• Members of the previous forum can retrieve their temporary password here, (login and check your PM).

Science of pineal gland calcification

Migrated topic.
Water fluoridation, which first began in 1945 in Grand Rapids, Michigan, and expanded nationwide over the years, has always been controversial. Those opposed to the process have argued—and a growing number of studies have suggested—that the chemical may present a number of health risks, for example interfering with the endocrine system and increasing the risk of impaired brain function; two studies in the last few months, for example, have linked fluoridation to ADHD and underactive thyroid. Others argue against water fluoridation on ethical grounds, saying the process forces people to consume a substance they may not know is there—or that they’d rather avoid.

Despite concerns about safety and ethics, many are content to continue fluoridation because of its purported benefit: that it reduces tooth decay. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Division of Oral Health, the main government body responsible for the process, says it’s “safe and effective.”

A review identified only three studies since 1975—of sufficient quality to be included—that addressed the effectiveness of fluoridation on tooth decay in the population at large. These papers determined that fluoridation does not reduce cavities to a statistically significant degree in permanent teeth, says study co-author Anne-Marie Glenny, a health science researcher at Manchester University in the United Kingdom. The authors found only seven other studies worthy of inclusion dating prior to 1975.

The authors also found only two studies since 1975 that looked at the effectiveness of reducing cavities in baby teeth, and found fluoridation to have no statistically significant impact here, either.

The scientists also found “insufficient evidence” that fluoridation reduces tooth decay in adults

Fluoridation May Not Prevent Cavities, Scientific Review Shows

Somebody at some point said water fluoridation was a "double edge sword"

I'm having trouble finding any real benefits...

So why is it there?

Why not remove it?

It must cost money to flouridate water, so what is the justification for spending this money to fluoridated water?

Would it not be safer and more cost effective to stop water fluoridation?

It's been pretty much proven it does not "help teeth", and even if it did are the known risks to public health worth it?



-eg
 
entheogenic-gnosis said:
Somebody at some point said water fluoridation was a "double edge sword"

I'm having trouble finding any real benefits...

That was me, I seem to have used the term incorrectly. What I meant was that it can be harmful in more than one way.

So why is it there?

Why not remove it?

It must cost money to flouridate water, so what is the justification for spending this money to fluoridated water?

Would it not be safer and more cost effective to stop water fluoridation?

It's been pretty much proven it does not "help teeth", and even if it did are the known risks to public health worth it?

It's my understanding that to admit wrong-doing and stop public water fluoridation there would be some hefty legal and ethical problems for the big medical/dental establishments and health agencies that have been endorsing it for years.

Also, I've heard that water fluoridation is quite profitable for the fertilizer industries that produce fluorosilicic acid/sodium fluorosilicate as a waste bi-product.
 
Bancopuma said:
Hey dude, glad you found this useful, and yeah this is precisely I wanted to share this because I thought the same!! It seems like the New Age crowd had largely hijacked this topic so some people just consider it woo woo without looking into it any further.

As for fluoride, I think it is fine in toothpaste or mouthwash, but I don't think it should be or needs to be added to drinking water.

Heh, the naysayers and the new age crowd. The conservatives and liberals of the science world. Now if only they could put their brains together and accept what they have in common! That sweet desire to understand the world we live in. One of the many things I really love about the nexus is posts like these that bring us to the cross roads of hard science and intuition and allow us to engage in and learn from the collective human conscience in a way that is pure and unclouded from bias. Really great post brother! Thank you so much for the time and effort it took to learn and share this with us :)

On that note though, it's bloody shocking that human beings are still able to function in this toxic dump we've created. I've spent the last year trying to clean up my life of as many unhealthy things as I can and it's like every day you're exposed to some innocuous activity that's been turned into a silent murder weapon.
 
SpartanII said:
Also, I've heard that water fluoridation is quite profitable for the fertilizer industries that produce fluorosilicic acid/sodium fluorosilicate as a waste bi-product.

