Adding iodine to salt played a role in cognitive improvements: research (2013)
discovermagazine.com
discovermagazine.com
Iodine is an element! As such, it cannot be produced by a chemical reaction and so isn't synthesized in any living organism.
It's produced in supernova explosions, by the rapid neutron capture process.
At worst, it implies that, like essential amino acids, it CAN be synthesized by some living organism.
It does not imply that.
Rhetorically, it does have that interpretation.
When some unconditional proposition is presented together with some red herring conditions, a less informed reader may take the interpretation that the conditions are relevant; i.e. that it is falsified when the stated conditions do not hold. Because, why would the presenting expert include irrelevant conditions?
"I've noticed that Smith doesn't beat his wife in public."
That doesn't logically imply Smith beats his wife, but he does have to be beating his wife for the "in public" condition to be relevant. To assume that the condition is relevant is to assume that Smith does beat his wife. If the condition is not relevant, why is it there?
I'd like to be able to assume that all conditions given in serious writing about STEM subjects are relevant, so I don't have to waste my time suspecting they are not.
the fact it doesn't add more, possibly irrelevant, information does not diminish its usefulness.
it does not imply anything about things that aren't being discussed. it's abnormal to read everything with a qualification like "in our bodies" as a implication of some other hidden meaning.
as technical people we probably enjoy delving into tangents and pedantry far too much. but, for example, adding a statement "... In fact, iodine is an element and cannot be synthesized ... " would be a tangent and should be avoided or edited out.
It is absolutely normal to read every condition given in some technical subject matter as being relevant, and decent writing satisfies this.
It takes extraordinary effort to maintain a constant suspicion that every stated condition might be irrelevant to the proposition to which it is attached.
this is a magazine article, not a proof. so i'm certain the author felt it was relevant to say it that way because the whole article is about what happens in the body, whether or not it was logically relevant to the condition.
the fact that he made a narrower than necessary true statement does not imply he meant anything beyond that either, even if you read it pedantically. it takes extraordinary effort to maintain a constant suspicion that every unstated condition might be relevant too.
While the statement is not false, it has a kind of type error. Iodine is not in a category that can or cannot be synthesized in organisms (or any chemical reactions). We only talk about molecules in this category: e.g. Vitamin C can be synthesized in some organisms, but not others.
The following is also not a false statement: household waste isn't handled by the JVM garbage collector. However, at least we know it was written in jest. To nitpick that one would be to betray not getting the computer science dad joke.
The downward trend in fast food began in the 70s, once sodium was seen as bad, so more salty tasting thin crystals were preferred.
[1] - https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20634172/ (on researchgate)
I try to use iodized salt when it’s convenient: when salting pasta water, in baking, etc… but I wonder if my family is getting enough.
One approach that can work is to use multivitamins. They usually have a lower dosage of everything than do single thing supplements. For example the iodine supplements I've seen are in the 225 mcg to 325 mcg range.
Most adult multivitamins seem to have 150 mcg.
If you want lower than that children's multivitamins can do the trick. Flintstone's have 90 mcg. House brands meant to directly compete with Flintstone's do not always copy the Flintstone's dosages, so be sure to check the label. Walmart's Equate brand for example is 150 mcg, same as most adult multivitamins.
I like to take children's vitamins as insurance. They have enough of many things that if I have a minor deficiency in my diet they should cover it, but not so much as to cause problems if my diet is sufficient or even a little high. Plus they taste good, which helps if you have other supplements you are taking that do not taste good.
The RDA for iodine is 150 mcg, so 325 should normally draw concern. However, the average iodine intake in Japan is well over 1000 mcg, to no ill effect. Too much iodine is definitely bad, but the dosage that is firmly established as causing problems (oddly, a similar effect as too little iodine) is at least another order of magnitude beyond the Japanese intake. (There may be weird interactions between iodine and fluoride, but that recent data is still very tentative and suspect, and even at 325 mcg/day isn't concerning.)
