Fluoride: Still Not Poisoning Your Precious Bodily Fluids!

Sep 19, 2014

By Grant Ritchey

 

We dentists are an evil group of sociopaths. When we’re not trying to kill you or give you chronic diseases such as multiple sclerosis with our toxic mercury saturated fillings, we are advocating for the placement of rat poison/industrial waste (i.e. fluoride) in your water supply by our governmental overlords. What is up with us?

The problem is, we’re failing miserably. Even after more than 150 years of placing silver amalgam restorations in our patients, thereby saving untold numbers of teeth, reducing pain and suffering, and improving chewing ability for millions upon millions of people, there is still no evidence worth a damn that shows any correlation or causative effects for any known disease or condition. And with fluoride, after adjusting fluoride levels in municipal water supplies throughout the U.S. and in many places world wide for over sixty years, after adding fluoride to toothpastes and mouthwashes, and giving fluoride treatments to patients in our offices, the only nefarious result we have obtained is the significant reduction of dental decay with its concomitant savings of billions of health care dollars and untold pain and suffering for our patients. Man, we can’t do anything right.

Now, with the help of the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), there’s a new strategy.

Our new strategy is to recommend the use of fluoride toothpaste as soon as the first tooth erupts, which is typically around six months of age. On August 25th, the AAP issued new guidelines to that effect. To summarize their position, which echoes the positions of theAmerican Dental Association (ADA) and the American Academy of Pediatric Dentistry (AAPD), the AAP stated:

  • Fluoridated toothpaste is recommended for all children starting at tooth eruption, regardless of caries risk.
  • A smear (the size of a grain of rice) of toothpaste should be used up to age 3. After age 3, a pea-sized amount may be used. Parents should dispense toothpaste for young children and supervise and assist with brushing.
  • Fluoride varnish is recommended in the primary care setting every 3–6 months starting at tooth emergence.
  • Over-the counter fluoride rinse is not recommended for children younger than 6 years due to risk of swallowing higher-than-recommended levels of fluoride.

174 comments on “Fluoride: Still Not Poisoning Your Precious Bodily Fluids!

  • . , with almost no adverse side effects other than cosmetic blemishes on teeth. That’s it. No lowered IQs, no neurotoxicity, no calcification of the pineal gland which, as we all know, is the seat of the soul.

    Since the introduction of fluoridation there has been no pile-up of bodies, if fact quite the reverse. If one could claim that correlation WAS causation perhaps flouridation has health giving properties in other areas! Maybe we could attribute our longer, healthier lives and our ever increasing IQs to this miraculous substance!

    This witty piece made for enjoyable reading. I like to see a dentist with a sense of humour.



    Report abuse

  • Just to save you the $100, in case there’s no anti-flouride posts:

    I’d be opposed to fluoridation, as soon as it becomes unnecessary. Hopefully within our lifetime.
    From what I’ve read the underlying cause of dental caries is dietary sugars or a high proportion of dietary starches. Indications that this may be the real problem are that significant tooth decay in pre-civilisation human remains tends to be conspicuously absent, regardless of fluoride content in the water. The state of the teeth in human remains can be used to crudely date them as Neolithic or Palaeolithic.

    In Australia Aborigines tended to have significantly better teeth than everyone else, until around the early 1970s. But the situation is now very much reversed. The difference being that many Aborigines still don’t get dental health access or live in fluoridated areas but distribution networks have since developed to deliver sugar and starches to Aboriginal communities. Aborigines are now as orally well off as the rest of us, except for lack of access to dentists. (Dental treatment is not normally included in government-provided public health services in Australia.)

    Dental treatment of any kind, including fluoridation of municipal water, is greatly appreciated by the afflicted but is essentially treating the symptoms instead of the real problem. But the real problem: dietary sugars, is more of a political than scientific issue. (Political in the sense of who provides science research funding and for what purposes.)

    The dental problem may even disappear for future generations now that research looks to be resuming in the relevant aspects of nutrition, neglected for over half a century. Though this work is more oriented towards cancer, Alzheimer’s, diabetes etc. given that these epidemics are so obviously closely linked to dietary sugars and starches.

    My prediction is that dental health issues will simply disappear in due course. And no one will even notice. Same for other non-communicable diseases. Nations will then be able to spend the massive savings on unnecessary health care on more fulfilling projects: waging war etc. So net mortality may be unaffected.



    Report abuse

  • Nitya Sep 19, 2014 at 5:40 pm

    *. , with almost no adverse side effects other than cosmetic blemishes on teeth.*

    Since the introduction of fluoridation there has been no pile-up of bodies, if fact quite the reverse.

    Blemishes on teeth were generally in areas of natural fluoride in the water, where the concentration was so high that it also caused other medical problems.

    Fluoride overdose – http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/002650.htm

    ▬▬▬▬ ▬▬▬▬ ▬▬▬▬ ▬▬▬▬ ▬▬▬▬

    http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/magazine/issues/summer12/articles/summer12pg22.html
    Children’s Dental Health
    Despite the fact that it is almost entirely preventable, tooth decay is the most common chronic disease in children. More than 40 percent of children ages 2 to 11 have had a cavity in their primary (baby) teeth, and more than two-thirds of 16- to 19-year-olds have had a cavity in their permanent teeth. Although overall rates of tooth decay have decreased over the past four decades, decay has actually increased in preschool age children in recent years.

    ▬▬▬▬

    The good news is there are safe and effective preventive measures that can protect teeth. Good oral hygiene practices such as thorough brushing with a fluoride toothpaste can help keep children from getting cavities. In addition, dental sealants and community water fluoridation are two other strategies that can help prevent tooth decay.

    ▬▬▬▬

    Nearly all naturally occurring water sources contain fluoride— a mineral that prevents tooth decay and even reverses early decay. Community water fluoridation adjusts the amount of fluoride in an area’s water supply to a level that helps to prevent tooth decay and promote oral health. Today, 74 percent of Americans served by a community water supply receive fluoridated water. But that still leaves many people in the U.S. without access to fluoridated tap water.



    Report abuse

  • Possibly so in the case of sugar but I don’t think dietary starch is going anywhere anytime soon.

    Glucose glycosidically bonded to glucose is rather common and is the main human carbohydrate source. From veggies to bread.



    Report abuse

  • Here’s an anti-fluoride one – reason being it makes the water taste like crap and leaves a layer of scum on the top of your cup of tea. Two of the biggest beneficiaries of fluoride in water are Evian and the makers of water filters.

    While I acknowledge the health benefits from flouridisation of water, it really shouldn’t be necessary in an industrialised, educated nation with ample supplies of fluoride in other sources.



    Report abuse

  • paulmcuk Sep 20, 2014 at 2:18 pm

    Here’s an anti-fluoride one – reason being it makes the water taste like crap and leaves a layer of scum on the top of your cup of tea. Two of the biggest beneficiaries of fluoride in water are Evian and the makers of water filters.

    You’re not in the Thames Water area, where it is river-water recycled three times, by any chance?

    Northumbrian Water from hill and mountain reservoirs, water has fluoride, but has none of these effects!



    Report abuse

  • Alan4Discussion.
    Some of the symptoms of fluoride poisoning were alarming; drooling, nausea, heart attack! My guess is that these would occur as a result of self-medicatation? This is one of the reasons why it’s a good thing to have it added to the water supply; the dosage has already been worked out.



    Report abuse

  • Paulmcuk.
    Fluoride was not added to our water supply until my teens and by then the damage had been done. Having good teeth was rated very highly in my family so we took every precaution ( except fluoride tablets ). Six monthly check-ups, brushing after meals and avoidance of sweets were all measures undertaken with the aim of dental health. Each visit to the dentist would uncover numerous cavities despite the precautions. I look at the generation after mine and the distinguishing feature seems to be their great teeth!
    I know the term ‘nanny state’ comes up a fair bit when it comes to public health measures, but it seems a shame that kids have to carry the burden of poor decisions or ignorance of their parents.



    Report abuse

  • Nitya Sep 20, 2014 at 3:39 pm

    This is one of the reasons why it’s a good thing to have it added to the water supply; the dosage has already been worked out.

    Chlorine is also added to public water supply to kill off water borne diseases.

    It was pretty nasty in high concentrations when used in WW1 trench warfare.

    Anti-fluoride fanatics just nit-pick properties, without any understanding of dosages. – After all – excess dosage of water, is known as drowning!



    Report abuse

  • @ Pete H:

    Same for other non-communicable diseases.

    At the risk of seeming pedantic, dental caries is considered to be a communicable infectious disease.

    “It should be noted that dental caries is an infectious, communicable disease resulting in destruction of tooth structure by acid-forming bacteria found in dental plaque, an intraoral biofilm, in the presence of sugar.”

    Source, in case anyone is skeptical.

    Steve



    Report abuse

  • Water has been fluoridated in the Chicago area since the 1950s at least. I can assure you that we have none of those problems (bad taste, “scum”, etc.). What’s more, our water is also chlorinated for disease prevention. Still tastes great! My dad called it “Adam’s Ale”. 😉

    Steve



    Report abuse

  • Even if the water has a bit of a taste to the outsider, you become accustomed to your own water-taste. I’ve seen others turn up there nose at the ‘chemical taste’ of our water, but it doesn’t bother me in the slightest. I think all city water would be chlorinated as well? Thank heavens! Any bugs remaining are probably good for our immune system. Our environment should not be too sterile, but free from cholera grade bugs.



    Report abuse

  • I’ve heard that many dentists’ first choice of career was originally medicine, but that many may failed the entry exams for medical school. Possibly owing to poor comprehension of things like inability to distinguish between infectious and non-infectious disease organisms, not knowing what communicable means, that mercury is really toxic, that torturing people for fun is cruel, and unnecessary use of impressive but redundant jargon like ‘intraoral’ etc. may have been contributing factors.



    Report abuse

  • There’s many people, at least in Australia, NZ, and South Africa, who are attempting to greatly diminish their intake of dietary starch with massive positive health impact. Just ditching sugar isn’t enough for them. At this stage it isn’t yet possible to identify who those people are likely to be until after they have experience problems. Though there’s likely to be genetic factors involved. There’s only really a small range of veges that contribute significant quantities of dietary starch.

    Issue is chronic consumption for some (probably very many) people causes frequent eating and overeating (as often as 2 or 3 times per day, every day, and often more frequent snacks) which causes endocrine disruptions some decades down the track. Which leads to increasing insulin insensitivity, which elevates blood glucose with harmful consequences. Not experiencing prolonged periods of low blood sugar reasonably often (natural base rate) may be enough to impede processes that otherwise mitigate AGE accumulation. AGEs then accumulate in some tissue structures at a rate that leads to permanent accumulation with structural and functional impact and causes age-related problems.

    Original work in this areas was with Anthony Cerami. The best summary is still the article in Scientific American in the late 1970s or early 80s I think. This very old article remains a good summary because work in this area seems to have been set aside owing to the implications of excess blood glucose being chronically toxic implying that humans should eat more dietary fat. (Which very much wasn’t politically correct at the time, and therefore unfundable.) Things are rapidly changing now though. Even dietitians now concede that dietary fat has an important role to play. Though they’re probably still a bit nervous about the class action implications associated with the impact of the low fat diets previously advocated. Which may be why dietary starch is still advocated as a primary nutrient for all.

    Tim Noakes of South African Institute of Sport has a great presention about this stuff on YouTube. Also some great stuff about why African runners are so good internationally.

    Re dentistry:

    Has anyone else noticed that when they are called out on multiple cavities via x-rays that need attention, and they ‘forget’ to return for the follow up session at the murder house, that some years later and with a different dentist new x-rays don’t show a problem? I’m not sure if I’m just confused, that some dentists are scoundrels, of that dental caries may be self-healing on occasion.



