It doesn’t make a big difference where the studies are from, because the effects of fluoride are cumulative.  There is no reason to put fluoride in tap whatsoever as its “benefits” have been completely rebuked.  The only solution- and the one most of us have utilized is to either put a filter on the tap or to drink bottled water. I actually do not know of many people who drink tap water anymore.  Nor should they.

There are other studies, like the one from Stanford, that linked higher rates of pollution around large cities to rising rates of Autism and ADHD, in that study, it was found that the cause is 65% environmental and 35% genetic.  And a study done at Columbia that found 7x higher rates of ADHD from pollution.  Both of those studies found over 300 different sorts of chemical pollution in the pregnant female uterus, far above what’s considered “safe.”  Here is the Columbia study:

The following study confirms the one that came from Stanford that linked both autism and ADHD to airborne pollutants, because that’s where the clusters are occurring, and NO not “everyone” in high pollution areas needs to have this for it to be true, there is obviously a genetic component, but the environment is favored 65% to 35% (per the Stanford study), obviously pollution puts those who are closer to getting it than others over the edge.
An interesting study from Columbia University.
More than 11 percent of school-age children in the United States have been diagnosed with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder, a rate markedly higher than a decade ago. Could air pollution be a cause?
A study, published in PLoS One this week and conducted by researchers at Columbia University’s Center for Children’s Environmental Health, of 233 non-smoking pregnant women in New York City found that children exposed to high levels of air pollution during pregnancy were five times more likely to have ADHD by age 9.
The researchers measured levels of a common pollutant called polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons or PAHs in maternal and cord blood shortly after delivery and in the children’s urine at age 3 or 5. The team followed the children until 9 years of age and administered two tests which are the standard for diagnosing ADHD. Of the 33 who had high levels of exposure as measured by maternal blood, 13 were diagnosed as having the ADHD hyperactive-implusive subtype, seven the inattentive subtype and 13 both.
……
Scientists have previously linked high exposure to PAHs in the womb with a number of other childhood problems, including developmental delays, reduced IQ and symptoms of anxiety and depression. It has also been linked to cancer.
If the Columbia study is confirmed, it could help solve the mystery of what causes ADHD — whether it’s more genetic or more environmental — which could eventually lead to ways to prevent it.
“Fortunately,” the authors noted, “it is possible to reduce airborne PAH concentrations using currently available pollution controls, greater energy efficiency, the use of alternative energy sources, and regulatory intervention to control polluting sources.”
I’m completely opposed to the usage of pesticides like glyphosate (especially considering Monsanto’s background), enlist duo, the oil industry’s fracking (now that the USGS has directly linked it to earthquakes and methane leaks) etc also the usage of hormones and antibiotics in animals, which, like pesticides, are leading to vector immunity.  There are far better ways to go about things without causing another mass extinction event and ruining the environment.  Science should be first and foremost about preserving nature and the environment and business concerns should not be allowed to corrupt it.  This is why the United States has such a poor reputation around the world- and why it was no surprise when it was learned that the US Govt, along with Bristol Squibb Myers and Johns Hopkins Hospital had been experimenting on 774 innocent Guatemalans and why they’re now being sued for $1 billion dollars, the experiments were reminiscent of the Tuskeegee Experiments they did on African Americans in the South, only in Guatemala they both intentionally infected them with needles AND refused to treat them or gave them placebos.  This is what happens when the corporate and government agenda corrupts the idealism of science.  And this is why we need people like Snowden and Assange to expose corrupt American authority and their greed and power addiction.  This is the anniversary of the A-bomb in Japan, and that is the worst act of war committed by anyone in the entirety of human history and there is just no way of getting around that, not to mention that Japanese-Americans were kept in concentration camps here.  America should be ashamed of itself for its sordid and evil history.  And while the rest of the world moves away from chemical poisons like mercury, fluoride, and pesticides America still sleeps with corporations whose only goal is to make money, a truly psychopathic goal that goes completely against human health and the health of the environment and nature.
 