Supplements are made from kelp, so there's potential issues with heavy metals. But, again, the average Japanese intake of the types of heavy metals kelp accumulates is multiples of the US RDA limit, to no known ill effect. However, there are no USP or similar reputably certified iodine supplements, only certified multivitamins with iodine. That's more concerning to me than anything else.
Nonetheless, FWIW I give my kids an iodine supplement once or twice a week. I also cook with iodized salt, but we eat out or consume prepared food enough times in a week that I figured a supplement was worthwhile, all things considered. RDAs are typically computed by measuring urine excretion, so it's possible "topping up" iodine that way might not be very effective--just quickly excreted. I dunno.
Cows milk can be a good source of iodine, but my kids don't consume milk regularly, and only one drinks cows milk. Fortunately, they do like anchovies, so I try to add those into the mix.
Maybe it was just s bad batch. Anyway i use regular Maldon sea salt, it's perfect. It's like $2-3 or so for a pack that lasts for months. No need to fix what isn't broken.
My SO just has a habit of buying pointless crap some times.
That seems plausible. I definitely filter mine. You need at least a coarse filter for sand and whatnot, and various biofilms and whatnot are visibly problematic for culinary salt as you apply heat. I'm sure they're food-safe if you eat them fast enough that they don't rot, but a finer filter to get rid of that crap is prudent.
> no need to fix what isn't broken
Agreed. For most applications I portion out from a giant bag of salt from Costco or similar. The flaky sea salt is just a fun side-activity/hobby combined with a psychological aversion to paying market rates for flaky salt.
> buying pointless crap
Aw :(
They'll figure out a way eventually, but it is definitely harder.
It is always easy to grow something uniform as a pure crystal, without fault lines on them causing crumbling.
As a kid who spent a lot of time with chemistry, it used to fascinate me that you can crystallize out a clean salt crystal out of a mix of potassium permanganate and salt, the salt grain will grow pretty much pure salt on it without a hint of purple (also burned my nose skin off collecting chlorine from the exercise, talk to your local chemistry teacher and find out why).
I never succeeded in making a colored salt transparent crystal.
You’ll not see any change for awhile, as the same clowns who are against fluoridation and vaccination also want to enjoy the freedom of a life without iodine.
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8240726/
> The iodine intake is also inadequate in several countries with strong health systems and otherwise successful public health programs (Norway, Germany and Finland). In Norway, iodized salt is not widely implemented and the allowed level of fortification is only 5 ppm, below the recommended minimum level of 15 ppm. Fish and seafood were assumed to provide adequate iodine intake in the population, but their iodine content is not high enough unless consumed every day, and their consumption is declining. In Germany, a major challenge is the low use of iodized salt in the production of processed foods, which contributes to most dietary salt. Finland had an effective salt iodization program for decades, but decreased consumption of iodized salt and milk resulted in lower iodine intakes. Actions to strengthen the coverage of iodized salt were recently recommended by the Finnish National Nutrition Council.
Excess sodium intake is associated with cardiovascular disease and heart failure. Salt is also an opportunistic carrier for iodine supplementation. So to call it good or bad, you'd need to either come up with an epidemiological study of the two diseases relative to each other, or maybe propose an alternative carrier for the iodine supplementation.
The evidence for this is poor, and there is some evidence to the contrary.[0] Right now it is difficult to assert that there's anything more than a correlation, possibly because many popular high salt food choices could be bad for reasons other than sodium (e.g. fast food staples). In recent decades, widespread success of anti-salt messaging means that lower salt intake is now highly correlated with eating a healthy diet.
There's no first-order harm in a low salt diet, but there may be some second-order concerns. For example, when food manufacturers are pushed to reduce salt, their arsenal for achieving hyperpalatability becomes narrowed to objectively worse things like sugar and refined seed oils.