    Report abuse

  • Here’s an anti-fluoride one – reason being it makes the water taste like crap and leaves a layer of scum on the top of your cup of tea.

    Sodium Fluoride in the concentrations included in drinking water is tasteless. Any “taste” in water is highly likely to be organic in origin, which is the most common taint found in potable water supplied in the western world. The nature of the water supplied to you depends on which country you live. The quality of the sterilization and filtration is a local factor. Sodium Fluoride is universal and so can’t be the source of the “Taste”. Placebo “Taste” is another possible cause.

    Scum on tea. Tests have been done. This appears to be a consensus position.

    Up to the mid-1990s scientists believed the scum on a cup of tea came from a thin layer of a waxy substance that coated the leaves and helped to waterproof them. When the leaves were put in hot water, the film melted to form a thin oily layer that floated on the surface of the tea. However, in 1994, chemists from Imperial College did some very careful research. They sampled the scum from cups of tea made in different ways and with different types of water, and did detailed chemical analyses to find that a key component of the scum layer is calcium. The scum, or at least 15% of it, is calcium carbonate – the rest being a lot of complex organic chemicals. In other words, it is not oil.

    The major finding from this ongoing research is that for the scum to form, the water needs to contain a lot of calcium ions (more prevalent in hard water areas), while the tea leaves supply the organic chemicals.

    So still no $100 prize.



    Report abuse

  • P.S. I don’t like the scum on my tea either. I have a rain water tank and use that for tea making. Also, I’ve noticed that tea bags have a high level of brown scum left on the cup, probably because the makers have adulterated the tea with a brown dye to make it seem as if the tea is quickly brewing. But to brew tea from tea leaves takes around 5 minutes which is way to long for most people using a tea bag. They’re too impatient to wait. I use real loose tea, non flavoured. (A mortal sin in our house) and a tea pot and strainer. I get zero scum or brown stain on the cups.

    Anyone passing is welcome to sample my cuppa and have an Anzac biscuit. (We don’t have cookies in our house)



    Report abuse

  • http://www.buzzle.com/articles/starchy-vegetables-list.html

    An adequate list. I notice I eat toward the bottom but many may not be able to eat that far down the list. ( price?…location?..preference? )

    ” Has anyone else noticed that when they are called out on multiple cavities via x-rays that need attention, and they ‘forget’ to return for the follow up session at the murder house, that some years later and with a different dentist new x-rays don’t show a problem? I’m not sure if I’m just confused, that some dentists are scoundrels, of that dental caries may be self-healing on occasion. ”

    I noticed. I had natural immunity, as my mother did, but at about 23 I was diagnosed with two or three dental carries. The X-ray of the clean teeth looked no different than the teeth with cavities to me. So, some dentists could be scoundrels.



    Report abuse

  • Actually, many of the innovative dentists in the early years of what I’d call “science-based” dentistry (early 20th century) were physicians who subsequently “specialized” in dentistry.

    What you’ve “heard” may have once contained a grain of truth, but anyone who holds that view today is simply ignorant.

    I’m a full-time faculty endodontist (“root canal specialist” for the ignorant) at a state university in the US. I can assure you that neither I nor my students (some of whom have Master’s or PhD degrees in microbiology before they attend dental school) has the “poor comprehension” you allude to.

    What’s more, while we know about mercury toxicity, we also know that the great bulk of peer-reviewed, published literature on amalgam supports the position that it is a safe and effective material when appropriately used.

    Sorry to disappoint you (in spite of my avatar), but none of my patients considers my treatment “torture”, and most of them are grateful to me for relieving them of any pain they had. My students work very hard to master effective pain control; their grades depend on it.

    I’m sorry you seem to be confused by the use of accurate terminology (not all oral problems are “intra-oral”) and such terminology probably only bothers people who think dentists should speak to them at their own (low) level. I suspect you may have had a bad dental experience somewhere. Sorry about that. 😉

    And no, I never applied to medical school.

    Steve



    Report abuse

  • No doubt there are scoundrels in the practice of dentistry (as in all professional enterprises), but there are other possible explanations.

    Early carious lesions are amenable to remineralization, as long as they have not yet cavitated. The minerals (calcium and phosphorus) come from saliva; the process is enhanced by the presence of low concentrations of fluoride ions.

    Some caries is not well-visualized on radiographs, even though it may be fairly advanced.

    And there is the problem of radiographic interpretation, which is notoriously imprecise (“Who’s Reading the Radiograph?” ).

    Steve



    Report abuse

  • David R Allen Sep 20, 2014 at 8:40 pm

    The scum, or at least 15% of it, is calcium carbonate – the rest being a lot of complex organic chemicals. In other words, it is not oil.

    Not much of a surprise in our area!

    The water supply from the acid hill and moorland reservoirs which has minimal Ca added to protect the pipes from corrosion, does not produce scum. The water from local boreholes in the limestone, makes scummy tea and furry kettles!



    Report abuse

  • Agrajag Sep 20, 2014 at 11:46 pm

    What’s more, while we know about mercury toxicity, we also know that the great bulk of peer-reviewed, published literature on amalgam supports the position that it is a safe and effective material when appropriately used.

    It is a reflection of the lack of research into quality information, that anti-fluoride and anti-vaxers shout about tiny amounts of mercury in medical uses, while frequently they get their water supply from rivers, so thick with industrial mercury pollution, that there are restrictions on eating the fish!
    https://www.nwf.org/Wildlife/Threats-to-Wildlife/Pollutants/Mercury-and-Air-Toxics.aspx



    Report abuse

  • One could say re video, “hey, unfair to dentists, not funny”.

    Same applies to the OP author “hey, unfair to folks valid concerns, not funny”.



    Report abuse

  • Any dentist who doesn’t see humor in Steve Martin’s portrayal of that dentist needs to get his/her sense of humor readjusted. Sure, it’s based on a stereotype (and quite hyperbolic to boot!), but that’s one of the classic bases of humor. One reason dentist-stereotypical pain-based humor is popular is that reliable pain control for dental (and other surgical) procedures has only been available for a hundred years or so… though even today it’s not always used. Considering that, any dental patient who thinks the portrayal is accurate needs to find a new dentist!

    Steve



    Report abuse

  • What is the source of this infectious, communicable disease?

    Babies are (hopefully) in a sterile environment in the uterus. They start to acquire their “normal flora” as they pass through the birth canal. Delivery by C-section somewhat delays the colonization of the newborn, but eventually it happens. The bacteria are acquired from the mother’s vaginal, fecal and skin microflora. Caries is caused by the oral (we don’t have to say “intra-oral” here ^_^ ) component of the normal bacterial population of the GI tract.

    So the (slightly cynical) answer to this question is: “the child gets it from the mother.”

    See: Postnatal development of intestinal microflora

    Steve



    Report abuse

  • Agrajag. It’s not just pain control that’s needed but fear-control as well. I had a long- time, experienced dentist who would talk me through procedures ( many and varied I might add, being from the unfluoridated generation). After he retired my case was passed on to a young, newly graduated dentist. I had to help him talk me through my visit.



    Report abuse

  • Exactly. Not all dentists have (what we call) good “chair-side manner”, especially with nervous patients. Some of my students are pretty good starting out, others develop it and some probably will always struggle. I’ve gotten pretty good at it, and do a surprising number of root canal treatments with no anesthesia at all; patients love it when they’re not “numb” and there’s no pain either.

    Speaking of fear of the dentist, it’s more likely to come from “Marathon Man” than “Little Shop of Horrors”!

    Sorry for hijacking the thread. But fluoride used appropriately tends to keep people out of my chair. There… back on-topic!

    Steve



    Report abuse

  • Looking back, I think my dentist must have been on piece work, judging by the number “faults” he found in my mouth and the number of fillings he did. And no. I never had a real toothache, i.e , of the kind where the string is tied to the open door handle and the door slammed quickly !



    Report abuse

  • Agrajag.
    No need to apologise from my perspective. I has been great to have the ear of a root-canal specialist from anywhere other than an addled conversation from the ‘chair’.
    As with MrDArcy, I had a mouth full of fillings over the years. I trust that they were all necessary. My fear probably comes from repeated exposure to a painful process.
    How anyone could have a root-canal without local anesthetic is beyond my comprehension! If there are new ‘ways and means’ they have yet to reach our shores.



    Report abuse

  • Ironically, proper dosage is among the top of my list of reasons I oppose fluoridation. No, I don’t think fluoridation is some Strangelove-esque mind control conspiracy, but I am adamantly opposed to it nonetheless (I think there are good reasons that most of the developed world does NOT fluoridate their water, yet still enjoy the same reduction in carries as their fluoridated counterparts).

    How would an athlete, a kidney patient, or someone with hypothyroidism moderate their dose, exactly? Or infants who lack any blood-brain barrier being fed formula made with tap water, while mother’s milk filters this neurotoxin to .004ppm (about 200-400 times less than the levels found in municipal water supplies)? Add to this the fact that once it’s in the water supply, it gets into all manner of processed foods and beverages, so an individual’s total intake could be much higher. Nobody is monitoring this intake, no follow up is offered or given, therefore how do we verify efficacy? If all we have are epidemiological studies to go on after the fact, it flies in the face of all Western medical practice.



    Report abuse

  • Dental caries is a communicable disease.

    My objection to adding fluoride to drinking water is that its mass medication, and by adding I mean more than what is already naturally occuring.

    Luckly in Sweden we have a good system and most at risk children are placed on profylactic programmes that include extra fluoride, atleast at our clinic.



    Report abuse

  • Most dentist I know still think they work with “medicine” and like treating patients and the last study I saw compairing time spent with actual patients was alot higher for dentists compaired to doctors.
    In a usual day I spend about 90% of the time with patients and clinical treatments.

    Pete H u sound very angry at dentist, did u do the double wammy and get rejected by both med school and dental school, hey u can always go into chiropracty or homeopathy.

    Also as a dentist in private practice you work way better hours and often make better salary than doctors. 🙂



    Report abuse

  • Yossi Sep 23, 2014 at 1:02 pm

    My objection to adding fluoride to drinking water is that its mass medication, and by adding I mean more than what is already naturally occuring.

    This is the fallacy of appeal to nature! The worst overdoses occur in areas of high NATURAL fluoride in the water supply!

    http://www.bfsweb.org/onemillion/11%20One%20in%20a%20Million%20-%20Support%20for%20Fluoridation.pdf

    KEY POINTS

    Fluoridation is supported by the World Health
    Organisation, the Fédération Dentaire Internationale and
    the International Association for Dental Research as a safe
    and effective means of reducing tooth decay.
    Fluoridation is supported by the Faculty of Public Health
    of the Royal Colleges of Physicians, the British Medical
    Association, the British Dental Association, the US Public
    Health Service and many other medical, dental and
    scientific organisations in the UK and around the world.



    Report abuse

  • U r not confused what some dentist think is a must be treated cavity some other dentist may find to be a reversibel or not yet physical cavity that may “heal”/ not progress if the patient changes eating habitb/better oral hygiene with fluorides etc.

    Dentist I think over diagnos here in Sweden are dentists from countries with a much higher incidense of caries, they diagnos many false positives.

    X-ray not fool proof especielly when taken by themselves often I would like another x-ray taken 9-12 momths later if I cant make a positive diagnosis clinically.



    Report abuse

  • It pains me that Mercola is part of the anti-fluoridation movement, as his name detracts from the credible science that, at the very least, more research is needed on this matter. The landmark 2006 NRC report made this clear, and the follow up review they recommended to be conducted by the EPA has yet to be done.



