I do so apologize.

I do so apologize.

It is my hope therefore that my answers did coincide with your speculations that something was wrong with the information you came across.

Perhaps had you placed your last paragraph first it would have lowered my trigger threshold?

....;-)

I’ve seen what happens to “Support” groups that allow “Debates”.

I have a tendency to protect groups I enjoy and therefore felt the “need” to overwhelm your data to prevent a continuation of your thread on the support board.

Once again, I apologize for my “tone” to you.

Savgegrace

PS upon reviewing I find I didn’t give you an adequate answer to your last question: (must have been in a huff)

do we know what is considered to be a so-called toxic level or is it a more an arbitrary/relativity based/case by case in point figure/level which could cause toxicity??

Aside from detox symptoms that are present today and may not have been present years ago, they were giving 1 to 2 grams a day to people for an extended periods of time for various conditions.

From all appearances Iodine is not toxic.

Nor does it appear to cause an over or under burden condition. (which was my main concern)

Meaning it doesn’t need any of our resources for us to excrete the “extra” we don’t use.

Bromine being a good example that “needs” added resources just to get rid of it!

As you know 50 mg per day “should” cover everyone for daily intake.

What we do utilize (of the 50 mg) within the body does require other resources.

I think as we go along we may find the board advises 100mg per day because of “found” enhancers such as niacin and additional resources that allow incresed intake.


(In case you're wondering, I've been trying for the last 15 minutes to post this under your header Cora, but it keeps putting it off your original post??? Weird!)

(Sorry V, ya got an extra email)