Likely this. There's always some lucrative shit going on by non-publicly recognized companies that make bank off spending government resources. I had the same reaction to the notion of a "multibillion dollar prison industrial complex". Thinking "how is incarceration a business?", until i learned about all the food, clothes, furnishing monopolies that make cheap supplies in droves and sell at markup. Don't know the business of fluoridation, but there is literally no way they're spending that kind of money on a controversial measure for public health without some elaborate business scheme involved
 
SpartanII said:
entheogenic-gnosis said:
Somebody at some point said water fluoridation was a "double edge sword"

I'm having trouble finding any real benefits...

That was me, I seem to have used the term incorrectly. What I meant was that it can be harmful in more than one way.

So why is it there?

Why not remove it?

It must cost money to flouridate water, so what is the justification for spending this money to fluoridated water?

Would it not be safer and more cost effective to stop water fluoridation?

It's been pretty much proven it does not "help teeth", and even if it did are the known risks to public health worth it?

It's my understanding that to admit wrong-doing and stop public water fluoridation there would be some hefty legal and ethical problems for the big medical/dental establishments and health agencies that have been endorsing it for years.

Also, I've heard that water fluoridation is quite profitable for the fertilizer industries that produce fluorosilicic acid/sodium fluorosilicate as a waste bi-product.

It's sad, this inability to change or to admit wrongdoing, or disregarding public safety to profit from a byproduct, could be harming the general public...

It seems absurd, we know internal ingestion of flouride doesn't help teeth, in toothpaste it's not ingested internally, it's applied to the outside of the teeth, internal ingestion does nothing as far as dental benefits go and carries loads of potential and known risks...

So why not remove it?

It probably is as simple as the explanations which you provided.

... or maybe there is a conspiracy or an agenda to intentionally induce corpora arenacea or other brain changes.

We must remember to keep intellectual tools such as Occam's razor available while reviewing these topics, though the nonsense stuff can be entertaining to consider, you just can buy in.
Regardless, even if it's new age nonsense and conspiracy theory, it's at least forcing people to think about their environment and it's potential affects on their health and saftey...

------

(A bit off topic, sorry)

Speaking of being aware of your environment...


Strontium-90 is very similar to calcium, and your body deposits it in the bones as if it were calcium, Sr-90 is radio active...the link above outlines Sr-90 as well as "the tooth fairy project" a study which tested children's teeth.


-----

-eg
 
SpartanII said:
Also, I've heard that water fluoridation is quite profitable for the fertilizer industries that produce fluorosilicic acid/sodium fluorosilicate as a waste bi-product.
Hmmm, I always thought that the whole fluoridation thing started when the nuclear arms industry accumulated piles of waste fluoride from uranium isotope enrichment (via uranium hexafluoride.)

entheogenic-gnosis said:
in toothpaste it's not ingested internally, it's applied to the outside of the teeth,
And a lot of it gets all over your oral cavity too.. Sublingual administration?
 
My dentist does not use any fluoride and does not think it has any established value that makes it's use worthwhile in dentistry. You can use xylitol in it's place.

I guess if you don't want to drink fluoride, don't drink city water. Vancouver water has never been fluoridated. Maybe it's more of a USA thing.
 
jamie said:
My dentist does not use any fluoride and does not think it has any established value that makes it's use worthwhile in dentistry. You can use xylitol in it's place.

I guess if you don't want to drink fluoride, don't drink city water. Vancouver water has never been fluoridated. Maybe it's more of a USA thing.

NY doesn't have fluoridated water, at least not in the capital or NYC. Mayor Corning never trusted the state workers not to poison everyone :p :roll: Looks like maybe he was on to something. I've always been in love with Vancouver too, maybe it's something (not) in the water... 😁
 
Psybin said:
jamie said:
My dentist does not use any fluoride and does not think it has any established value that makes it's use worthwhile in dentistry. You can use xylitol in it's place.

I guess if you don't want to drink fluoride, don't drink city water. Vancouver water has never been fluoridated. Maybe it's more of a USA thing.

NY doesn't have fluoridated water, at least not in the capital or NYC. Mayor Corning never trusted the state workers not to poison everyone :p :roll: Looks like maybe he was on to something. I've always been in love with Vancouver too, maybe it's something (not) in the water... 😁

Sorry to say this but close to 80% of NY is fluoridated...

