anything_ about the population.

>>4394443
>>4394452
>>4394455
>>4394465
>>4394473
>>4394479

HA! a bunch of shit journals with a collective impact factor of 0.03.

>>4394321
>china
>science
pick one

nothing they published is accepted anywhere in the west until WE replicate it.

their government is always making shit up in their psuedojournals

>US research

Fine:
http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/fluoride-in-water-linked-to-lower-iq-in-children-112261459.h
tml

>Exposure to fluoride may lower children's intelligence says a study pre-published in Environmental Health Perspectives, a publication of the >National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (online December 17, 2010).

>Fluoride is added to 70% of U.S. public drinking water supplies.

>According to Paul Connett, Ph.D., director of the Fluoride Action Network, "This is the 24th study that has found this association, but this study is stronger than the rest because the authors have controlled for key confounding variables and in addition to correlating lowered IQ with levels of fluoride in the water, the authors found a correlation between lowered IQ and fluoride levels in children's blood. This brings us closer to a cause and effect relationship between fluoride exposure and brain damage in children."

>Connett adds, "The result is that while the issue of fluoride's impact on IQ is being aggressively pursued around the world, practically no work has been done in the U.S. or other fluoridating countries to repeat their findings. Sadly, health agencies in fluoridated countries seem to be more intent on protecting the fluoridation program than protecting children's brains."

>When the National Research Council of the National Academies reviewed this topic in their 507-page report "Fluoride in Drinking Water: A Review of EPA's Standards" published in 2006, only 5 of the 24 IQ studies were available in English. Even so the panel found the link between fluoride exposure and lowered IQ both consistent and "plausible."

>According to Tara Blank, Ph.D., the Science and Health Officer for the Fluoride Action Network, "This should be the study that finally ends water fluoridation. Millions of American children are being exposed unnecessarily to this neurotoxin on a daily basis. Who in their right minds would risk lowering their child's intelligence in order to reduce a small amount of tooth decay, for which the evidence is very weak." (see The Case Against Fluoride, Chelsea Green, October 2010)

(sorry for multiple posts)

>>4395157
>two Chinese villages
>two

Please tell me that I misread the summary and that you're not posting a study with even fewer true replicates than the Chinese one.

>>4395157
>>4395163
>>4395165
>>4395168

dudes almost got me sold that fluoride should be looked at severely if not removed completely soon.

i'd point out that china is still the basis of the sample population but the fact that fluoride does seem to affect certain parts of the brain is intriguing. i dunno...

>>4395175
There are 24 studies.

No one is saying it is conclusive. But to argue that it shouldn't be looked into is stupid. We SHOULD be trying to replicate the results, and doing it better than China, to see.

>>4395187
I agree that it should be looked into. However, there are several other posters who _have_ said that the current evidence is sufficient and conclusive, and they are simply not correct.

>>4394228
Keep shit in /pol/. Thats why it was created.

Seriously? Are you trying to argue statistical methods with a /pol/etariat?

>All my Costanza.

>>4394228
Nothing in life is "perfectly safe". Get over it.

>>4395366