--
[0] "The field of heart failure has evolved [...] There is now substantial randomized trial data to indicate that dietary sodium restriction does not provide the reduction in clinical events with accepted heterogeneity in the clinical trial results." https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38215917/ (2024)
I think the closest thing to what you're saying that has been found is that very low sodium levels in the diet also lead to problems (the body is starved of electrolytes).
I'd imagine that McDonalds/Wendys/etc don't view that as a bad thing...
I finally kicked the habit when I went to college. There were no salt shakers out on the tables. After the first semester I went home and nearly choked on the level of salt on the food.
Excess bromide levels displace the iodide stored in the thyroid and is a contributing factor to the described increase of groiter. Bromide also has the added drawback of increased cancer risk and has now been banned in California [1] [2].
[0] https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3916868/
[1] https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml...
[2] https://web.archive.org/web/20131203041405/http://www.oehha....
For this I am thankful. If your body DOES start synthesizing iodine, you and those around you probably don't have much longer left to live.
[1] https://archive.org/details/sim_astounding-science-fiction_1...
> An essential nutrient is a nutrient required for normal physiological function that cannot be synthesized in the body (...) The nutrients considered essential for humans comprise nine amino acids, two fatty acids, thirteen vitamins, fifteen minerals and choline.
While some of these can be synthesized by other animals, this is not the case of minerals like iodine. I believe only organic compounds can be synthesized by animals.
For example : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carborane that definitely do have C-H bonds but are mostly B-B, B-C, B-H.
Possibly use InChI instead, so instead of "$HPO_{4}^{2−}$", use "InChI=1S/H3O4P/c1-5(2,3)4/h(H3,1,2,3,4)/p-2". Or, more concisely, just use the key, which is "NBIIXXVUZAFLBC-UHFFFAOYSA-L". :)
(from : https://www.ebi.ac.uk/chebi/searchId.do?chebiId=43474)
H₂O, NH₄⁺, NO, HCO₃⁻, HPO₄²⁻
Vegetables and grains also have a significant amount of iodine in that sort of soil (it's where the cows and chickens get it).
But I agree. Even though iodized salt is pointless in Japan, so is the law banning it (assuming OP is correct, and it is in fact banned).
[1]: https://anaturalhealingcenter.com/documents/Thorne/articles/...
I could, I think, just switch a lot of what we do back to iodized salt? Feels pointless if not needed, though.
Using "kosher salt" is not always a requirement for a product to be kosher. Technically all salt is kosher if it is produced under kosher supervision, even if it's not "kosher salt".
(And some salt labeled as "kosher salt" can also be not actually kosher!)
"Kosher salt" should be rather called "koshering salt", which is the salt you would use for koshering meat.
And like most people, you likely eat more salt than strictly needed because there's salt in everything. So consuming more salt should be of least concern.
And we have actually been doing quite well with not eating out too often. Literally less than 5 times all month. Such that I am not at all worried that we are getting too much salt.
Though, that starts getting at the general question. How often should I get blood work for nutritional analysis? Because.... I don't know that I've ever done that.
Disclaimer: not meant to be medical advice, obviously.
- different brands have different amount of iodine
- iodine dissipates from opened salt container, with speed of dissipation been dependant on temperature and humidity
- if you cook with iodized salt, most of it iodine disappears (depends on brand. some retain more )
Growing up in India, iodized salt was the norm. Given that I'm vegetarian, now that I have moved the US, I have continued to use iodized salt for my own cooking. Whatever Morton / Kroger / other grocery store brand is most readily available. I usually keep it stored in an airtight plastic jar but use it for cooking like normal.
Should I be worried about iodine loss during cooking?
for my dog I add salt after cooking. she won't know the difference
Fluoride Exposure and Children’s IQ Scores A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis [0]
[0] https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamapediatrics/fullarticle/...
Even a tiny negative impact on IQ is a dumb thing to accept in service to some nonsense rationale for your teeth. Accepting this tradeoff is an IQ test itself. I'm with Europe on this one.