    Report abuse

  • Warren Sep 23, 2014 at 1:24 pm

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dr-mercola/fluoride_b_2479833.html

    Quoted research:-

    A recent report from the U.S. National Research Council (NRC 2006) concluded that adverse effects of high fluoride concentrations in drinking water may be of concern and that additional research is warranted. Fluoride may cause neurotoxicity in laboratory animals, including effects on learning and memory …

    In conclusion, our results support the possibility of adverse effects of fluoride exposures on children’s neurodevelopment. Future research should formally evaluate dose-response relations based on individual-level measures of exposure over time,

    So:- nothing definite in the quoted research, but you would never guess that from the following hype in the article which which accompanies it!

    There are so many scientific studies showing the direct, toxic effects of fluoride on your body, it’s truly remarkable that it’s NOT considered a scientific consensus by now. Despite the evidence against it, fluoride is still added to 70 percent of U.S. public drinking water supplies.

    I think the scientific consensus does evidenced science, not fanciful bias, like Mercola !



    Report abuse

  • It’s interesting that IQ scores continue to trend up (20 points in the last 80 years), but literacy rate in the US is lower than 200 years ago.



    Report abuse

  • There are many studies aside from the NRC report showing adverse effects, not only on neurotoxicity, but on a range of others. That’s not to say Mercola doesn’t lack balance, which he certainly does, but plenty of work by serious peer-reviewed scientists back up some of his claims, written in his standard hyperbolic opinionated manner though they are.

    On the issue of consensus, I think there is a misconception in mainstream discourse on what kind of consensus there really is. Much of that propaganda is fueled by heavy lobbying by groups afflicted with conflicts of interest, or simply a desire to not look bad as an admittance of any failure would mean losing institutional credibility after so many years of promotion for the practice.

    Take Israel for example, who not only recently ended public fluoridation, but banned it outright. Their health minister received sharp criticism for the decision, but she’s sticking by her guns. Most of the Western world does not fluoridate, and they see the same decline in caries rates as their fluoridated counterparts according to WHO data. Clearly, consensus is muddled at best.



    Report abuse

  • As for the issues of level of exposure and dose, I’ll reiterate this here as my reply up above I think gets easily missed (just registered, still learning the ins and outs of quotation, etc.).

    Placing medication in the water supply means you can’t control the dose. Those requiring higher than average water intake, e.g. athletes, kidney patients; and vulnerable populations, e.g. thyroid patients, children (especially infants), the elderly, and those with a high sensitivity to fluoride, are SOL as we say in the states. Add to this additional exposure by consuming processed foods made in fluoridated communities, and you quickly exceed the recommended dose, with no mechanism to monitor the patient (the patient being the general population in this case).

    Without properly controlled studies showing a clear dose-response curve, it is in my view uncontainable that we would mass-medicate before this was completed. Perhaps in 1940 it looked like a good idea, but I think we’ve moved past that since.



    Report abuse

  • Then of course there was Catherine the great, Czarina of Russia, who extracted her own abcessed tooth with no anesthetic at all, except possibly brandy. Her courtiers and doctors were afraid to do it because of the perceived consequences of inflicting pain upon her.

    Considering her treatment of others, with less cause, it may well have been an excellent life and career choice.



    Report abuse

  • Bryan.
    It’s relatively easy to opt out, if worried about the amount of fluoride being ingested. Those choosing to remove themselves from the ‘pool’ could do so by drinking bottled water or applying a filtering device. In some cases a rainwater tank could be installed. The bulk of the community benefits from the addition of fluoride so I don’t see why the few exceptions should call the shots.
    I suppose you’re alluding to those in danger of ‘over-fluoridation’ but as yet unaware of that fact? Could you make a rough guess as to the percentage of the population this would be? I suspect that it would be a very small segment of the community.



    Report abuse

  • Just nonsense at the 0.7mg/l level of fluoridation typically used where innate fluoridation is inadequate. The NRC report (summary here) dealt with three and six times these levels consistent with those experienced in natural fluoridation areas at the maximum level deemed “safe” by the EPA’s Maximum Contaminant Level Goal.

    Why would you use this to make arguments against artificial fluoridation at its much lower level?



    Report abuse

  • Some background on the Israel decision.

    http://fluoridealert.org/news/israel-outlaws-water-fluoridation/

    http://www.ynet.co.il/articles/0,7340,L-4374000,00.html

    Translation of the Minister’s response about her decision:

    My decision to stop fluoridation was because Israel fluoridated all the water for residential use. In fact, less than 2% of the water is used for drinking. Fluoridating the washing-machine water, dish-washer water, baths, toilets and gardening are actions without logic. Physicians told me that fluoridation can harm pregnant women, people who suffer from thyroid problems and the elderly. I was exposed to studies from the world that raise the suspicion that too much fluoride can harm teeth and bones. In the current state we receive fluoride from several sources: drinking water, toothpaste, cooking water, vegetables, and it is impossible to know what’s the dose we absorb. The WHO published a study, which shows that there is no difference between cavity levels in countries that fluoridate and do not fluoridate. Because of this, with all considerations and interests combined, I think that continuing massive fluoridation of 100% of the water was not right and many also think that it harms the basic rights and the freedom of choice.



    Report abuse

  • @ phil rimmer: I’ve already stated this, but placing medication in the water supply means you can’t control the dose. Aside from the fact that different people drink varying amounts of water, processed foods made with fluoridated water, fluoride-based pestiside residues, bathing water (it’s absorbed through the skin, fluoride baths were once prescribed for over-active thyroid), cooking water, etc., all add to overall exposure. Please explain to me how anyone can control their dose in this environment? Who is monitoring exposure, even if it was possible (which is isn’t)?

    Naturally occurring fluoride is usually found in much lower concentrations than that which is considered ‘optimal’, and in areas that exceed it we see clear health implications. Fluoride is not a nutrient, there is no known human physiological process that requires it. Why would we add a known toxic substance that is difficult to remove once introduced, whose dose can’t be controlled, presumably under the auspices that it’s good for everybody, at any age, any dose, and any health history? Not a single double-blind placebo controlled study has been conducted on efficacy, and epidemiological studies where exposure is impossible to accurately measure are presented as the “proof” that it’s “safe and effective”.

    Sorry, but I have higher standards.

    Edit: We must also take into account a needed buffer between the maximum safe dose and what we use to medicate. We can safely assume we have exceeded this safety buffer by leaps and bounds.



    Report abuse

  • Bryan.
    In reference to the Israeli study: it sounds like a cost cutting measure to me. We see this all the time; money is diverted from a particular program and justified by questionable data and conclusions.

    I would definitely question any data that suggested no difference in those with fluidated water and those in areas were fluoride is not naturally occurring and do not have fluoride added.



    Report abuse

  • The evidence in favor of fluoridation’s efficacy is very weak, thus rendering the assertion that the majority benefit moot, but I’ll address your question regarding exposure control.

    In a word, no, it’s not at all easy to opt out. Bottled water is expensive, as are fluoride filtering systems. Low income households have no means of reducing exposure. Fluoride is also absorbed through the skin and can be inhaled via water vaper as a carrier (see: hot showers). Please see my replies above regarding dose and exposure, but I’ll repeat the issue around infants and baby formula. Mother’s milk filters fluoride to .004 ppm, 200-400 times that found in ‘optimal’ fluoride levels. Note the .07ppm standard is very recent, it was 1.4ppm up until a few years ago. Note the infant has not developed a blood-brain barrier. Then take into account fluoride is a known neurotoxin. Some municipalities have placed infant warning messages on residences’ water bills due to public outcry and heroic lobbying by anti-fluoridation groups, but it’s still highly irresponsible to risk infant exposure in this manner. These warnings typically only mention dental fluorosis, ignoring the neuro-toxic risks. I would also argue that fluorosis is a marker that the entire body has been over-exposed, not just the teeth, but that’s another discusion.

    So you have infants fed formula made with tap water, thyroid patients, kidney patients, the elderly, the naturally sensitive, and I’m sure there are others. I don’t have a number for you, but need I, really? What other medical treatment would you prescribe for everyone at any age, race, background, health status, in a dose that isn’t controlled or monitored, under the assumption that the majority will benefit?



    Report abuse

  • In regards to Israel, cost cutting is surely a factor, but please see the minister’s quote on her reasons I posted above.

    In regards to fluoridated countries vs. non-fluoridated and carries rates, it’s the WHO’s own data that supports the assertion that there is no statistically significant difference.

    Now to be fair I haven’t drilled down to the WHO database to verify the figures myself, but you’re more than welcome to.

    http://fluoridealert.org/studies/caries01/



    Report abuse

  • Bryan Sep 23, 2014 at 5:38 pm

    What other medical treatment would you prescribe for everyone at any age, race, background, health status, in a dose that isn’t controlled or monitored, under the assumption that the majority will benefit?

    Chlorination?? Calcium buffering??
    Levels are monitored in water supply in a similar manner to fluoridation.



    Report abuse

  • Chorination is not added to treat a disease, it is to kill pathogens already present as a safety measure, so it’s comparing apples and oranges.

    I wouldn’t add calcium or other vitamins or minerals for similar reasons, as individual nutrient needs vary so much, and over-exposure on many of them can be very detrimental. Many nutrients also have necessary co-factors that when absent can make the target nutrient much more toxic.



    Report abuse

  • Bryan.
    Perhaps telling that the site has the title’fluoridealert.com.
    I don’t think that judging an entire country is good methodology. The amount of fluoride naturally occurring differs from region to region. A small country could have an uniform distribution but a large country has a great deal of regional variation.
    Sydney Australia has fairly ‘soft’ water I believe, if the ease with which we can lather our hair is an indication. The result of fluoridation of our water supply on the incidence of dental caries is well documented.



    Report abuse

  • Bryan Sep 23, 2014 at 6:13 pm

    Chorination is not added to treat a disease, it is to kill pathogens already present as a safety measure, so it’s comparing apples and oranges.

    Pathogens ARE disease!!!!!!
    It is pre-emptive treatment, just like fluoride is for bacterial dental caries!

    I wouldn’t add calcium

    Then in soft-water areas, you would probably cause the water to dissolve other minerals or metals as the calcium is added to prevent corrosion of pipework and treatment plant.



    Report abuse

  • @Nitya, I miss-read your replay regarding Israel. Your point on non-fluoridated countries having natually occuring fluoride is a good one, so a survey of those countries who don’t fluoridate and and the levels of calcium fluoride in the soil would be in order. I do know that Germany, Sweden, the Netherlands, and Finland discontinued fluoridation after having starting in the 1950’s, so I don’t think it’s that simple.



    Report abuse

  • Naturally occurring fluoride is usually found in much lower concentrations than that which is considered ‘optimal’, and in areas that exceed it we see clear health implications.

    No. In the US at least 30% of groundwarter is more than twice the current recommendation of 0.7mg/L. Show me adverse medical reactions to 0.7/L or a daily ingestion total of 2mg/day (a recognised standard of two litres of water plus food and other sources).

    If you are one of the very few with a health problem skip your fluoride toothpaste. Do what others do in high fluoride areas (EPA still only warns at 2mg/L [or 4.6mg/day]), drink bottled water (but check the label).



    Report abuse

  • I found another perspective on the Harvard article
    HERE. From the article:

    For example, this summer the internet has lit up with a Harvard study that opponents say links fluoride and lower IQ scores in children.5 Anti-fluoride activists in Portland are fond of this one. Only after scratching beneath the internet hype are readers able to recognize the fallacy behind this claim. The study is a summary of research from China, Iran and Mongolia that tested fluoride levels that were as high as 11.5 mg/L — roughly 15 times higher than the optimal level used in the U.S.

