Is fluoride an endocrine disruptor?

13 Comments

“Endocrine disruptors are chemicals that may interfere with the body’s endocrine system and produce adverse developmental, reproductive, neurological, and immune effects in both humans and wildlife” [1]. According to a 2006 report by the National Research Council, fluoride is an endocrine disruptor:

“Evidence of several types indicates that fluoride affects normal endocrine function or response; the effects of the fluoride-induced changes vary in degree and kind in different individuals. Fluoride is therefore an endocrine disruptor in the broad sense of altering normal endocrine function or response, although probably not in the sense of mimicking a normal hormone. The mechanisms of action remain to be worked out and appear to include both direct and indirect mechanisms, for example, direct stimulation or inhibition of hormone secretion by interference with second messenger function, indirect stimulation or inhibition of hormone secretion by effects on things such as calcium balance, and inhibition of peripheral enzymes that are necessary for activation of the normal hormone” [2].

“The endocrine system is a collection of glands in the body that secrete hormones–chemical signals that regulate the function of numerous cells and organs in the body” [3]. Given the wide ranges and overall increases in fluoride exposures following artificial fluoridation programs [4], the important issue of margin of safety naturally arises [5].

[1] National Institutes of Health, Endocrine Disruptors.
[2] National Research Council, Effects on the Endocrine System – Fluoride.
[3] FAN, Fluoride & Endocrine System.
[4] AFAM, Dose vs. Concentration.
[5] Margin of Safety, Overview.

Advertisements

Author: AFA Mildura

Administrator, Anti-Fluoridation Association of Mildura

13 thoughts on “Is fluoride an endocrine disruptor?

  1. Here’s some quotes from the 2006 US National Research Council report titled Fluoride in Drinking Water: A Scientific Review of EPA’s Standards. It should be obvious to anyone with at least moderate comprehension and arithmetical ability that this information is relevant to artificial water fluoridation.

    p 189 “The endocrine system, apart from reproductive aspects, was not considered in detail in recent major reviews of the health effects of fluoride (PHS 1991; NRC 1993; Locker 1999; McDonagh et al. 2000a; WHO 2002; ATSDR 2003).” The 2007 Australian NHMRC report can be added to that list.
    p 189 “an estimated 12% of the population has low concentrations of urinary iodine”
    p 197 “As with the animal studies, high fluoride intake appears to exacerbate the effects of low iodine concentrations. Uncertainty about total fluoride exposures based on water fluoride concentrations, variability in exposures within population groups, and variability in response among individuals generally have not been addressed.”
    p 197 “several lines of information indicate an effect of fluoride exposure on thyroid function. However, because of the complexity of interpretation of various parameters of thyroid function, the possibility of peripheral effects on thyroid function instead of or in addition to direct effects on the thyroid, the absence of TSH measurements in most of the animal studies, the difficulties of exposure estimation in human studies, and the lack of information in most studies on nutritional factors (iodine, selenium) that are known to affect thyroid function, it is difficult to predict exactly what effects on thyroid function are likely at what concentration of fluoride exposure and under what circumstances”
    p 197 “Several sets of reported results are consistent with an inhibiting effect of fluoride on deiodinase activity; these effects include decreased plasma T3 with normal or elevated T4 and TSH and normal T3 with elevated T4… The antihyperthyroid effect that Galletti and Joyet (1958) observed in some patients is also consistent with an inhibition of deiodinase activity in those individuals.”
    p 198 “Subclinical hypothyroidism is considered a strong risk factor for later development of overt hypothyroidism. Biondi et al. (2002) associate subclinical thyroid dysfunction… with changes in cardiac function and corresponding increased risks of heart disease.… subclinical hypothyroidism is associated with increased cholesterol concentrations, increased incidence of depression, diminished response to standard psychiatric treatment, cognitive dysfunction, and, in pregnant women, decreased IQ of their offspring”
    p 198 “The possibility that either dental fluorosis (Chapter 4) or the delayed tooth eruption noted with high fluoride intake… may be attributable at least in part to an effect of fluoride on thyroid function has not been studied.”
    p 218 “In humans, effects on thyroid function were associated with fluoride exposures of 0.05-0.13 mg/kg/day when iodine intake was adequate and 0.01-0.03 mg/kg/day when iodine intake was inadequate”

    • This should turn up the heat, on those criminals, who wilfully & deliberately continue to shout their propaganda, “safe & effective” from their rooftops!

      It was already known back in the 30’s that the industrial byproduct fluorides added to drinking water are 2000 times more toxic, than what is normally found in nature (undisturbed of course) !!

      I found this gem from a commenter.

      Courtesy of Randall Snyder, Jr.

      This destroys the argument that fluorides added to drinking water is safe. This July, 1934 research paper proves it is not safe.