It doesn’t make a big difference where the studies are from, because the effects of fluoride are cumulative.  There is no reason to put fluoride in tap whatsoever as its “benefits” have been completely rebuked.  The only solution- and the one most of us have utilized is to either put a filter on the tap or to drink bottled water. I actually do not know of many people who drink tap water anymore.  Nor should they.

There are other studies, like the one from Stanford, that linked higher rates of pollution around large cities to rising rates of Autism and ADHD, in that study, it was found that the cause is 65% environmental and 35% genetic.  And a study done at Columbia that found 7x higher rates of ADHD from pollution.  Both of those studies found over 300 different sorts of chemical pollution in the pregnant female uterus, far above what’s considered “safe.”  Here is the Columbia study:

The following study confirms the one that came from Stanford that linked both autism and ADHD to airborne pollutants, because that’s where the clusters are occurring, and NO not “everyone” in high pollution areas needs to have this for it to be true, there is obviously a genetic component, but the environment is favored 65% to 35% (per the Stanford study), obviously pollution puts those who are closer to getting it than others over the edge.

An interesting study from Columbia University.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/to-your-health/wp/2014/11/06/link-found-between-mothers-exposure-to-air-pollution-and-adhd/?wp_login_redirect=0

More than 11 percent of school-age children in the United States have been diagnosed with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder, a rate markedly higher than a decade ago. Could air pollution be a cause?

A study, published in PLoS One this week and conducted by researchers at Columbia University’s Center for Children’s Environmental Health, of 233 non-smoking pregnant women in New York City found that children exposed to high levels of air pollution during pregnancy were five times more likely to have ADHD by age 9.

The researchers measured levels of a common pollutant called polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons or PAHs in maternal and cord blood shortly after delivery and in the children’s urine at age 3 or 5. The team followed the children until 9 years of age and administered two tests which are the standard for diagnosing ADHD. Of the 33 who had high levels of exposure as measured by maternal blood, 13 were diagnosed as having the ADHD hyperactive-implusive subtype, seven the inattentive subtype and 13 both.

……

Scientists have previously linked high exposure to PAHs in the womb with a number of other childhood problems, including developmental delays, reduced IQ and symptoms of anxiety and depression. It has also been linked to cancer.

If the Columbia study is confirmed, it could help solve the mystery of what causes ADHD — whether it’s more genetic or more environmental — which could eventually lead to ways to prevent it.

“Fortunately,” the authors noted, “it is possible to reduce airborne PAH concentrations using currently available pollution controls, greater energy efficiency, the use of alternative energy sources, and regulatory intervention to control polluting sources.”
Show less

I’m completely opposed to the usage of pesticides like glyphosate (especially considering Monsanto’s background), enlist duo, the oil industry’s fracking (now that the USGS has directly linked it to earthquakes and methane leaks) etc also the usage of hormones and antibiotics in animals, which, like pesticides, are leading to vector immunity.  There are far better ways to go about things without causing another mass extinction event and ruining the environment.  Science should be first and foremost about preserving nature and the environment and business concerns should not be allowed to corrupt it.  This is why the United States has such a poor reputation around the world- and why it was no surprise when it was learned that the US Govt, along with Bristol Squibb Myers and Johns Hopkins Hospital had been experimenting on 774 innocent Guatemalans and why they’re now being sued for $1 billion dollars, the experiments were reminiscent of the Tuskeegee Experiments they did on African Americans in the South, only in Guatemala they both intentionally infected them with needles AND refused to treat them or gave them placebos.  This is what happens when the corporate and government agenda corrupts the idealism of science.  And this is why we need people like Snowden and Assange to expose corrupt American authority and their greed and power addiction.  This is the anniversary of the A-bomb in Japan, and that is the worst act of war committed by anyone in the entirety of human history and there is just no way of getting around that, not to mention that Japanese-Americans were kept in concentration camps here.  America should be ashamed of itself for its sordid and evil history.  And while the rest of the world moves away from chemical poisons like mercury, fluoride, and pesticides America still sleeps with corporations whose only goal is to make money, a truly psychopathic goal that goes completely against human health and the health of the environment and nature.
It doesn’t make a big difference where the studies are from, because the effects of fluoride are cumulative.  There is no reason to put fluoride in tap whatsoever as its “benefits” have been completely rebuked.  The only solution- and the one most of us have utilized is to either put a filter on the tap or to drink bottled water. I actually do not know of many people who drink tap water anymore.  Nor should they.