Including NYC since 1964... CDC - MWF - My Water's Fluoride Home

But there is some good natural springs around

 
pitubo said:
SpartanII said:
Also, I've heard that water fluoridation is quite profitable for the fertilizer industries that produce fluorosilicic acid/sodium fluorosilicate as a waste bi-product.
Hmmm, I always thought that the whole fluoridation thing started when the nuclear arms industry accumulated piles of waste fluoride from uranium isotope enrichment (via uranium hexafluoride.)

entheogenic-gnosis said:
in toothpaste it's not ingested internally, it's applied to the outside of the teeth,
And a lot of it gets all over your oral cavity too.. Sublingual administration?

I'm guessing any that absorbs sublingually is minimal, though I also believe that fluoride in tooth-paste isn't 100% without risk either.

We get fluoride from other environmental sources as well...

Daily intakes of fluoride can vary significantly according to the various sources of exposure. Values ranging from 0.46 to 3.6–5.4 mg/day have been reported in several studies (IPCS, 1984).[6] In areas where water is fluoridated this can be expected to be a significant source of fluoride, however fluoride is also naturally present in huge range of foods, in a wide range of concentrations.[24] The maximum safe daily consumption of fluoride is 10 mg for an adult.


Examples of fluoride content
Food/Drink Fluoride
(mg per 100g) Portion Fluoride
(mg per portion)
Black Tea (brewed) 0.373 1 cup, 240g (8 fl oz) 0.884
Raisins, seedless 0.234 small box, 43g (1.5 oz) 0.033
Table wine 0.153 Bottle, 750ml (26.4 fl oz) 1.150
Municipal tap-water,
(Fluoridated) 0.081 Recommended daily intake,
3 litres (0.79 US gal) 2.433
Baked potatoes, Russet 0.045 Medium potato, 140g (0.3 lb) 0.078
Lamb 0.032 Chop, 170g (6 oz) 0.054
Carrots 0.003 1 large carrot, 72g (2.5 oz) 0.002
Data taken from United States Department of Agriculture, National Nutrient Database
-wikipedia

This link claims its a byproduct of nuclear arms generation...

There's a good deal.of disinformation and misinformation out there...

Just knowing what I know about fluoride from my organic chemistry study makes me not want to ingest it...

-eg
 
jamie said:
My dentist does not use any fluoride and does not think it has any established value that makes it's use worthwhile in dentistry. You can use xylitol in it's place.

I guess if you don't want to drink fluoride, don't drink city water. Vancouver water has never been fluoridated. Maybe it's more of a USA thing.

Definitely happening in my Canadian home town city. I heard that Calgary or Edmonton had it taken out not too long ago.

Always liked Vancouver, and BC in general.
 
I guess if you don't want to drink fluoride, don't drink city water. Vancouver water has never been fluoridated. Maybe it's more of a USA thing.

Turns out it's not as simple as avoiding tap water, we get fluoride from many common sources...

Daily intakes of fluoride can vary significantly according to the various sources of exposure. Values ranging from 0.46 to 3.6–5.4 mg/day have been reported in several studies (IPCS, 1984).[6] In areas where water is fluoridated this can be expected to be a significant source of fluoride, however fluoride is also naturally present in huge range of foods, in a wide range of concentrations.[24] The maximum safe daily consumption of fluoride is 10 mg for an adult.

Fluoride - Wikipedia

Examples of fluoride content
Food/Drink Fluoride
(mg per 100g) Portion Fluoride
(mg per portion)
Black Tea (brewed) 0.373 1 cup, 240g (8 fl oz) 0.884
Raisins, seedless 0.234 small box, 43g (1.5 oz) 0.033
Table wine 0.153 Bottle, 750ml (26.4 fl oz) 1.150
Municipal tap-water,
(Fluoridated) 0.081 Recommended daily intake,
3 litres (0.79 US gal) 2.433
Baked potatoes, Russet 0.045 Medium potato, 140g (0.3 lb) 0.078
Lamb 0.032 Chop, 170g (6 oz) 0.054
Carrots 0.003 1 large carrot, 72g (2.5 oz) 0.002
Data taken from United States Department of Agriculture, National Nutrient Database
-wikipedia

------

I'm fascinated by the science of pineal gland calcification, Corpora arenacea.