      First let me extend my appreciation to everyone who has taken up this cause. I found this research paper that does an excellent job of laying out the difference in toxicities between naturally occurring fluoride compounds and those added to water supplies. I believe anyone who takes the time to read this paper will clearly understand that naturally occurring fluoride is not a problem while they will also be able to see that the industrial byproduct fluorides added to drinking water are 2000 times more toxic. This seems to lay to rest the argument that the fluoride added to drinking water is safe. It clearly is not. The link below is to the paper I have stored on my Google Drive. I will also share it to you directly if you have any trouble accessing via this link. Feel free to share it.

      Comparative Toxicity of Fluorine Compounds
      MARGARET CAXMACK SMITH AND RUTH M. LEVERTON, University of Arizona, Tucson, Ariz.

      —> https://plus.google.com/+RandallSnyderJr/posts/dSwecja5VAd

  2. ACSH’s Dr. Gil Ross had this comment: “Whenever I hear someone, usually in the media, use the term ‘endocrine disrupter,’ I immediately know that the writer (or speaker) is either uninformed and too lazy to do a little independent research, or is a member of or a sympathizer with some anti-chemical activist group. We in the business of communicating real vs. hypothetical risks owe Angela a debt of gratitude for attempting to put this mythology to rest, although realistically too many people, in and out of government and regulatory agencies, have a vested interest in keeping the endo-disruption bugaboo alive.

    • So, the National Research Council of the National Academy of Sciences uses the term ‘endocrine disrupter,’ and you are saying they are uninformed and lazy. REALLY??

    • Chris Price, the NZ sheep dip promoter, is just full of bugaboo.
      And has a vested interest in keeping the sheep dip like chemicals in Australia’s water supply and such bugaboo alive.
      Why are you here Chrissie, NZ is not 100% silicofluouridated, is it?
      How do those non-silicofluoridated NZ populations, get their daily dose of toxic silcofluoride in their water, food, and beverages?

  3. The 2006 NRC Committee on Fluoride in Drinking Water recommended that the EPA MCL for fluoride be lowered from its current 4.0 ppm level. The sole stated reasons for this recommendation were risk of severe dental fluorosis, bone fracture, and skeletal fluorosis, with chronic ingestion of awater with a fluoride content of 4.0 ppm or greater. No other reasons. Had this committee deemed there to be concern with endocrine disruption from ingestion of water with a fluoride content of 4.0 ppm or below, it would have been responsible for so stating, and recommending accordingly. It did not.

    Water is fluoridated at 0.7 ppm.

    In 2013, the Chair of the 2006 NRC Committee on Fluoride in Drinking Water, Dr. John Doull, one of the most highly respected toxicologists in the US, stated:

    “I do not believe there is any valid, scientific reason for fearing adverse health conditions from the consumption of water fluoridated at the optimal level”

    —John Doull, MD, PhD, Chair of the National Academy of Sciences, National Research Council 2006 Committee Report on Fluoride in Drinking Water

    Steven D. Slott, DDS

    • What Doull also said was:

      “What the committee found is that we’ve gone with the status quo regarding fluoride for many years—for too long, really—and now we need to take a fresh look. In the scientific community, people tend to think this is settled. I mean, when the U.S. surgeon general comes out and says this is one of the 10 greatest achievements of the 20th century, that’s a hard hurdle to get over. But when we looked at the studies that have been done, we found that many of these questions are unsettled and we have much less information than we should, considering how long this [fluoridation] has been going on. I think that’s why fluoridation is still being challenged so many years after it began. In the face of ignorance, controversy is rampant.”

      It seems he wants it both ways. Not a very good source.

      • I don’t see anything in either of the John Doull quotes presented here that justifies any of your scare-mongering regarding community water fluoridation.

        • Davy F, the US sheep dip promoter and US sewage worker, is just full of bugaboo.
          And has a vested interest in keeping the sheep dip like chemicals in Australia’s water supply and such bugaboo alive.
          Why are you here Dave, the USA is not 100% silicofluouridated, is it?
          How do those non-silicofluoridated US populations, get their daily dose of toxic silcofluoride in their water, food, and beverages?

        • Really? You scare that easily? lol Poor boy.

          • It doesn’t scare me because I don’t buy into your rubbish.

            But, yes, you are quite right. Perhaps I should have said, “I don’t see anything in either of the John Doull quotes presented here that justifies any of your attempted scare mongering which is intended for those who are gullible enough to believe it.”

    • US Dentist slott, the US sheep dip promoter, is just full of bugaboo.
      And has a vested interest in keeping the sheep dip like chemicals in Australia’s water supply and such bugaboo alive.
      Why are you here Slott Machine, USA is not 100% silicofluouridated, is it?
      How do those non-silicofluoridated USA populations, get their daily dose of toxic silcofluoride in their water, food, and beverages?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s