There are other studies, like the one from Stanford, that linked higher rates of pollution around large cities to rising rates of Autism and ADHD, in that study, it was found that the cause is 65% environmental and 35% genetic.  And a study done at Columbia that found 7x higher rates of ADHD from pollution.  Both of those studies found over 300 different sorts of chemical pollution in the pregnant female uterus, far above what’s considered “safe.”  Here is the Columbia study:

The following study confirms the one that came from Stanford that linked both autism and ADHD to airborne pollutants, because that’s where the clusters are occurring, and NO not “everyone” in high pollution areas needs to have this for it to be true, there is obviously a genetic component, but the environment is favored 65% to 35% (per the Stanford study), obviously pollution puts those who are closer to getting it than others over the edge.

An interesting study from Columbia University.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/to-your-health/wp/2014/11/06/link-found-between-mothers-exposure-to-air-pollution-and-adhd/?wp_login_redirect=0

More than 11 percent of school-age children in the United States have been diagnosed with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder, a rate markedly higher than a decade ago. Could air pollution be a cause?

A study, published in PLoS One this week and conducted by researchers at Columbia University’s Center for Children’s Environmental Health, of 233 non-smoking pregnant women in New York City found that children exposed to high levels of air pollution during pregnancy were five times more likely to have ADHD by age 9.

The researchers measured levels of a common pollutant called polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons or PAHs in maternal and cord blood shortly after delivery and in the children’s urine at age 3 or 5. The team followed the children until 9 years of age and administered two tests which are the standard for diagnosing ADHD. Of the 33 who had high levels of exposure as measured by maternal blood, 13 were diagnosed as having the ADHD hyperactive-implusive subtype, seven the inattentive subtype and 13 both.

……

Scientists have previously linked high exposure to PAHs in the womb with a number of other childhood problems, including developmental delays, reduced IQ and symptoms of anxiety and depression. It has also been linked to cancer.

If the Columbia study is confirmed, it could help solve the mystery of what causes ADHD — whether it’s more genetic or more environmental — which could eventually lead to ways to prevent it.

“Fortunately,” the authors noted, “it is possible to reduce airborne PAH concentrations using currently available pollution controls, greater energy efficiency, the use of alternative energy sources, and regulatory intervention to control polluting sources.”
Show less

I’m completely opposed to the usage of pesticides like glyphosate (especially considering Monsanto’s background), enlist duo, the oil industry’s fracking (now that the USGS has directly linked it to earthquakes and methane leaks) etc also the usage of hormones and antibiotics in animals, which, like pesticides, are leading to vector immunity.  There are far better ways to go about things without causing another mass extinction event and ruining the environment.  Science should be first and foremost about preserving nature and the environment and business concerns should not be allowed to corrupt it.  This is why the United States has such a poor reputation around the world- and why it was no surprise when it was learned that the US Govt, along with Bristol Squibb Myers and Johns Hopkins Hospital had been experimenting on 774 innocent Guatemalans and why they’re now being sued for $1 billion dollars, the experiments were reminiscent of the Tuskeegee Experiments they did on African Americans in the South, only in Guatemala they both intentionally infected them with needles AND refused to treat them or gave them placebos.  This is what happens when the corporate and government agenda corrupts the idealism of science.  And this is why we need people like Snowden and Assange to expose corrupt American authority and their greed and power addiction.  This is the anniversary of the A-bomb in Japan, and that is the worst act of war committed by anyone in the entirety of human history and there is just no way of getting around that, not to mention that Japanese-Americans were kept in concentration camps here.  America should be ashamed of itself for its sordid and evil history.  And while the rest of the world moves away from chemical poisons like mercury, fluoride, and pesticides America still sleeps with corporations whose only goal is to make money, a truly psychopathic goal that goes completely against human health and the health of the environment and nature.
Okay, first of all, do not post several comments where one will do. That is redundant and quite annoying.

