Stop Mandatory Nationwide Fluoridation in New Zealand: Fundraising for Media Campaign
If you cant answer the question. is fluoride is a neurotoxin at .7Parts Per Million?
Maybe you can answer this one as well
Show me the scientific paper that says Community Water Fluoridation at .7 Parts Per million causes I.Q loss
on 22 Jun 2016
Chris, I have already answered this question. There is no scientific paper to say fluoride at 0.7ppm causes IQ loss nor is there a scientific paper to say fluoride does not cause IQ loss at 0.7ppm. But you are talking about parts per million in the drinking water when we need to talk about individual dosage. So the question is flawed to start with.
And please don't troll this page, I have given you an answer.
Can you show me the link to the scientific paper that states fluoride is a neurotoxin at .7Parts Per Million? Or it this just a proposal at this stage. The same that was made by Grandjean from the Asian studies,
on 19 Jun 2016
This question has not been answered yet.
What levels of flouride are known to be neurotoxic and what is the level of flouride found in our flouridated water supplies?
on 18 Jun 2016
Ministry of Health recommends between 0.7ppm and 1ppm with a target of 0.85ppm. Auckland has recetnly lowered its target to 0.7ppm. A number of other councils have done the same.
It is now well established that fluoride is a neurotoxin but no one knows what DOSE (note: not LEVEL) this effect occurs.
A committee meeting held by the US National Toxicology Program on December 2 2016, received a proposal to undergo a systematic review of the literature on fluoride’s toxicity in respect of neurological impairment ie IQ reduction and also complete their own study on neurological behaviour. (Watch the video here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lytzqSyGV2E).
A very telling comment regarding fluoride exposure and IQ was made at the end of that committee meeting by Linda S. Birnbaum, Ph.D. Director, NIEHS & NTP.
"I just want to make the comment that both John and I served on the HHS effort that revised what the recommendation was and brought it down. From a high as possibly 1.2 down to .7. And part of that had to do with the fact that when you looked at all of the literature there was evidence for effects occurring certainly as low as about 2.5, maybe lower than that and going from 1.2 to 2.5 is only a margin of exposure of about 2 fold. And we know nothing, as I said before about differential susceptibility and vulnerability that occurs within the population. And that was part of the justification for taking it down to .7 which actually was kind of the low end of what had been recommended in 1962 as the low end of the range for public health protection."
Watch video her https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lytzqSyGV2E
Login to ask a question