    That’s not all. The co-authors of this article reported that “each of the [studies] reviewed had deficiencies, in some cases rather serious,” and they added that the difference in IQ scores “may be within the measurement error of IQ testing.”6

    If a real link existed, America would have seen its IQ scores drop between the 1940s and 1990s, the same time many communities adopted water fluoridation. Yet the opposite happened. Over this same period, the average IQ scores in the U.S. improved by 15 points.7 The anti-fluoride activists have offered no explanation for this trend.

    Clearly, there’s room for discussion.

    Steve



    Report abuse

  • Both measures are prophylactic, to be sure. However with chlorination you’re dealing with a known risk, and acute and sudden illness or death upon exposure. With fluoride you’re dealing with a lot of unknowns. Too many, in fact, to pretend we can confidently add it as a blanket treatment.
    I learned something about calcium treatment, so thanks for that. Considering nutritional doses for calcium and other minerals are orders of magnitude above what would be left over post-treatment, I don’t think this is a fair comparison either.



    Report abuse

  • @Bryan.
    I’ve been looking for sites that give evidence of dental health improvements specific to Sydney but I can’t find any off hand. I have read articles supporting this fact to the best of my recollection.

    I hope I’m not at risk of ‘confirmation bias’ by reporting my own observations. With the very best intentions it was impossible for young people growing up in 50s 60s Sydney to avoid dental caries. I’m testament to that fact. All the young people of my acquaintance, kids, nephews neighbours etc have excellent teeth. The only dental work they have to endure is that of the ubiquitous ‘braces’.
    I don’t know how this plays out on a global scale, but in the case of Sydney , we are definitely advantaged by the introduction of fluoride to our water.



    Report abuse

  • Clearly there is! The overall IQ rate is a good point. I would go a step further and compare IQ’s over the same period against non-fluoridated communities, as well as overall increases in IQ generally due to education and other socio-economic factors.

    These studies, at the very least, point to a need for better studies, and better data. Again, not a single double blind placebo controlled study has ever been conducted, so I really think it’s premature for anyone to claim it’s safe and effective. Evidence for benefits of topical application of fluoride is of much better quality, but we have nothing approaching this for water fluoridation.



    Report abuse

  • Agrajag Sep 23, 2014 at 6:37 pm

    I found another perspective on the Harvard article
    HERE. From the article:

    For example, this summer the internet has lit up with a Harvard study that opponents say links fluoride and lower IQ scores in children.5 Anti-fluoride activists in Portland are fond of this one. Only after scratching beneath the internet hype are readers able to recognize the fallacy behind this claim. The study is a summary of research from China, Iran and Mongolia that tested fluoride levels that were as high as 11.5 mg/L — roughly 15 times higher than the optimal level used in the U.S.

    This W.H.O. data spells it out!

    http://www.who.int/water_sanitation_health/naturalhazards/en/index2.html

    Fluoride in most groundwaters occurs as the anion F–. Waters with high fluoride content are found mostly in calcium-deficient ground waters in many basement aquifers, such as granite and gneiss, in geothermal waters and in some sedimentary basins. Groundwaters with high fluoride concentrations occur in many areas of the world including large parts of Africa, China, the Middle East and southern Asia (India, Sri Lanka). One of the best known high fluoride belts on land extends along the East African Rift from Eritrea to Malawi. There is another belt from Turkey through Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, India, northern Thailand and China. The Americas and Japan have similar belts.

    Fluoride is found in vegetables, fruit, tea and other crops. although drinking water is usually the largest contributor to the daily fluoride intake. Fluoride is also found in the atmosphere, originating from the dusts of fluoride-containing soils, from gaseous industrial wastes, from the burning of coal fires in populated areas and from gases of volcanic activity. Thus fluoride, in varying concentrations, is freely available in nature.

    . . .

    Fluoride is a desirable substance: it can prevent or reduce dental decay and strengthen bones, thus preventing bone fractures in older people. Where the fluoride level is naturally low, studies have shown higher levels of both dental caries (tooth decay) and fractures. Because of its positive effect, fluoride is added to water during treatment in some areas with low levels. But you can have too much of a good thing; and in the case of fluoride, water levels above 1.5mg/litre may have long-term undesirable effects (Table 1: see also fact file on fluorosis). Much depends on whether other sources, such as vegetables, also have high levels. The risk of toxic effect rises with the concentration. It only becomes obvious at much higher levels than 1.5mg/l. The natural level can be as high as 95mg/l in some waters, such as in Tanzania where the rocks are rich in fluoride-containing minerals. Severe effects of excess fluoride have recently been reported from the Assam state in India.

    Table 1. Fluoride effects

    Level in water Effects
    0.8–1.2 mg/l Prevention of tooth decay, strengthening of skeleton

    Above 1.5 mg/l Fluorosis: pitting of tooth enamel and deposits in bones

    Above about 10 mg/l Crippling skeletal fluorosis



    Report abuse

  • Regarding the article you cited, the author’s assertion that fluoride is not sourced from the fertilizer industry is simply not true. My understanding is about 10% is pharmaceutical grade sodium fluoride, while the other 90% is typically hexafluorosilicic, which is quite literally an industrial waste product. It’s very difficult to find info on this, but I was able to find, through navigating around the broken links in the article, a protocol for proper handling of the substance here, a clear indication that it is in fact used in fluoridation (exact concentrations are hard to pin down however):

    http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00039178.htm



    Report abuse

  • Thanks, I’m well aware of the WHO and CDC’s songs of praises for fluoridation. The WHO still promotes a low fat diet (particularly saturated fat) too, which by this time has been thoroughly discredited, so they aren’t infallible. I think science on fluoride today is similar to where it was on lead in the 1970’s, with many of the same backlashes against opponents we saw then. Ethyl gas, anyone?



    Report abuse

  • Here’s a study, done in New Zealand, which does not support the assertion that fluoride in the context of CWF programs is neurotoxic (LINK).

    The American Dental Association continues to SUPPORT FLUORIDATION. The ADA has a pretty good science department. Why would a dental association promote a practice which reduces dental disease, especially if it reduced the population of potential dental school applicants (Pete H’s claims aside)?

    Then there is this LETTER from the Deans of the Harvard Medical School, School of Dental Medicine and School of Public Health.

    I’m still going for water fluoridation. Bottoms up!

    Steve



    Report abuse

  • I tried to post some links to the American Dental Association’s web site HERE where there are three relevant entries under “Fluoridation and IQ”.

    I’m still going for community water fluoridation. Cheers!

    Steve



    Report abuse

  • The following are some good sources of information on fluoride and artificial water fluoridation: the Fluoride Action Network, Declan Waugh’s work, the books The Case Against Fluoride and The Fluoride Deception, the 2006 US National Research Council report Fluoride in Drinking Water: A Scientific Review of EPA’s Standards, and the peer-reviewed journal Fluoride.
    https://www.facebook.com/FluorideActionNetwork
    http://www.fluoridealert.org/
    http://ffwireland.blogspot.com.au/
    http://www.enviro.ie/downloads.html
    http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=11571
    http://www.fluorideresearch.org/

    The forced-fluoridation experiment is medical malpractice on an industrial scale. Fluoridation chemicals are the only medications which are delivered via public water supplies. Medicating public water supplies with any chemical violates the human rights and medical ethics principle of informed consent to medical intervention, is entirely indiscriminate, results in the random dosing of residents since the fluoride dose received from water and other sources is uncontrolled, and is environmentally irresponsible because the vast majority of tap water is not ingested, so the environmental load is vastly greater than it needs to be. Medicating public water supplies means that politicians are subjecting everyone to treatment which no doctor can legally impose on anyone, and is surely the most ham-fisted method of drug delivery ever devised.

    Medicating public water supplies with fluoridation chemicals is especially egregious, because fluoride is a cumulative poison with a half life in the body of around 20 years, there was no good quality scientific research which indicated that forced-fluoridation was anything but harmful and useless in the 1940s and there still isn’t any, the best quality scientific research which has been conducted indicates that forced-fluoridation is in fact both harmful and useless, the fluoridation chemicals which are used are industrial grade rather than pharmaceutical grade, and fluoride is not biodegradable. The forced-fluoridation experiment is unethical, illegal, irrational, archaic, pseudoscientific, and all risk, no reward.



    Report abuse

  • 2006 US National Research Council report Fluoride in Drinking Water: A Scientific Review of EPA’s Standards
    p 66 “the National Research Council (NRC 1993) indicated that crippling (as opposed to mild) skeletal fluorosis ‘might occur in people who have ingested 10-20 mg of fluoride per day for 10-20 years.’ A previous NRC report (NRC 1977) stated that a retention of 2 mg of fluoride per day (corresponding approximately to a daily intake of 4-5 mg) ‘would mean that an average individual would experience skeletal fluorosis after 40 yr, based on an accumulation of 10,000 ppm fluoride in bone ash.'”
    p 68 “Historically, a daily intake of 4-5 mg by an adult (0.057-0.071 mg/kg for a 70-kg adult) was considered a ‘health hazard’ (McClure et al. 1945, cited by Singer et al. 1985). However, the Institute of Medicine (IOM 1997) now lists 10 mg/day as a ‘tolerable upper intake’ for children > 8 years old and adults, although that intake has also been associated with the possibility of mild (IOM 1997) or even crippling (NRC 1993) skeletal fluorosis.
    p 139 “Stage III has been termed ‘crippling’ skeletal fluorosis because mobility is significantly affected as a result of excessive calcifications in joints, ligaments, and vertebral bodies. This stage may also be associated with muscle wasting and neurological deficits due to spinal cord compression.”
    p 143 “On the basis of data on fluoride in the iliac crest or pelvis, fluoride concentrations of 4,300 to 9,200 mg/kg in bone ash have been reported in cases of stage II fluorosis, and concentrations of 4,200 to 12,700 mg/kg in bone ash have been reported in cases of stage III fluorosis. The overall ranges for other bones are similar.”



    Report abuse

  • The industry-funded US pathologist Robert Kehoe was actually a key promoter of both leaded gasoline and fluoridated water. I noticed that the author of the article has adopted Kehoe’s infamous “show me the data” mentality, as opposed to a weight of evidence approach or the precautionary principle.



    Report abuse

  • “The result of fluoridation of our water supply on the incidence of dental caries is well documented.” You don’t seem to understand the difference between correlation and causation. The “studies” which are used to promote forced-fluoridation are very low quality, and come nowhere near proving causation.



    Report abuse

  • Alan, you don’t seem to understand that the 2006 NRC report is badly out of date on the question of fluoride’s developmental neurotoxicity.



    Report abuse

  • I have multiple chemical sensitivity, including fluoride sensitivity, and skeletal fluorosis. If you think that’s positive, you are psychologically sick. There is no credible evidence that forced-fluoridation provides any benefit, and whenever I ask one of you forced-fluoridation fanatics to cite a single good quality original research study which indicates that the forced-fluoridation experiment is anything but harmful and useless, you can never come up with anything.



    Report abuse

  • Nitya, you don’t understand the difference between dosage and concentration. That’s par for the course with the forced-fluoridation fanatics.

    Alan, drowning is the result of a lack of oxygen, not an “excess dosage of water”.



    Report abuse

  • If you think people are living healthier lives in areas which are force-fluoridated, you are not paying attention. The health statistics in the US, Australia, and the Republic of Ireland, for example, are poor. You could use the same ridiculous argument you are using to claim that things such as leaded gasoline and asbestos are harmless.



    Report abuse

  • Forced-fluoridation fanatics use an appeal to nature all the time. They try to give the impression that because naturally occurring fluoride is merely being “topped up” it must be harmless, which is obviously complete nonsense.



    Report abuse

  • No kind of fluoridation is necessary, and fluoridation of public water supplies is certainly not necessary, and is also unethical and pharmacologically nonsensical. There is no credible evidence that ingestion of the cumulative poison fluoride provides any benefit to anyone who ingests it.