Second, did you happen to notice where the studies were from? Not the meta-study itself, but where the studies they were looking at were from and where the people used in those studies reside? Because they’re all from areas with high levels of fluoride naturally in the ground-water. Levels much higher than that put into our tap-water.
A newly published study in Harvard’s The Lancet weighs in on the toxins causing autism and ADHD (attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder). Researchers from the Harvard School of Public Health (HSPH) and the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai (ISMMS) say that along with these numerous environmental toxins, fluoridated water is adding to the higher incident of both cognitive and behavioral disorders.
Harvard had already published a study in 2006 that pointed to fluoride as a ‘developmental neurotoxicant’, and this newer study looks to over 27 additional investigations into the matter via meta nalysis. In the previous study, it was already established that fluoride consumption lowered children’s IQ scores. The left-over from industry, passed off as ‘medicine,’ obstructs brain development, and can cause a full spectrum of serious health issues – from autism to dyslexia, ADHD, ADD, and more.
The study calls the effects from this chemical a ‘silent epidemic’ that mainstream media and many scientific papers have ignored.
Two of the main researchers involved in the study, Philippe Grandjean from HSPH and Philip Landrigan from ISMMS, say that incidences of chemical-related neurodevelopmental disorders have doubled over the past seven years from six to 12.
The study admits that there are numerous chemicals to blame – many of which are untested or ceremoniously approved by the FDA, USDA, and CDC without truly knowing their long term ramifications on human health – but that fluoride is a definite culprit.



“[S]ince 2006, the number of chemicals known to damage the human brain more generally, but that are not regulated to protect children’s health, had increased from 202 to 214,” writes Julia Medew for The Sydney Morning Herald. “The pair said this could be the tip of the iceberg because the vast majority of the more than 80,000 industrial chemicals widely used in the United States have never been tested for their toxic effects on the developing fetus or child.”



