new a report Certainly, linking the impaired drinking water to reducing the degrees of intelligence in children will lead to an increase in the debate about an exercise that is considered one of The greatest achievements of public health From the twentieth century.
The report, which was published in Pediatrics in the JAMTERESS group of the results of dozens of research studies that have been released since 1989. Its general conclusion is that the more fluoride the child is exposed to, its decrease tends to register in intelligence tests.
The analysis was performed for American National Toxicology ProgramAnd it has attracted a lot of criticism over many years of its development. Among the biggest criticism is that it depends on data from places where fluoride levels are much higher than the recommended focus before American public health service.
Adding fluoride to community drinking water is attributed to reducing the average number of teeth with 44 % cavities in adults and 58 % in adolescents since the 1960s, The health service says. However, even with the spread of fluoride -containing dental paste The most common chronic diseases Impact on American children, and the normal ordinary citizen is missing At least 10 permanent teeth.
About 209 million Americans It receives the phantom water in its taps, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Robert F. said. Kennedy Junior, President -elect Donald Trump to lead the Ministry of Health and Humanitarian Services, he wants to see this number decreases to scratch, partly due to concerns about “Loss of intelligence.”
The Jama Pediatrics report depends on the work prepared for the National Poison Science Program Study 324 pages On Florid and the development of the brain, which was completed in August. Here is a closer look at what he does – and does not appear.
Where does the data come from?
The report combines data from 74 studies on fluoride exposure and intelligence rate for children. The largest part of them – 45 – in China, and 12 others from India. There was no United States, although three of Canada and four of Mexico.
Ten studies are designed for Follow groups of people over time To find out how different levels of fluoride exposure affected the degrees of intelligence and other results. The rest of the studies evaluated the exposure to fluoride for the population and IQ At the same time.
Intelligence levels are usually reported as average of a group, although they sometimes reflect the level of individual exposure to fluoride.
How much is fluoride we are talking about?
Exposure to fluoride has been measured by multiple methods.
Sometimes, researchers measure the amount of fluoride in the drinking water of society, and sometimes they measure the amount of fluoride in the urine of the participants. Fluorine – The case occurs when the teeth get a lot of fluoride and seem to be stained – it was also used to assess exposure. So environmental factors, such as exposure to Control of charcoal burning With a high fluoride content.
Studies were assembled in three categories: those in which exposure was less than 4 milligrams of fluoride per liter ( The maximum focus Allowed in the United States by the Environmental Protection Agency); Those in which exposure was less than 2 mg/l (not executed by the Environmental Protection Agency Secondary standard To prevent cosmetic problems in places where fluoride levels are naturally high); And those in which exposure was less than 1.5 mg/l ( The guideline value It was developed by the World Health Organization).
So what is the link with intelligence?
Among the 65 studies included in the initial analysis, 64 found the opposite relationships between exposure to fluoride and IQ for children – the highest (or lower) fluoride, and low (or higher) degrees.
The researchers have also collected data on approximately 21,000 children from 59 studies that were reported to the average intelligence rate. This data has shown that children exposed to higher fluoride levels have lower degrees of intelligence than children exposed to low fluoride levels.
In addition, the authors of the report collected data from 38 studies and left the numbers themselves to see if there was a comprehensive relationship between fluoride and IQ. Certainly they wrote, “The low degrees of children’s intelligence have been associated with increased levels of fluoride exposure.”
This seems bad. Should I be worried?
Not necessarily. Results Only strongly Since the data on it, studies in this analysis have some issues.
For beginners, 52 studies 74 have been judged by the authors of the report to have a “great danger of bias”. This undermines the health and reliability of their results.
Another issue is that most studies considered exposure to fluoride much higher than the target level of the United States since 2015, and has linked public health service Fluoride “optimum” concentration At 0.7 mg/l, Equivalent From about 3 drops of fluoride in a 55 gallon barrel. (Before that, the target ranges from 0.7 to 1.2 mg/l.)
Only seven studies have evaluated children with less than 1.5 mg/liter of fluoride. When they were considered alone, there was no relationship between fluoride exposure and IQ.