There are many factors that contribute to Corpora arenacea (aka "brainsand" aka "pineal gland calcification" )

Corpora arenacea concerns me simply due to the range of essential tryptamine chemistry which occurs there, serotonin (5-ho-tryptamine) enters the pineal gland and is converted to N-acetyl-5-methoxy-tryptamine (melatonin), which is then converted into 6-methoxy-tetrahydro-betacarboline (pinoline). The pineal gland is also speculated to be the source of endogenous DMT and 5-meo-DMT generation.

With all of this essential tryptamine chemistry occurring here, Corpora arenacea became a topic of interest for me.

Though I'm not sure Corpora arenacea has ever been shown to be detrimental to health or brain function...

Predominantly composed of calcium and magnesium salts, corpora arenacea are numerous in old patients. In smaller number they can be present in children as well. The degree of calcification was associated to various diseases. However, the presence of calcified concretions seems not to reflect a specific pathological state. Corpora arenacea occur not only in the actual pineal tissue but also in the leptomeninges, in the habenular commissure and in the choroid plexus



The link above provides some great information regarding Corpora arenacea.


------

Corpora arenacea (or brain sand) are calcified structures in the pineal gland and other areas of the brain such as the choroid plexus. Older organisms have numerous corpora arenacea, whose function, if any, is unknown. Concentrations of "brain sand" increase with age, so the pineal gland becomes increasingly visible on X-rays over time, usually by the third or fourth decade. They are sometimes used as anatomical landmarks in radiological examinations.

Chemical analysis shows that they are composed of calcium phosphate, calcium carbonate, magnesium phosphate, and ammonium phosphate.[1] Recently, calcite deposits have been described as well. -Wikipedia

-----

-eg
 
Some amount of pineal calcification is natural. However, the pineal receives the most blood supply per volume of any gland/organ in the body. The kidneys receive more in total, but not per volume as the pineal is about the size of a grain of rice. So when there is flourine in the blood, it gets calcified a lot quicker.

This is a bad thing for your melatonin production according to at least one scientific study I read, though so is blue light wavelengths which few people even bother blocking (I go to great lengths to block them after about 7 PM or so each night and I get tired by 10 PM when I do).

OTOH, these crystals have piezoelectric properties, and might pick up on EMF frequencies that the rest of the brain does not. Insert your favorite metaphysical conclusion here, I know what it makes me wonder. So maybe the crystals are not all that bad, unless there is also proof that they hinder other important pineal secretions or metabolites of melatonin.

On a purely subjective level, about a year after moving to a city with no flouride in the water, I started having spontaneous lucid dreams, and then that led to later learning to have OBEs, so maybe there is something to it all...
 
Bancopuma said:
Abstract
The complex texture structure of the microcrystals may lead to crystallographic symmetry breaking and possible piezoelectricity, as is the case with otoconia. It is believed that the presence of two different crystalline compounds in the pineal gland is biologically significant, suggesting two entirely different mechanisms of formation and biological functions. Studies directed toward the elucidation of the formation and functions, and possible nonthermal interaction with external electromagnetic fields are currently in progress.


Interesting Bancopuma.
I'm sorry if I missed it if it was already answered, but my question is:
Are there other good examples of microcrystals in the brain or blood plasma? I see that the measurement methods were designed specifically for calcite and the brain, but I'm curious if there are other examples.

Thanks. :)
 
I stopped using fluoride toothpaste last winter and I started having more vivid dreams. Coincidence, maybe, though I do find the reasons for using fluoride in water rather unsubstantial. Why would a government (U.S.) cares so little to its citizens with little or no national healthcare option would insist so strongly on putting fluoride into drinking water with so much persistence. Besides the way local govs now are sneaky; just dump fluoride in the water without even ask the residents!
 
Back
Top Bottom