    Report abuse

  • Here are a few quotes from the 2006 US National Research Council report Fluoride in Drinking Water: A Scientific Review of EPA’s Standards.
    “Fluoride produces additional effects on the ACh systems of the brain by its interference with acetylcholinesterase.
    Most of the drugs used today to treat Alzheimer’s disease are agents that enhance the effects of the remaining ACh system.”
    “In addition to a depletion of acetylcholinesterase, fluoride produces alterations in phospholipid metabolism and/or reductions in the biological energy available for normal brain functions (see section later in this chapter on neurochemical effects). In addition, the possibility exists that chronic exposure to AlFx can produce aluminium inclusions with blood vessels as well as in their intima and adventitia. The aluminium deposits inside the vessels and those attached to the intima could cause turbulence in the blood flow and reduce transfer of glucose and O2 to the intercellular fluids. Finally histopathological changes similar to those traditionally associated with Alzheimer’s disease in people have been seen in rats chronically exposed to AlF”
    “AlFx not only provides false messages throughout the nervous system but, at the same time, diminishes the energy essential to brain function.
    Fluorides also increased the production of free radicals in the brain through several different biological pathways. These changes have a bearing on the possibility that fluorides act to increase the risk of developing Alzheimer’s disease.”



    Report abuse

  • @Dan. Once again…where are the bodies? Where do I find the people crippled by the excess? Where are the idiots drooling into their water containers? Where, where, where? Not over here. We just have fewer cavities and straighter teeth because our disposable income is spent on the appearance of our teeth not on their preservation.



    Report abuse

  • Moderators’ message

    This site is for courteous, thoughtful discussion. Disagreeing with other users is fine; providing reasoned argument to show why they are wrong is fine; name-calling and other forms of rudeness towards other users are not and any further comments containing them will be removed.

    Please re-read our Terms of Use, which can be found at the foot of each page.

    The mods



    Report abuse

  • Dan Sep 24, 2014 at 1:07 am

    The forced-fluoridation experiment is medical malpractice on an industrial scale.

    This is heavy on rhetoric but simply ignores the proven health benefits.

    Fluoridation chemicals are the only medications which are delivered via public water supplies.

    This is nonsense! Numerous chemicals occur naturally in water supplies and minerals added in deficient areas are no different chemically than numerous other sources.

    Medicating public water supplies with any chemical violates the human rights and medical ethics principle of informed consent to medical intervention, is entirely indiscriminate,

    No it isn’t! Unlike industrial pollution from coal burning or high levels from rocks in groundwater. additions are closely measured. – Just like acidity levels and bacterial levels.

    results in the random dosing of residents since the fluoride dose received from water and other sources is uncontrolled,

    Then perhaps the other sources should be reduced! Stopping pollution from coal burning would be a good start, as that would also reduce mercury poisoning.

    and is environmentally irresponsible because the vast majority of tap water is not ingested, so the environmental load is vastly greater than it needs to be.

    All human activity has environmental impacts. Effects of treated water are minuscule in comparison to industrial and sewage effluent from humans, industry and agriculture, or air pollution from factories, heating systems and vehicles.

    Medicating public water supplies means that politicians are subjecting everyone to treatment

    Regulations were decided by democratically elected politicians on the basis of the expert advice available to them. That is how public policy or company policy works, regardless of if some minority does not like it.

    which no doctor can legally impose on anyone, and is surely the most ham-fisted method of drug delivery ever devised.

    Doctors and their professional bodies were consulted and still recommend it.

    Medicating public water supplies with fluoridation chemicals is especially egregious, because fluoride is a cumulative poison with a half life in the body of around 20 years,

    Thousands of medical treatments and human vitamin and mineral needs involve substances which are poisonous when an excessive dose is taken. There is NOTHING unusual in providing a top-up where a mineral is naturally deficient.

    there was no good quality scientific research which indicated that forced-fluoridation was anything but harmful and useless in the 1940s and there still isn’t any,

    This is nonsense! There is abundant evidence that it reduces tooth decay.

    the best quality scientific research which has been conducted indicates that forced-fluoridation is in fact both harmful and useless,

    Would that be “BEST” according to confirmation biases and cherry-picking?

    the fluoridation chemicals which are used are industrial grade rather than pharmaceutical grade,

    This sounds like ignorant rhetoric! The iron, plastic, and copper pipes and taps, used for water supply are also “industrial/household grade”, not “medical grade”.

    and fluoride is not biodegradable.

    Why would a simple mineral compound be “biodegradable”?? Biodegradable into what??? This is just nonsense!

    The forced-fluoridation experiment is, unethical illegal, irrational, archaic, pseudoscientific, and all risk, no reward.

    According to some poorly informed personal opinions in conflict with the views of the world’s expert medical bodies! These words have specific dictionary definitions and are not simply badges of authority for confused personal opinions.

    unethical – Nope! – approved by the ethics of the professional bodies

    illegal, Nope! Permitted by relevant legislation.

    irrational, Nope! Decided on the basis of professional advice.

    archaic, Nope! Introduced in the last 70 years.

    pseudoscientific, Nope! Recommended by leading scientific and medical bodies.



    Report abuse

  • Nitya, [removed by moderator to bring within Terms of Use] People die prematurely all the time, and if fluoride contributed it doesn't jump out of their bodies when they die and announce itself as a culprit.

    Crippling skeletal fluorosis is the third stage of the condition. Fluoride accumulates in bones slowly, and people develop the first stage long before they develop the third stage. Even the first stage of skeletal fluorosis can cause serious joint problems, and there is no shortage of joint problems in populations which are subjected to forced-fluoridation.

    The average effect on IQ is probably small, but it has to be considered that some children have both a high susceptibility to fluoride neurotoxicity and a fluoride exposure which is much higher than average. In the force-fluoridated places I've lived in, there is no shortage of stupid people.



    Report abuse

  • Alan, you are fond of appeals to nature and authority, which is typical of your kind.
    1. There are no proven health benefits of forced-fluoridation. The marketing exercises thinly disguised as research which are used to promote forced-fluoridation may be quite large in number, but they are essentially meaningless. They rely on unblinded, subjective measurement of caries which is highly prone to systematic error, do not measure individual fluoride exposure, ignore the delay in tooth eruption which has been linked to fluoride exposure, and ignore a raft of other potentially confounding factors. They amount to no more than cherry picking the data, and pretending that correlation proves causation. I notice you have not cited a single study to back up your claim, which is also typical of your kind.
    2. There is no such thing as an area which is deficient in fluoride, because fluoride is not a nutrient.
    3. The principle of informed consent to medical intervention has nothing to do with whether or not “additions are closely measured”. The claimed reason for forced-fluoridation is that it prevents and treats dental caries and therefore, as a matter of straightforward logic, it is a medical intervention, regardless of the amounts which are dumped and whether or not they are measured.
    4. It’s funny that you say “other sources should be reduced”, considering I have never heard that from any professional promoter of forced-fluoridation. In fact, the American Dental Association is quite happy to receive money for its seal of approval on various fluoridated products, and dentists routinely give people fluoridated fillings without letting them know that fluoride has been added to the material. The fluoride doses which people are subjected to via their water supplies is uncontrolled and random anyhow, regardless of exposure from other sources. It is the complete opposite of personalised medicine.
    5. You don’t seem to understand that the hydrofluorosilicic acid which is used for forced-fluoridation IS industrial effluent from phosphate fertiliser production, and that fluoride is one of the most important industrial pollutants from factories, heating systems, and vehicles, perhaps second only to carbon dioxide.
    6. The phrase “democratically elected politicians” is an oxymoron. Elections are not a democratic process, they are process by which people relinquish power to politicians who rule over them. I don’t know what makes you think that only a minority does not like forced-fluoridation. Portland, Oregon voted against it 61% to 39% last year, and Wichita, Kansas voted against it 60% to 40% the previous year. Only about 5% of the world’s population is subjected to forced-fluoridation. Japan and nearly all of Western Europe rejected it decades ago. Japan had fluoridation forced on it under the US occupation, and the vast majority of Western Europe has never imposed forced-fluoridation.
    7. The “professional bodies” you refer to are trade associations. They exist to further their members’ interests, not the public interest. It’s about time people grew up and understood that the raison d’être of the dental and medical industries is the same as that of any other industry, which is to make money.
    8. We know that the fluoride doses which people subjected to forced-fluoridation are exposed to are excessive because they commonly cause dental fluorosis, which is a toxic effect. Once the permanent teeth have erupted the risk of dental fluorosis has passed, but fluoride continues to accumulate in the body throughout life. It would be a biological miracle if there were no other toxic effects. There is a large amount of more specific evidence, but you would only know about that if you had looked for it.
    9. It is a fact that the fluoridation chemicals which are used are industrial grade, also known as technical grade, in contrast to pharmaceutical drugs, which are required to be pharmaceutical grade. Arsenic is one contaminant of concern. The fact is that people subjected to forced-fluoridation are exposed to more arsenic than they would be without forced-fluoridation. Believe it or not, public water supplies do not have magical properties which render anything dumped into them harmless.
    10. Fluoride itself is not a compound, it is the ionic form of the chemical element fluorine. Chemical compounds can often be broken down into other chemicals, which may be less harmful, in the body and/or in the environment. It is relevant that fluoride is not biodegradable, just as it is relevant that lead, arsenic, and mercury are not biodegradable.



    Report abuse

  • Those who push or enforce the forced-fluoridation experiment may want to take a look at Article 6 of the Universal Declaration on Bioethics and Human Rights, which is on the UNESCO website.
    “Article 6 – Consent
    1. Any preventive, diagnostic and therapeutic medical intervention is only to be carried out with the prior, free and informed consent of the person concerned, based on adequate information. The consent should, where appropriate, be express and may be withdrawn by the person concerned at any time and for any reason without disadvantage or prejudice.”
    Clearly the forced-fluoridation experiment (i.e. the dumping of toxic industrial fluoride waste into public water supplies) violates human rights.
    http://portal.unesco.org/en/ev.php-URL_ID=31058&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.html



    Report abuse

  • Instead of pretending that everyone of the same age living in a fluoridated area ingests the same amount of fluoride, as fluoridationist studies routinely do, the Iowa study attempted to measure actual fluoride ingestion. The finding of extreme variability in individual fluoride intakes, and no given intake which is protective for both dental fluorosis and caries debunks the whole idea of an “optimal” fluoride concentration in water. It should be kept in mind that even though not all dental fluorosis is serious, it is a permanent and toxic effect. Once the permanent teeth have erupted, there is no further risk of dental fluorosis, but fluoride continues to accumulate in bone, and can cause skeletal fluorosis. As the fluoride concentration in bone increases, so does that in the blood and soft tissues.

    Considerations on optimal fluoride intake using dental fluorosis and dental caries outcomes – a longitudinal study
    Warren JJ et al 2009
    “The ‘optimal’ intake of fluoride has been widely accepted for decades as between 0.05 and 0.07 mg fluoride per kilogram of body weight (mg F/kg bw) but is based on limited scientific evidence.”
    “Data on fluoride ingestion were obtained from parents of 602 Iowa Fluoride Study children through periodic questionnaires at the ages of 6 weeks; 3, 6, 9, 12, 20, 24, 28, 32, and 36 months; and then at 6-month intervals thereafter.”
    “Children with caries had generally slightly less (sic) [fluoride] intakes”
    “CONCLUSIONS: Given the overlap among caries/fluorosis groups in mean fluoride intake and extreme variability in individual fluoride intakes, firmly recommending an ‘optimal’ fluoride intake is problematic.”
    “These findings suggest that achieving a caries-free status may have relatively little to do with fluoride intake, while fluorosis is clearly more dependent on fluoride intake.”

    http://toxipedia.org/download/attachments/5999014/Warren.fluoride.kids.2008.pdf



    Report abuse

  • Dan Sep 24, 2014 at 9:55 am

    Alan, you are fond of appeals to nature and authority, which is typical of your kind.

