5 ms·

Fluoride stays in your body, should be some way to measure it?

cyberax 2y ago
Fluoride rapidly forms a highly insoluble calcium fluoride salt. So you won't find a lot of it in blood or other easily accessible body fluids.
- ZYbCRq22HbJ2y7 2y ago
  > The fractional retention or balance of fluoride at any age depends on the quantitative features of absorption and excretion. For healthy, young, or middle-aged adults, approximately 50 percent of absorbed fluoride is retained by uptake in calcified tissues, and 50 percent is excreted in the urine. For young children, as much as 80 percent can be retained owing to increased uptake by the developing skeleton and teeth (Ekstrand et al., 1994a, b). Such data are not available for persons in the later years of life, but based on bone mineral dynamics, it is likely that the fraction excreted is greater than the fraction retained. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK109832/= https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK109832/= > .9 Radiographic detection of teeth and skeletal changes and microscopic examination of affected bone are helpful adjunct procedures for diagnosis. > Histopathologic and radiographic examination of bones detects bone lesions and tentatively confirms osteofluorosis.14,26 Biopsy or rib or coccygeal vertebrae is used to obtain samples for skeletal fluoride analysis.23 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/B032301125X50025X https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/B03230... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skeletal_fluorosis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skeletal_fluorosis > We have developed a localized noninvasive nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) method for determining the accumulated bone fluoride content in human index fingers https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/2339643/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/2339643/ --- It sounds like people who have time to pay attention to this have a better chance of discerning a methodology of assay.
  - cyberax 2y ago
    Oh, certainly. I'm just saying that it's not easy and straightforward.
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
pfannkuchen 2y ago
The bitch about scientific studies is you can’t find what you don’t know to look for. That has to be part of the trade off calculus when deciding what substances to introduce to our internal environment.
- ZYbCRq22HbJ2y7 2y ago
  Okay? You can still come up with a correlation between net fluoride mass of bones and teeth and negative health traits or outcomes. You can also compare occupational exposure against normal exposure, no drinking water exposure (lived life in country without this policy), etc. There are many different types of scientific studies.
  - pfannkuchen 2y ago
    I am much less confident than you appear to be that we are able to detect a significant percentage of negative health traits. Let’s say that hypothetically there is a 3rd order effect on the excretion pattern of some neurotransmitter. Can we detect that? Could it negatively affect mood regulation? There are a million things like that.
    - Spivak 2y ago
      I guess the question is why your priors are so far weighted to the side of negative outcomes. If we're talking about yet undiscovered effects of something it seems equally plausible for those effects to be positive. Aspirin is a pretty good example of this where we keep discovering more positive effects. And I can understand somewhat the bias toward the state of nature but there's lots of examples where our deviations were positive, the biggest one being the cognitive effects of cooking food.
      - dataflow 2y ago
        > If we're talking about yet undiscovered effects of something it seems equally plausible for those effects to be positive. Where do you get this from? If you ingest a random chemical (or imagine licking random objects...), do you really expect the chances of it being beneficial vs. detrimental to your health to be remotely close to 50/50?

Fluoride rapidly forms a highly insoluble calcium fluoride salt. So you won't find a lot of it in blood or other easily accessible body fluids.

ZYbCRq22HbJ2y7 2y ago
> The fractional retention or balance of fluoride at any age depends on the quantitative features of absorption and excretion. For healthy, young, or middle-aged adults, approximately 50 percent of absorbed fluoride is retained by uptake in calcified tissues, and 50 percent is excreted in the urine. For young children, as much as 80 percent can be retained owing to increased uptake by the developing skeleton and teeth (Ekstrand et al., 1994a, b). Such data are not available for persons in the later years of life, but based on bone mineral dynamics, it is likely that the fraction excreted is greater than the fraction retained. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK109832/= https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK109832/= > .9 Radiographic detection of teeth and skeletal changes and microscopic examination of affected bone are helpful adjunct procedures for diagnosis. > Histopathologic and radiographic examination of bones detects bone lesions and tentatively confirms osteofluorosis.14,26 Biopsy or rib or coccygeal vertebrae is used to obtain samples for skeletal fluoride analysis.23 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/B032301125X50025X https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/B03230... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skeletal_fluorosis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skeletal_fluorosis > We have developed a localized noninvasive nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) method for determining the accumulated bone fluoride content in human index fingers https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/2339643/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/2339643/ --- It sounds like people who have time to pay attention to this have a better chance of discerning a methodology of assay.
- cyberax 2y ago
  Oh, certainly. I'm just saying that it's not easy and straightforward.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]

pfannkuchen 2y ago

The bitch about scientific studies is you can’t find what you don’t know to look for. That has to be part of the trade off calculus when deciding what substances to introduce to our internal environment.

ZYbCRq22HbJ2y7 2y ago
Okay? You can still come up with a correlation between net fluoride mass of bones and teeth and negative health traits or outcomes. You can also compare occupational exposure against normal exposure, no drinking water exposure (lived life in country without this policy), etc. There are many different types of scientific studies.
- pfannkuchen 2y ago
  I am much less confident than you appear to be that we are able to detect a significant percentage of negative health traits. Let’s say that hypothetically there is a 3rd order effect on the excretion pattern of some neurotransmitter. Can we detect that? Could it negatively affect mood regulation? There are a million things like that.
  - Spivak 2y ago
    I guess the question is why your priors are so far weighted to the side of negative outcomes. If we're talking about yet undiscovered effects of something it seems equally plausible for those effects to be positive. Aspirin is a pretty good example of this where we keep discovering more positive effects. And I can understand somewhat the bias toward the state of nature but there's lots of examples where our deviations were positive, the biggest one being the cognitive effects of cooking food.
    - dataflow 2y ago
      > If we're talking about yet undiscovered effects of something it seems equally plausible for those effects to be positive. Where do you get this from? If you ingest a random chemical (or imagine licking random objects...), do you really expect the chances of it being beneficial vs. detrimental to your health to be remotely close to 50/50?