From my understanding, fluoride in water was more a thing done for poorer communities (or people with bad oral heath routines, aka not brushing your teeth), and the cheapest, most effective way to help these people is to put it in everyones water.
But from personal standpoint, the best way to look after your teeth is to brush with fluoride toothpaste, twice a day (ideally w/ electric brush), and floss once a day.
Fluoride mouthwash is also a good idea (but look up what a good mouthwash is, you don't want one with alcohol in it). Though using mouthwash isn't as important as brushing/flossing.
Personally, I'd rather not have fluoride in water until we have more conclusive reliable research on it. But having said that, I understand why it's often put in in a cost–benefit view point.
Why would you preference a dubious need for your teeth easily mitigated by just taking care of them, over potential harm to your kids (plus societies kids) brains?
I believe that's a dumb tradeoff.
Because I reject your premise
Though I will agree with fluoridated toothpaste. I would rather the govt gives out fluoride toothpaste to people, then force everyone to drink it, which research is still ongoing. Or offer discounted fluoride toothpaste / mouthwash.
From my understanding, fluoride works best when put directly on teeth (e.g. toothpaste / mouthwash), and doesn't work so well if you drink it.
Also doesn't water fluoridation cost a few IQ points? In the end I could imagine the effects cancelling each other out.
Yes
https://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/whatwestudy/assessments/noncancer/...
The combination of flouridated water, tooth paste, and other sources, etc can lead to levels that can cause problems, but it's not as simple as "fluoridated water bad".
So maybe not exactly "water fluoridation cost a few IQ points" in a broad sense, but close enough.
> The PHS panel that provided the recommendation considered all sources of fluoride intake and recommended 0.7 mg/L as the concentration that maximizes fluoride's oral health benefits while minimizing potential harms, such as dental fluorosis.
1.5mg/L was where effects could possibly start to be detected. That's over twice the recommended concentrations.
https://www.cdc.gov/fluoridation/about/community-water-fluor...
From the NIH source above posted by WorkerBee:
> It is important to note that there were insufficient data to determine if the low fluoride level of 0.7 mg/L currently recommended for U.S. community water supplies has a negative effect on children’s IQ.
https://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/whatwestudy/assessments/noncancer/...
No, it does not. This is speculation based on a poor understanding of the actual science.
Most of our fluoride exposure comes from eating normal food, water fluoridation is a small fraction of that. There are no measurable cognitive effects in the many developed parts of the world with natural fluoride levels far higher than used in municipal fluoridation. Furthermore, there is no plausible mechanism of action for how this would cause a cognitive deficit. Fluoride toxicity is well-understood because it has an unusually simple biochemical mechanism. Therefore it isn't surprising that the handful of low-quality studies that show a weak relationship to IQ loss don't replicate.
As someone who actually worked on fluorine chemistry, it is disappointing to see how credulous even many people with a STEM background are on this topic. The absence of a plausible mechanism of action alone should raise serious questions.
I'm just a layperson, so forgive the possibly dumb question: why would this be weighted so heavily?
I read it as "we can't think of how this could work, so we should assume it doesn't". But that just seems like hubris to me.
Fluorine has the strongest electronegativity of any element in the periodic table. It requires extreme measures to muscle fluorine off a molecule. This is why it is used in non-stick surfaces like Teflon (nothing can “grip” the surface molecules because fluorine won’t let it) and why it is used in toothpaste (molecules that might attack the tooth surface chemically can’t compete with the fluoride that is already there). The dark side of this is that it is difficult to contain fluorine compounds, they have a tendency to attack most containers you can put them in that aren’t also fluorine based. Famously, they tend to eat glass so you can’t store it in glass vessels.
The toxicity of fluorine flows from this. It has an insatiable appetite for Type II metals, notably calcium and magnesium in the human body. If you are exposed to fluorine, it will have a seek-and-destroy mission for these metal ions. A typical human body has a lot of calcium and magnesium circulating so it can absorb exposure from diet, water, etc. The net effect is that some calcium and magnesium is removed from circulation and is no longer bio-available. Not a big deal. In extreme exposure cases, like an industrial accident, the way it kills you isn’t toxicity per se but by removing all of the calcium ions from your system. Your heart uses calcium ions for electrical signaling, so if those are all neutralized by ravenous fluorine, your heart stops.