    This is both ironic and comical, given me pointing out the fallacy of appeals to nature earlier in this discussion.

    and authority, which is typical of your kind.

    The fallacy of appeal to authority is an appeal to unsupported authority. It is a misuse to attempt use this to dispute evidence based expert authority of a scientific consensus.

    1.There are no proven health benefits of forced-fluoridation.

    This is just empty assertion and emotive silliness!

    There is extensive evidence of the protective effects on teeth both in areas of natural fluoride and where fluorides are added at recommended levels. This is reflected in the stated positions of assorted leading scientific bodies.

    The persistent repetition of the term “forced fluoridation”, seems to be ideological, and indicates a lack of awareness of normal mineral contents in drinking water. Nobody drinks distilled water from a public supply!
    All ground sources, reservoirs, and rivers, have a mineral content, with many having substantially higher concentrations of fluorides and other dissolved molecules as I linked here: https://www.richarddawkins.net/2014/09/fluoride-still-not-poisoning-your-precious-bodily-fluids/#li-comment-156287. Some water sources also have substantial levels of industrial waste, re-cycled domestic water, and agricultural run-off.

    There are certainly damaging effects from excessive doses of fluorides, as I pointed out and linked earlier, but that makes the case for a regulated intake, not a withdrawal of service.

    You appear to be flogging copied, cherry picked, pseudo-science, and flawed studies, from anti-fluoride sites, in a similar manner to anti-vaxers, AGW deniers, and YECs, who also dispute the consensus of scientific expert opinion.



    Report abuse

  • Hi Dan,

    I don’t understand what “the dumping of toxic industrial fluoride waste into public water supplies” has to do with the fluoridation of domestic water supplies that lack natural fluoride as a medical intervention?

    You may be confusing, as I have seen many times before, studies of agricultural and industrial waste processing and the effects on ground water and drainage (i.e. streams and rivers) with domestic water supplies. It can be very confusing for the newcomer.

    You also mention a forced fluoridation experiment. You talk about this as if it were a well-known experiment, but I can’t find any information. Would you please be so kind as to supply some.

    On your other point regarding informed consent; I agree that people should be informed if any substance is added by the Water Company to domestic water supplies. I agree that we do not repeat advice to consumers that they live in areas of water fluoridation as often as we should. I also agree that, as a human right, people should have the right to withdraw from any medical intervention.

    As far as fluoridation of domestic water supplies is concerned the scientific evidence basically boils down to the fact that dental caries is, statistically, greatly reduced in areas where water fluoridation occurs. It is my understanding that most people drink water that is naturally fluoridated (i.e. from the erosion of mineral bearing rocks in local water cycles) and that, indeed, this is how the effects on dental caries were discovered.

    A comprehensive review of the scientific evidence called the York Review (Fluoridation of Drinking Water: a Systematic Review of its Efficacy and Safety), as far as I can remember, basically moaned that the data available at the time was not sufficient, or of high enough quality, to make any other conclusion than there was no evidence of risk of ill-health from domestic water fluoridation and that the statistical evidence for preventing dental caries, and even reversing it in some instances, was basically good.

    That Review may now be a touch old but, as far as I know, funding for better studies of the fluoridation of domestic water supplies has not been forthcoming. On the basis of the York Review, and half a century of many millions of people ingesting fluoridated water, it seems to be extremely unlikely that anyone would actually object to receiving fluoridated water – providing they understood the facts.

    Of course, as far as drinking water is concerned, it is perfectly possible for most people to opt out. So, forgive me, I won’t be writing to any politicians just yet.

    It takes all sorts to make a World, and adult education is appallingly poor and routinely ignored. But, as I say, the evidence that I have seen so far is that this subject is decided.

    Peace.



    Report abuse

  • Hi Dan,

    Many thanks for linking to this study which is fascinating (and, for a scientific paper, mercifully short!).

    I do, however, find your editing of the paper’s conclusions to be problematic. I believe a more accurate summary would be this extract:

    [while] … the generally accepted range of 0.05 to 0.07 mg F/kg bw may still be associated with caries prevention, it may not be optimal in preventing fluorosis.

    … given that most caries prevention is believed to be as a result of topical exposures, it may be of little lesser consequence as to what the “optimal” fluoride intake level is for caries prevention. By the same token, while limiting fluoride intake to less than 0.05 mg F/kg bw may be appropriate to prevent fluorosis, given that most fluorosis [was] mild even at higher intake levels, recommendations to limit fluoride intake to less than 0.05 mg F/kg bw may not be justified.

    [This] … study found considerable overlap among caries/fluorosis groups in terms of mean fluoride intake and extreme variability in individual fluoride intakes for those with no fluorosis or caries history … firmly recommending an “optimal” fluoride intake is problematic,
    and … perhaps it is time that the term optimal fluoride intake be dropped from common usage

    The clear conclusion is that the study found no new evidence to question the today’s received wisdom (i.e. fluoride prevents dental caries) might be questioned. Nor that, while fluorides applied topically (to the surface of teeth, as with toothpaste) is the most likely way in which fluoride probably works, ingested fluoride also plays a role.

    Given the large statistical variability seen in ingested fluorides (at a typical 1 ppm) versus non-ingested, by the way, I would question that received wisdom of topical fluoride being more effective. However, I accept that I may be mistaken – I’m not an expert.

    The main new discovery appears to be that we’re all individuals (who’d have guessed) and that, therefore, a recommended level of exposure to fluorides is problematic. Like many scientific studies it advances our knowledge by a baby step.

    Peace.



    Report abuse

  • Stephen of Wimbledon Sep 24, 2014 at 11:33 am

    Given the large statistical variability seen in ingested fluorides (at a typical 1 ppm) versus non-ingested, by the way, I would question that received wisdom of topical fluoride being more effective. However, I accept that I may be mistaken – I’m not an expert.

    I can give you anecdotal evidence.

    I paid for topical fluoride treatment as did other members of my generation who grew up before fluoride was added to our local water supply.

    The next generations which ingested fluoride in their water as children, definitely had less fillings.



    Report abuse

  • Here’s a study comparing systemic versus topical fluoride:
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15153698

    The most important points to me are the margin of safety issue, and the inability to control dose, which obviously relate to one another. The EPA’s common method for determining safe levels of a substance typically is to take the lowest known dose to cause harm, and divide that by a factor of 10. The 2006 NRC report only looked at levels between 2-4ppm, and they found clear adverse effects even at those levels. So at best, we’re dealing with a safety margin factor of 2, however we still don’t have a definitive study looking at health effects from levels referred to as ‘optimal’. It seems to me highly irresponsible not to apply the same standards of safety to fluoride as we do for any other toxic substance, especially when pregnant women (fetus), infants, and young children are potentially at higher risk to something as severe as lowered IQ, and the method of ingestion is as crude as the general water supply.

    Of course there is also the risk posed by accidental discharge, which hasn’t yet been mentioned in this thread so I’ll do so here. I guess proponents would weigh the risk of death from accidental discharge against deaths caused by tooth decay and make a cost/benefit analysis based on that, but this is really pushing ethical standards to their limits.
    Studies documenting acute fluoride poisoning from a public water system:
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8259189
    http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM199401133300203

    On the IQ studies, the Harvard team was very clear in their assessment that additional studies should be a high priority, and even though the studies cited had problems, they consistently pointed to the same result. Also note that only 1 of the 39 studies involved levels reaching 11ppm, most of the studies showed an effect at much lower levels, even as low as 2ppm.

    So we’re dealing with a substance where the margin between a therapeutic dose and one that causes adverse health effects is extremely small, and even though this has been noted throughout the literature, it seems to be ignored by our public officials. All of this potential harm (including acute poisoning), for a very small (if any) benefit, a benefit that has never been demonstrated by single randomized controlled study. Correlating systemic use of fluoride with carries prevention could be skewed by genetics, timing of ingestion, nutrition, and other factors. All of this, yet we still medicate everyone at the same (uncontrolled) dose. Uncontainable is putting it politely.

    Given these revelations, I submit that fluoridation poses unwarranted risks, with questionable benefits. We need to invest in better methods of tooth carries prevention such as nutritional interventions (Vit K2 + D3, and lowered sugar/carb intake show a lot of promise), better access to dental health care, and better education on hygiene. In addition, we need a concerted public information campaign to warn parents on the dangers of fluoridated water for pregnant women, infants fed formula from tap water, and young children. In areas with natural levels of fluoride that approach the margin of safety limit, every effort should be made to REDUCE that level to an acceptable one (i.e. within the standardized margin of safety), by treating it under the same standards we do for lead, mercury, or arsenic.

    More food for thought from the literature:

    Water Fluoridation: A Critical Review of the Physiological Effects of Ingested Fluoride as a Public Health Intervention

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3956646/#B29



    Report abuse

  • Stephen, the fact is that when a closer look was taken in the study by actually attempting to measure individual fluoride exposure, no benefit from fluoride was found. The lead author is a fluoridationist, and couldn’t bring himself to admit the truth of what his own study was telling him, but that doesn’t change the data. I suggest you try to learn to distinguish between the data and the biased interpretation of that data. The study design is still flawed, so a small benefit can’t be completely ruled out, but there is no credible evidence for any benefit.



    Report abuse

  • Alan, the next generations which did not ingest fluoride in their water as children also had less fillings. When you look at the statistics, you don’t even have correlation on your side, let alone causation.



    Report abuse

  • Bryan Sep 24, 2014 at 1:06 pm

    Of course there is also the risk posed by accidental discharge, which hasn’t yet been mentioned in this thread so I’ll do so here. I guess proponents would weigh the risk of death from accidental discharge against deaths caused by tooth decay and make a cost/benefit analysis based on that, but this is really pushing ethical standards to their limits.

    I think quoting acute poisoning from a local source, and an accident caused by a negligent operator, in the context of monitored added fluoride in urban systems, is “pushing ethical standards to the limit”! Negligence causes problems in any system.

    Your link:-

    Studies documenting acute fluoride poisoning from a public water system:
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8259189
    http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM199401133300203

    BACKGROUND:

    Acute fluoride poisoning produces a clinical syndrome characterized by nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, abdominal pain, and paresthesias. In May 1992, excess fluoride in one of two public water systems serving a village in Alaska caused an outbreak of acute fluoride poisoning.

    METHODS:

    We surveyed residents, measured their urinary fluoride concentrations, and analyzed their serum-chemistry profiles. A case of fluoride poisoning was defined as an illness consisting of nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, abdominal pain, or numbness or tingling of the face or extremities that began between May 21 and 23.

    RESULTS:

    Among 47 residents studied who drank water obtained on May 21, 22, or 23 from the implicated well, 43 (91 percent) had an illness that met the case definition, as compared with only 6 of 21 residents (29 percent) who drank water obtained from the implicated well at other times and 2 of 94 residents (2 percent) served by the other water system. We estimated that 296 people were poisoned; 1 person died. Four to five days after the outbreak, 10 of the 25 case patients who were tested, but none of the 15 control subjects, had elevated urinary fluoride concentrations. The case patients had elevated serum fluoride concentrations and other abnormalities consistent with fluoride poisoning, such as elevated serum lactate dehydrogenase and aspartate aminotransferase concentrations. The fluoride concentration of a water sample from the implicated well was 150 mg per liter, and that of a sample from the other system was 1.1 mg per liter. Failure to monitor and respond appropriately to elevated fluoride concentrations, an unreliable control system, and a mechanism that allowed fluoride concentrate to enter the well led to this outbreak.