Fluoride, like other toxins, accumulates in the blood stream and even makes it past the blood-brain barrier. Eventually, as the body tries to protect itself from these unwanted substances, the substances make it into the bones and the organs, causing cancer, cognitive abnormalities, and even birth defects in unborn children. Fluoride is known to pass into the placenta in pregnant women, yet regulatory agencies ignore its toxic legacy.
As of February 2015, a total of 50 studies have investigated the relationship between fluoride and human intelligence, and a total of 34 studies have investigated the relationship fluoride and learning/memory in animals. Of these investigations, 43 of the 50 human studies have found that elevated fluoride exposure is associated with reduced IQ, while 32 of the 34 animal studies have found that fluoride exposure impairs the learning and/or memory capacity of animals
Where we are powerless against nature and have no choice then it is fine to be pragmatic but we are not powerless against the machinations of other men or the policies they push. To be free and maintain our individuality is a constant struggle because the system will always apply collectivist policies even in a so called capitalist democracy – nature of the beast. The good news is that people can and do change things so that they do have a choice and say in society but if it goes against what the social engineers want it is a long hard struggle. I have no doubt fluoridation levels would not of been reduced if it were not for a long campaign to show the negative health impacts it can have and have it reduced or removed but there are many much more obvious examples where people who felt they had no voice and seemingly no choice but have stood up and made themselves heard and changed things for the better. You will never have a choice in anything if you don’t stand up for your rights will you? Make like a doormat and expect people to trample on you. That is how we go from good governance to tyranny by the people not holding those in power to account and letting them play god with their lives, shape society and steer humanities destiny. That is the natural order of things – power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely – so there must be safeguards in a democracy. The founding fathers tried to build many of these safeguards into the constitution and bill of rights which is why every administration will try to erode them and power grab – using a false narrative and playing fear politics to justify it. True patriotism is ensuring government is overseen by the people and works in our countries best interests and toward maintaining our culture and values (If they are worth maintaining) – patriotism is not waving a flag and blindly following government into one unjust war after another and relinquishing our personal responsibilities and freedom to them – every authoritarian government has always said that they will keep you safe and well if you just relinquish your freedom and give them more power to run things the way they see fit. I have no problem with you if you think fluoride is good, you should have a choice based on freedom of information but so should I. Debate and discussion are good. We shouldn’t lampoon others for holding another point of view but we can lambaste them if that view is unenlightened or flies in the face of fact or logic. The greater argument here is freedom of choice and personal liberty – it seems to me more and more people are willing to sacrifice that, abdicate responsibility and bow at alter of tyranny. And on that greater argument and this not aimed at you or our conversation specifically; It is bewildering to me that I can argue people should have a choice in a so called democracy and yet people are so brainwashed they will shout the idea down as some kind of extremist conspiracy theory – it makes me very sad for the future of humanity.
KeiraGoodwinAugust 6, 2015, 12:30 PM
thats great
Report as Abuse | 
Link to This
plswinfordAugust 6, 2015, 4:22 PM
It should be noted that there is a very big difference between atomic bombs and thermonuclear bombs. North Korea has atomic bombs, as does Israel.
Report as Abuse | 
Link to This
boonteeAugust 6, 2015, 9:16 PM
If we still think we are and claim to be the most intelligent animal in this world, then we should never drop any nuclear bomb again, anywhere, anytime.
Report as Abuse | 
Link to This
edprochak boonteeAugust 7, 2015, 2:23 PM
You are confusing intelligence with wisdom. They are related but not identical. You can certainly have a high level of one and a low level of the other.
Interesting article.
Report as Abuse | 
Link to This
dhrosierAugust 7, 2015, 6:24 PM
How many people would have died, civilians and military separately, if the Allies had to invade Japan?
Like the opening to this paper, many media cite numbers of those who died in the bombs that were dropped, but none speak to the horrors that would have evolved in the invasion of Japan.
The Japanese were whipped into such a state we can assume many would not surrender when the invasion became an unavoidable reality. Was it Iwo Jima where the soldiers obeyed the call of their leaders?
The bomb on Hiroshima was a horrible, horrible devastation. But, even with that destruction an undeniable fact the Japanese leadership refused to surrender. Some have questioned if it might not have been possible to execute a “demonstration” of the new weapon which would surely secure the total capitulation of Japan. The fact is that there was a demonstration with horrible reality, Hiroshima.
It was not until 3 days later when a second bomb was dropped on Nagasaki that the ruling class in Japan wrest control away from the military and surrendered, completely.
I am not defending Hiroshima as it was a horrid thing, but it was the lesser of two evils and too many people want to not think about the evil that would have ensued a decision to not drop the bomb.
Report as Abuse | 
Link to This
CHEEKOSAugust 8, 2015, 9:02 AM
One interesting note is that Japan remained defiant after the U.S. bombed Hiroshima. Four days later, the very next day after Nagasaki was bombed, however, the Japanese passed word to the Americans that they wanted Peace.
Why did it take two bombs–our resolve to do more damage–and not three, or even more?
An interesting question that I would pose is: with two great enemies–Japan and Germany–why didn’t the U.S, instead of bombing Japan twice, drop the second one (“Fat Boy”) over Germany? Was it because the Japanese were ethnically more different than our mostly European stock? Was it the fact that the fall-out might have been greater in the tighter-knit continent of Europe?
Good food for thought though.
Report as Abuse | 
Link to This
CHEEKOSAugust 8, 2015, 9:21 AM
I wonder how well President Harry S. Truman slept the night before the bombings–the first and, then, the second–as well as key members of his Administration and the Defense Commanders. The men on the Enola Gay, and then three days later on Bockscar–no doubt were aware that it was a momentous event; however, they were veterans of previous wartime bombings who had, no doubt, lost friends in the war.
Report as Abuse | 
Link to This
CHEEKOS edprochakAugust 8, 2015, 9:47 AM
Yes, intelligence refers to having great knowledge, while wisdom involves the ability to use that knowledge to do what is perceived as the proper decision. But, let’s drop the semantics, especially in understanding (another word, huh?) what this all means.
Currently, Prime Minister Shinzo Abe is trying to modify the Japanese Constitution, that the U.S. coerced the defeated nation into, after WWII, in order to convert Japan from merely having a self-defense force into having a full-blown military. This move is an important one, given the recent aggressiveness of China. The U. S. and our Allies certainly could use the direct military support of the largest other nation in the Asia-Pacific, along with its financial and technological involvement.
The Atomic People, the survivors, are strongly against such a move, and most understandably so. On the other hand, however, if Japan–as potentially a very important Asian Military Ally stood with the other nations in the Region against China, we would all have a much better chance of staring China down.
In effect, the discussion comes down to a moral argument versus a strategic defense one. Do you think that China would just roll-over if Japan continued to play dead
?