Besides, the American Academy of Pediatrics Note The evaluation of intelligence in children is not a clear relationship, as the measurements can tend through “social, social, family, cultural, genetic, nutritional and environmental factors.” The academy said that comparing intelligence degrees from multiple studies in multiple countries as if it were only the same problem.
Nations. What should I know about this report?
a lot. In fact, Pediatrics published Jama Editorial by Dr. Stephen M. FibrousA public health expert from Iowa University, to enumerate the reasons that make the report should not be taken at the nominal value.
Take the issue of bias. Among the 59 studies that formed the heart of the analysis, only 12 had a low risk of bias, and eight of which did not find any counter -link between fluoride and IQ.
Then there is the use of urine to measure the exposure to fluoride. The authors of the report described this as a more accurate way to measure the individual’s exposure to fluoride from all sources, not just drinking water. But this logic contradicts the “scientific consensus”. Urinary fluoride measurements vary greatly over one day and from day to day, therefore, therefore There is no way to know Whether any specific sample indicates a long -term exposure to a person.
Levy also dismantled the authors of the report to choose cherry for their studies in their analysis. For example, given the choice of two post on the basis of data from Canadian and passive research for mothers on the study of environmental chemicalsThe authors of the report chose the confrontation that included exposure to fluoride after birth. The post they deleted No connection was found between “fluoride exposure during pregnancy, childhood, childhood, and a large -scale intelligence rate,” he wrote.
He added that other modern high -quality studies that show that there is no association has turned.
Is this everything?
There are other criticisms about methodology and statistical analysis. But one of Levy’s biggest complaints about the report is “lack of transparency” about its background.
The authors have reduced the work of the report with the controversial study that it produced for the National Toxicology Program, as Levi wrote. The first draft of that study received harsh reviews from the peers from National Academies of Science, Engineering and Medicine. The primary version lacked clear evidence to support the authors’ claim that “fluoride was supposed to be a threat to the nervous nervous growth of humans,” Nassem auditors said, and the second on the fact that it was not equipped to shed light on the risks offered by the low concentration of fluoride in American water systems.
Levi wrote, does the new report mention that animal studies that use fluoride levels that reflect the American standard of 0.7 mg/liter found “There are no differences related to exposure to motor or sensory performance or learning and memory” in nearly ten tests, such as The researchers reported In 2018.
How can I know if the fluoride is added to Miahi?
The governmental and local authorities decide on themselves whether it should crawl water supply. In some places, the water is naturally high in fluoride because there is a lot of it in soil and rulings. If the focus is higher than 2.0 mg/l, the Environmental Protection Agency requires officials to notify people who drink this water within 12 months. If the focus exceeds 4.0 mg/l, officials must notify people within 30 days and take steps to reduce fluoride to safe levels.
Nearly 63 % of Americans are receiving floor water, including 3.5 % whose fluoride levels exceed optimal levels, According to the Center for Anti -Tennis and Combating. If you want to know if the water system adds Floride, try Looking for it On CDC. (Depending on where you live, you may have to contact your water resource directly.)
If you live in Los Angeles Province, you can use This map To find out if you are among the 62 % of the “optimal mortal” water, 5 % of its water is “largely volatile”, and 22 % who “partially spoken”, or 11 % whose water is not increasing.
This does not mean that the water is free of fluoride: According to the Ministry of Water and Energy in Los Angeles, the city’s groundwater contains fluoride with concentrations ranging from 0.1 to 0.3 mg/l, and fluoride levels in the water provided by the Los Angeles channel between 0.4 and 0.8 mg/L. All water delivered by DWP is set on fluoride concentration of 0.7 mg/l, The agency says.
So what is the bottom line?
The authors of the report acknowledged that their analysis was “not designed to treat the broader effects of public health on the water of water in the United States.” However, they suggested that their findings “may be informed of future health interest rates for fluoride.”
A The second opening This is accompanied by the report that it raises sufficient questions to ensure the reassessment of “the potential risk of fluoride during early brain growth.” The editorial argued that the lack of a clear connection between the degrees of intelligence and the exposure to fluoride is less than 1.5 mg/l “does not express fluoride as a possible risk.”
Levi opposed. “There is no evidence of a negative impact on the levels of lower water fluoride,” in water systems in the United States, as written. “The wide use of fluoride [cavity] Prevention should continue. “