    CONCLUSIONS:

    Inspection of public water systems and monitoring of fluoride concentrations are needed to prevent outbreaks of fluoride poisoning.

    Systems need to be properly monitored – just like any food, drink or machinery on which people depend! – 150 mg per litre, causes poisoning ???????? – Just like sloppy hygiene causes food-poisoning! I don’t think anyone is suggesting banning food!



    Report abuse

  • Stephen, the fluoridation chemical which is most commonly used for the fluoridation of domestic water supplies is hexafluorosilicic acid, which is toxic industrial waste from phosphate fertiliser production. Phosphate rock has a fluoride content of around 2 to 4%, and all of that fluoride can’t be left in the fertiliser product because it would be toxic to plants and animals. I’m not a newcomer, and I’m not confused.

    You seem to be being deliberately obtuse. There is no credible evidence of either safety or efficacy for either forced-fluoridation or any other form of fluoride ingestion, so therefore forced-fluoridation is a human experiment. It isn’t complicated.

    I was subjected to forced-fluoridation for decades before finding out about it. By that time a lot of damage had already been done. I have not yet seen a water bill which made any mention of fluoridation. You seem to have missed the part in Article 6 where it says “The consent should, where appropriate, be express and may be withdrawn by the person concerned at any time and for any reason without disadvantage or prejudice.” Clearly forced-fluoridation is imposed on many millions of people without express consent, and when they try to avoid this medical intervention it does involve disadvantage, because it is difficult and expensive.

    In relation to your interpretation of the “scientific evidence”, you display a complete failure to understand the difference between correlation and causation, and your assertion that dental caries is “greatly reduced in areas where water fluoridation occurs” is simply not true anyhow. Try looking at the actual data instead of just making things up. Most people in the world actually drink water with fluoride concentrations well below those used for forced-fluoridation, contrary to your “understanding”.

    You have grossly misrepresented the York Review. The 2006 US National Research Council report Fluoride in Drinking Water: A Scientific Review of EPA’s Standards is a far more comprehensive review of fluoride toxicity. Please don’t try to tell me that it isn’t relevant to the concentrations used for forced-fluoridation, because I have actually read it in full, and have a science education. You also seem to have completely missed the point that the burden of proof for safety is obviously on the fluoride polluters. As for the evidence of efficacy, the York Review certainly did not conclude that the quality of the evidence was good. It said that the best studies it could find were of moderate quality and limited quantity, but its actually worse than that because the methodology used was fundamentally flawed and in reality the studies were all of low quality.

    It’s hard to know what to say to a “person” who thinks that something is acceptable because it is “perfectly possible for most people to opt out”. What about those for whom it is not perfectly possible to opt out? Apparently they are irrelevant in your perverse view of the world.



    Report abuse

  • Professor Trevor Sheldon, chair of the 2000 UK York Review, has written:
    “I am concerned that the results of the review have been widely misrepresented”;
    “It is particularly worrying then that statements which mislead the public about the review’s findings have been made in press releases and briefings by the British Dental Association, the British Medical Association, the National Alliance for Equity in Dental Health and the British Fluoridation Society. I should like to correct some of these errors.”;
    “The review found water fluoridation to be significantly associated with high levels of dental fluorosis, which was not characterised as, ‘just a cosmetic issue’.”;
    “The review did not show water fluoridation to be safe.”;
    “There was little evidence to show that water fluoridation has reduced social inequalities in dental health.”
    http://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/debate/letters/chewing-over-the-facts-about-fluoride-and-our-dental-health-1-2380603



    Report abuse

  • Moderators' message

    Another reminder that comments should focus on presenting the case for your own position. It is perfectly legitimate to point out the weaknesses you believe there to be in your opponent's position, but NOT to include negative comments about your opponent.

    So no comments about other users, please. Personal remarks about other users have no bearing on the case for or against fluoride in water supplies.

    Thank you.

    The mods



    Report abuse

  • Dan Sep 25, 2014 at 5:55 am

    @Your link:-

    http://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/debate/letters/chewing-over-the-facts-about-fluoride-and-our-dental-health-1-2380603

    Professor Trevor Sheldon, chair of the 2000 UK York Review, has written:

    1. While there is evidence that water fluoridation is effective at reducing caries, the quality of the studies was generally moderate and the size of the estimated benefit, only of the order of 15 per cent, is far from “massive”.

    You seem to have completely missed his FIRST POINT in your cherry-picked quotes!

    Dan Sep 24, 2014 at 9:55 am

    1.There are no proven health benefits of forced-fluoridation.

    So you keep repeating, but repeating a chant does not make it so! Even your own link contradicts you!

    Dan Sep 25, 2014 at 5:14 am
    (To Stephen:)

    In relation to your interpretation of the “scientific evidence”, you display a complete failure to understand the difference between correlation and causation, and your assertion that dental caries is “greatly reduced in areas where water fluoridation occurs” is simply not true anyhow. Try looking at the actual data instead of just making things up.

    Gazzzzoingggg!!!!!
    15% is a significant reduction!
    I would suspect it is considerably higher than that if the more wide availability of sugary drinks and sweets in recent times, is taken into account!



    Report abuse

  • Of course not. My point was it adds more unnecessary risk on top of that already present, for questionable (at best) benefit. Admittedly, I probably should have left that point out as it’s redundant, and doesn’t really move the ethics needle any more than it already is (it’s red-lining by the way).

    So we have an alarmingly small margin of safety separating an alleged therapeutic effect from very credible evidence of real, sometimes permanent negative health effects, including reduced IQ (it is a neurotoxin). We also have credible scientific bodies saying that this needs to be looked at more closely and made a priority, but we’re sitting on our hands. And to add insult to injury, we don’t have a single randomized controlled study to prove efficacy in the first place.

    And we’re disseminating that substance in the general water supply where the dose can’t be controlled? Really? I don’t care if the stuff makes your teeth and bones bulletproof (the real data is mixed at best), the side effects and safety margin don’t warrant the risk. I think the appeal to authority and the appearance of consensus is really clouding peoples’ thinking on this.

    The WHO went with fluoridation because it was championed by the USA, who were influenced by the same cherry picked studies. The CDC’s Oral Health Division must not get much oversight over at the CDC, either, as they’ve apparently been given a blank check and rubberstamp to run rampant. There are those of us calling on Congress for new hearings on fluoridation, and to force the EPA to conduct the study strongly recommended by the NRC, which they haven’t touched since 2006, though some municipalities have followed their advice to reduce the ‘optimum’ level to .07ppm (from 1.2-1.4 previously), but that is a very small victory, and very little comfort for the pregnant women and infants still drinking this stuff.



    Report abuse

  • Hi Dan,

    The fluoridation chemical which is most commonly used for the fluoridation of domestic water supplies is hexafluorosilicic acid …

    Fluorosilicic acid (H2SiF6) is the most commonly used additive for domestic water fluoridation in the United States, because it is an inexpensive liquid by-product of phosphate fertilizer manufacture. I don’t see how that affects the argument either way?

    [hexafluorosilicic acid] … is toxic industrial waste from phosphate fertiliser production.

    You and I are made of chemicals – we are chemicals. Approximately the top third of the Periodic Table, if you’re unterested. Even those chemicals and compounds of chemicals that we are – if breathed, ingested, touched or whatever – in sufficient quantity will kill us. Oxygen, which we need every minute or so of our lives, to remain alive, is poisonous in high enough concentration. However, I’m not about to start a campaign to limit oxygen supplies!

    Phosphate rock has a fluoride content of around 2 to 4% …

    I’m really only interested in the amounts likely to be applied to human beings.

    … and all of that fluoride can’t be left in the fertiliser product because it would be toxic to plants and animals.

    As I understand it, what your saying here is that phosphate-rich fertilizers are manufactured by breaking up phosphate-bearing rocks, and that those rocks also contain fluorides? I learned something new. In all my studies of fluoride in domestic water supplies I have never studied fertilizer production. I’m still looking for the link …

    I’m not a newcomer, and I’m not confused.

    The first job we have is not to confuse ourselves – because we’re the easiest ones to confuse. See below.

    You seem to be being deliberately obtuse.

    Name calling is beneath you Dan. It’s certainly beneath me.

    There is no credible evidence of either safety or efficacy for either forced-fluoridation or any other form of fluoride ingestion …

    The York Review says otherwise, as does Worthington H., Clarkson J. The evidence base for topical fluorides. Community Dent Health. 2003 and Griffin S.O., Regnier E., Griffin P.M., Huntley V. Effectiveness of fluoride in preventing caries in adults. J Dent Res. 2007 The evidence is out there, all you have to do is look.

    … so therefore forced-fluoridation is a human experiment. It isn’t complicated.

    No, it isn’t complicated. Fluoridation of water works – it reduces tooth decay at exceptionally marginal fluorosis and monetary costs. An estimated 355 million people World-wide receive artificially fluoridated water, in addition to at least 50 million World-wide who receive water naturally fluoridated to recommended levels because hundreds of governments with widely different views of the World have embraced the scientific evidence.

    I have not yet seen a water bill which made any mention of fluoridation.

    This is a good point. My Water Company restricts itself to sending out a flyer to every new customer (this, of course, relies on the Water Company recognising that the owner or tenant has changed). Your idea is better. Those in families with a history of fluorosis and those who simply have a concern ought to be taken seriously.

    You seem to have missed the part in Article 6 where it says: The consent should, where appropriate, be express …

    No I didn’t miss that part. The costs and benefits to everyone are so large that Article 6 applies to the effect that it is not appropriate to seek universal consent in advance of delivery.

    … and may be withdrawn by the person concerned at any time and for any reason without disadvantage or prejudice.

    I obviously didn’t miss this bit, because I responded to this already.

    Clearly forced-fluoridation is imposed on many millions of people without express consent …

    No. Fluoridated water is a service to Society that is supplied without their consent. Your use of the word imposed is not relevant here. No restriction has been put in place – no sanction has been imposed, no new duty required, no charge or penalty applied.

    … and when they try to avoid this medical intervention it does involve disadvantage, because it is difficult and expensive.

    If it could be proved that someone who wishes to withdraw from using the normal water supply was being disadvantaged by its continued use – I would have no objection to their receiving aid. Of course as there is no scientific evidence to support such a claim, so far, I would be highly skeptical. The cost of water fluoridation, even if such measures were found to be needed at some future date, would still be far outweighed by the savings made in dental costs, the lessening of grumpy types who can’t chew and the enormous increase in beautiful smiles!

    Anyone who wishes to filter fluoridated water is free to move house, filter their water, dig a well, buy it bottled and so on.

    In relation to your interpretation of the “scientific evidence”, you display a complete failure to understand the difference between correlation and causation, and your assertion that dental caries is “greatly reduced in areas where water fluoridation occurs” is simply not true anyhow.

    Evidence for your assertion please Dan. My evidence, of course, already provided above.

    Try looking at the actual data instead of just making things up.

    I’ve done that many times, as long-term readers of this Site know.

    Most people in the world actually drink water with fluoride concentrations well below those used for forced-fluoridation, contrary to your “understanding”.

    Fair enough. I don’t see how that advances your argument?

    You have grossly misrepresented the York Review.

    As I read it several times in order to respond to a similar post (last year?) I know that I understood it very well.

    The 2006 US National Research Council report Fluoride in Drinking Water: A Scientific Review of EPA’s Standards …

    The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is the US Government body assigned with the task of monitoring pollution. The US Government body that monitors fluoridation of water in domestic water supplies is the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). In addition the 2006 Report you cite did indeed find water naturally fluoridated to high levels, and recommended lowering the U.S. maximum limit of 4 mg/L for fluoride in drinking water – for the 200,000 Americans who, at the time, were experiencing high levels of fluoride from water pollution (it was not about the remainder of 204 million in the U.S. who continue to receive fluoridated water).