Caution Urged over Editing DNA in Wildlife

Rapid alteration of gene pools could fight disease—and harm ecosystems
By Heidi Ledford and Nature magazine| August 4, 2015




Muhammad Mahdi Karim/Wikipedia

“Crap!” That was the first word out of Kevin Esvelt’s mouth as he scanned a paper published in Science last March. The work described the use of a gene-editing technique to insert a mutation into fruit flies that would be passed on to almost all of their offspring. Although intriguing, the report made Esvelt feel uneasy: if engineered flies escaped from a lab, the mutation could spread quickly through a wild population.
But that was exactly what exhilarated molecular biologist Anthony James at the University of California, Irvine. “Holy mackerel!” he wrote to the study’s authors. “Can we use it in mosquitoes?”
On July 30, the US National Academy of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NAS) held the first in a series of meetings meant to find ways to balance the promise and perils of the technique, called ‘gene drive’. The method can rapidly modify not just a single organism but a whole population, by inserting a desired genetic modification into an organism along with DNA that increases the rate at which the change is passed to the next generation. The technique could be used to render mosquitoes unable to carry malaria parasites or to wipe out harmful invasive species, but it could also have unanticipated environmental costs and might be impossible to reverse. “Once this is out there, you cannot call it back,” says Walter Tabachnick, a population geneticist at the University of Florida in Vero Beach.
The idea of gene drive has been around for more than a decade. But its practicality was given a huge boost around three years ago with the arrival of CRISPR, a gene-editing technique that allows precise changes to an organism’s DNA.
The Science paper, by developmental biologist Ethan Bier and his student Valentino Gantz at the University of California, San Diego, used CRISPR to insert a modification into genes on both chromosomes in a pair, so that when the flies bred, they would pass the modification on to practically all of their offspring.
The work came out of a desire to develop a system that would make it easier to study genetic changes in organisms that are difficult to breed in the laboratory. Because CRISPR has been shown to work in a wide range of creatures, researchers hope one day to be able to engineer wild populations in much the same way.
Call for concern
Mindful of both the potential and the risks, Esvelt, a bioengineer at Harvard Medical School in Boston, Massachusetts, brought together a group of scientists to write a Comment in Science, published last week, laying out the need for multiple containment strategies for gene-drive research that is done in the laboratory. Meanwhile, the NAS meeting marks the start of a 15-month search for ways to minimize the risk in advance of field releases. Because no one is known to have made CRISPR work in mosquitoes—the mostly likely organism for the application of the technology—the committee has some time to do its work.
But there is still urgency, noted Todd Kuiken, who explores the interface of science and policy at the Wilson Center, a think tank in Washington DC. CRISPR gene-drive technology is developing at a breakneck pace, and has the potential to dramatically alter ecosystems in unexpected ways. At the meeting, Kuiken used the invasion of Asian carp into some US lakes as an example of how little is known about some wild ecosystems. “While this is an invasive species, it’s also an established species,” he says. “I don’t think we have a good understanding of how we evaluate what happens when we remove a species from as large an ecosystem such as this.”
Meanwhile, Esvelt and his colleagues are studying the CRISPR gene-drive system in the nematode Caenorhabditis elegans to learn more about what happens to a population as engineered DNA is passed down through generations, accumulating mutations as it goes. They are also testing ways to make sure that a gene drive can be countermanded once it has been set loose.
These issues need immediate attention, says geneticist Daniel Wattendorf at the US Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) in Arlington, Virginia. Security concerns may mean that DARPA needs to start working on the technology before guidelines are drawn up, he adds.
And Tabachnick remains concerned that these preparations may not suffice. “How do you test such a system, and how do you do it safely?” he asks. “I’m not convinced that any of this work could ever possibly provide the assurance of safety that one might demand.”
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Advertisements