The antidote for extreme fluorine exposure is to ingest a bunch of simple calcium and magnesium salts. The fluorine latches on to the surplus floating around and there is enough left for your heart to keep running.
This is where the mechanism of action question comes in. For fluorine to have biological effects on cognition, the body would have to be so devoid of neutralizing calcium and magnesium ions, which it strongly prefers as a matter of physics, that you’d already be dead. In extreme exposure cases (like getting concentrated fluorine compound spilled on you) with prophylactic calcium/magnesium antidote, it does really nasty damage to the bones, but there has never been a case of cognitive damage that I’ve ever seen mentioned in the safety literature.
Fluorine is a nasty element, I don’t miss working with it, but it isn’t a serious threat in trace quantities because human bodies can easily absorb the loss of calcium and magnesium. Human bodies are tolerant of almost all elemental toxins at natural levels. The few for which there is no evidence of tolerance at even trace levels are elements like mercury. Even elements like arsenic and lead are believed to be required by human biology to some extent and therefore the human body has some evolved tolerance for them. (These two are pub quiz material, most people are shocked to find out that these are necessary micronutrients.)
If our understanding is complete (in other words there is nothing else to know about flourine) then not having a known mechanism of action would be a good proof. But when is our understanding ever complete about anything?
It seems a lot easier to know things like "in the presence of x, fluorine does y" because you can easily observe that isolated thing under test. It's harder to know "fluorine does not do x in any circumstance" because the tests for that are infinite. How do we know we just haven't tested the right case yet?
Again, I'm a layman, so I can only try to logic my way through this. I acknowledge that it may be a dumb question.
> So liegt der Anteil von jodiertem und fluoridiertem Salz in Haushaltsgebinden seit Jahren zwischen 70 und 80 %
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamapediatrics/fullarticle/...
Taylor KW, Eftim SE, Sibrizzi CA, et al. Fluoride Exposure and Children’s IQ Scores: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. JAMA Pediatr. Published online January 06, 2025. doi:10.1001/jamapediatrics.2024.5542
TL;DR: hookworm eradication in the American South substantially improved school attendance and educational outcomes in children, and may have had a nontrivial positive effect on the overall economy of the region.
(In case you don't see the connection, some children had such severe hookworm infestations that they were too anemic to focus in school, or even to attend at all. Teachers' accounts specifically remark on their students' newly "rosy cheeks" - because they're no longer anemic.)
Remember that, next time you step into dog shit!
Adding iodine to the cow's food made them healthier and that's how they estimated the dose for humans (mcg / kg).
https://web.archive.org/web/20200820212020/https://www.who.i...
> The Recommended Dietary Allowance (RDA) for iodine is between 220 micrograms (mcg) and 290 mcg in pregnancy, and 290 mcg when breastfeeding. [1]
Iodine affects the thyroid which produces hormones that regulate how the brain develops in the womb. If these T3/T4 hormones aren't strong enough, brain cells don't get into the right places.
Apparently Iodine intake needs to be 50% higher than the normal healthy level during pregnancy (and higher during breast feeding). Taking prenatal vitamins now in case I get pregnant.
[1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK582771/
[2] https://www.phind.com/search?cache=l34zoyrwfc8ocb3vcodcsc46
So when neurons form in the brain, they are born in a nursery and then migrate to their final destination. Here is a movie showing this, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OMYHx7dRe8g
Mapping Postnatal Neuronal Migration: A Late Path to Neurodevelopmental Disorders https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E4FZiv-rtTU
Neurogenesis in the mammalian brain https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B2RINOAeONw
Then I discovered that brain cells walk around during brain formation. MindBlown!