    The trouble with both of these mistakes is that they are very common. Almost all anti-fluoride political action groups confuse the EPA’s reports as being relevant to the CDC’s remit. They are completely different. In addition, the entirely different scales that these two organisations use to monitor fluorides in water go back to my comment at the beginning of this post: One is a scale that tracks levels that sit around the toxic level, while the other is based on the best evidence for healthy water. An EPA Briefing explains that they are not talking about CDC levels.

    Please don’t try to tell me that it isn’t relevant to the concentrations used for [humanitarian] fluoridation, because I have actually read it in full, and have a science education.

    Okay, but the EPA disagrees with you.

    You also seem to have completely missed the point that the burden of proof for safety is obviously on the fluoride polluters.

    The burden of proof is always on the person making the positive claim. Thus, saying that there’s a toxic level of flouride means we need that Claimant to specify what is toxic, what is fluoride and what is a toxic level of flouride. It would, it seems to me, then be up to the Claimant to prove that the Accused is a polluter based on the evidence (samples compared to the specification).

    If, as I suspect you are, you’re accusing the Water Companies of polluting their communities’ water supplies (!!!) then go and get the CDC’s standard, sample some water and go to court.

    As for the evidence of efficacy, the York Review certainly did not conclude that the quality of the evidence was good.

    Agreed, they were a bit sniffy about the quality of most scientific studies on fluoridated water – they were particularly upset, as I recall (I don’t have my copy with me today), on most studies’ failure to avoid observation bias. That didn’t stop them saying that water fluoridation works.

    It said that the best studies it could find were of moderate quality and limited quantity …

    Yes, I remember that bit.

    … but its actually worse than that because the methodology used was fundamentally flawed and in reality the studies were all of low quality.

    How interesting. Why? I wish I had the time to read all the studies used by the Review.

    It’s hard to know what to say to a “person” who thinks that something is acceptable because it is “perfectly possible for most people to opt out”.

    Name calling again Dan. You’re really not interested in winning me over with facts and logical argument, are you.

    What about those for whom it is not perfectly possible to opt out?

    Already answered, as above.

    Apparently they are irrelevant in your perverse view of the world.

    Name calling again …

    Peace.



    Report abuse

  • Hi Dan,

    The lead author is a fluoridationist, and couldn’t bring himself to admit the truth of what his own study was telling him, but that doesn’t change the data.

    Okay, you lost the argument on the conclusion so you’re moving the goal posts by suggesting we both take an uninformed look at the underlying data.

    Peace.



    Report abuse

  • Yeah, nice try, Stephen. I haven’t lost any argument. You are desperately trying to avoid the obvious, which is that the study was done in the attempt to find an optimal fluoride dosage, but instead the researchers were forced to admit that the mythical “optimal level” which fluoridationists have been going on about for decades and still commonly refer to, does not exist. My opinion of the data is not uninformed, it’s informed by the fact that there was no statistically significant association between fluoride exposure and caries. Did you miss that? I thought you said you read the study.



    Report abuse

  • The vast majority of the fluoride which is dumped into public water supplies never goes anywhere near anyone’s teeth, because the vast majority of tap water is used by industry, on gardens, in swimming pools, in washing machines, etc, instead of being ingested. It’s an exercise in toxic waste dumping, and the supposed benefit to teeth is merely a pretext. After nearly 70 years of forced-fluoridation, not one single study which comes anywhere near being high quality has shown that it’s anything but harmful and useless. It isn’t hard to figure out that no good quality studies have been done because the truth is inconvenient. There is no legitimate argument in relation to the abuse of human rights which is inherent in forced-fluoridation. The only legitimate argument with respect to the questions of safety and efficacy would be to cite good quality original research, but you have predictably failed to do that because no such research which supports your case has ever been done. Trying to tell me that the 2006 NRC report is not relevant when I have read the report in full and you are just guessing really is laughable. I could go on, but discussion with head in the sand types is pointless when there is barely any audience.



    Report abuse

  • Alan, nice try but my own link does not come anywhere near contradicting me. An “estimated benefit” is a long way from a “proven benefit”. The York Review itself refers to a “suggested” benefit, which is also a long way from saying it has been proven. Considering that the 15% could very easily be the result of examiner bias, delayed tooth eruption caused by fluoride exposure, or confounding factors, let alone all three in combination, you really are grasping at straws. Your point about sugar consumption shows that you don’t understand the research, which typically compares two populations concurrently, one of which is force-fluoridated. You missed my point about looking at actual data, not the cherry picked data which is used in “research” carried out by forced-fluoridation promoters.



    Report abuse

  • http://www.york.ac.uk/inst/crd/fluoridnew.htm
    What the ‘York Review’ on the fluoridation of drinking water really found
    Originally released: 28 October 2003
    A statement from the Centre for Reviews and Dissemination (CRD).
    “The review specifically looked at the effects on dental caries/decay, social inequalities and any harmful effects.”
    “We are concerned about the continuing misinterpretations of the evidence and think it is important that decision makers are aware of what the review really found. As such, we urge interested parties to read the review conclusions in full.
    We were unable to discover any reliable good-quality evidence in the fluoridation literature world-wide.”
    “The evidence about reducing inequalities in dental health was of poor quality, contradictory and unreliable.”
    “As emphasised in the report, only high-quality studies can fill in the gaps in knowledge about these and other aspects of fluoridation. Recourse to other evidence of a similar or lower level than that included in the York review, no matter how copious, cannot do this.”



    Report abuse

  • Bryan, your statement that “The 2006 NRC report only looked at levels between 2-4 ppm” is simply not true. I have read the whole report.



    Report abuse

  • Seems like everyone is wrong about everything but you, Dan. Sounds a bit dogmatic to me. Logic would seem to suggest that there is a bit of give and take here as people like Stephen have gently alluded to. Are you open to the possibility that there are points you’re trying to make that are a bit more malleable than you suggest?



    Report abuse

  • Dan’s right, actually, I have my figures wrong. It’s been awhile since I’ve looked, the report may have been behind a paywall the last time I checked, or I was simply looking in the wrong place. I see that it’s now readily available, I’ve only read summaries previously.

    I was wrong about the optimum level recommendation as well. HHS had already recommended an optimal level of 0.7-1.2ppm when the NRC report was written. The EPA had set a MCLG at 4ppm in 1975. I’ll have to go back and find what I confused that with. The recommendation in the NRC report was that this MCLG ought to be lowered, though offers no specific number, instead emphasizing the need for more research to make that determination.

    But nevertheless I stand by my point, details wrong though they may be. We would not accept this kind of safety margin for any other toxic substance, especially when considering the dose problem. All for a medical treatment with unproven efficacy. I truly don’t understand how this can be a part of rational public policy.



    Report abuse

  • Hi Dan,

    The vast majority of the fluoride which is dumped into public water supplies never goes anywhere near anyone’s teeth, because the vast majority of tap water is used by industry, on gardens, in swimming pools, in washing machines, etc, instead of being ingested.

    Even if what you say is true – how is that relevant to the humanitarian dosing with fluorides, of water that has no or low fluorides, in order to improve the medicinal qualities of domestic supplies?

    Again, Dan, this is about scale. The EPA monitors polluted ground water for fluorides and (as I understand its processes) gives legally-binding guidance on how these levels can be reduced where necessary in order to not pollute ground water that is a source of domestic supply. The EPA’s 2006 report says that their monitoring and control identified ground water that affected (at that time) ~200,000 people. The 2006 US resident population was estimated at ~300,000,000. Thus, ground water pollution was – according to the EPA – affecting ~0.007% of the population (and one assumes they have acted on this).

    Clearly, 200,000 people is a serious issue. Just as clearly, the 240,000,000 US citizens who were receiving water that had fluorides added to their water – under the entirely separate agency rules of the CDC – are not the same group of people. They are two separate groups – they are not connected.

    In addition we should look at another way in which these groups are different. The EPA’s rules (as far as I know their guidance has not changed since 2006) is a maximum fluoride level of 4ppm. Another Poster, above, reported that the current (I assume CDC guided) maximum dosage rate for US water companies boosting ground water, or recycled water, with low or non-existent fluorides is currently 0.7ppm (this is in line with World-wide figures that I researched last year, the average was ~1ppm) – the EPA and CDC figures are different by a factor of over 17. As someone who is scientifically trained you will no doubt recognize the enormous difference in these figures.

    It’s an exercise in toxic waste dumping, and the supposed benefit to teeth is merely a pretext.

    Again, there appears to be some confusion here between the role of the EPA and the role of the CDC. If I’m missing something please enlighten me.

    After nearly 70 years of forced-fluoridation, not one single study which comes anywhere near being high quality has shown that it’s anything but harmful and useless.

    We’ve been over this – you continue to make claims where the opposite case is supported by the evidence. You have shown us nothing, for example, that refutes the York Review.

    It isn’t hard to figure out that no good quality studies have been done because the truth is inconvenient.

    We’ve been over this too. You continue to simply deny the evidence with which you are presented. Multiple governments have separately and independently reviewed the evidence. In some cases those governments would have been overjoyed to have some real controversy with which to inconvenience and embarrass the United States – the country that has been among the trail-blazers in humanitarian fluoridation of domestic water supplies. In addition, the worst report that I have ever found says that water fluoridation should not go ahead as the data is not conclusive. Yet that same country approved vaccinations that eliminated diseases on the basis of statistical evidence.

    There is no legitimate argument in relation to the abuse of human rights which is inherent in forced-fluoridation.

    We’ve been over this too. You’re entitled to your own political opinion – you’re not entitled to your own facts. Until you prove that abuse has taken place, the rest of us are empowered to ignore your opinion.

    The only legitimate argument with respect to the questions of safety and efficacy would be to cite good quality original research, but you have predictably failed to do that because no such research which supports your case …

    That is flat wrong. Re-read my previous posts.

    Trying to tell me that the 2006 NRC report is not relevant when I have read the report in full and you are just guessing really is laughable.

    That is also flat wrong, as above.

    I could go on, but discussion with head in the sand types is pointless when there is barely any audience.

    All I can say to that Dan is: I’m disappointed.

    Peace.



    Report abuse

  • Hi Bryan,

    I responded to Dan on this. My calculation is that the difference between the EPA’s maximum recommendation for pollution levels and the water companies’ dosing of unaffected ground water (calculations above) is that the difference is a factor of over 17.

    That’s not just not in the same ball park – that’s not even in the same city.

    However, I have not had the time to fact-check as much as I usually do, and I remain open to better evidence …

    Peace.



    Report abuse

  • Hi Dan,

    Yeah, nice try, Stephen. I haven’t lost any argument.

    Then why change the focus of your argument from the conclusion to the data?

    You are desperately trying to avoid the obvious, which is that the study was done in the attempt to find an optimal fluoride dosage, but instead the researchers were forced to admit that the mythical “optimal level” which fluoridationists have been going on about for decades and still commonly refer to, does not exist.

    The researchers were clear that they believe their data may point to the current recommended fluoridation rates being high. They also said that their data was of medium (my word to summarize their discussion of data collection) quality as most data was reported by parents, and only collated by researchers.

    Any third party reading this is invited to read the full report themselves, and to draw their own conclusions: Link to Report repeated

    My opinion of the data is not uninformed …

    I did not simply claim that you were uninformed – I said we. I’m as much in the dark over this as you are. Unless, and until, someone does a similar, or more detailed, study that comes to the same, or a similar, result we should not draw any hard conclusions. As I said in an earlier post, the researchers themselves seem to me to be clear – they have advanced our understanding only by a baby step – and prepared the ground for more studies.

    In my (admittedly limited) experience research papers are like most reports in every other walk of life – they’re summaries. Good scientists strive to be rational, objective, dispassionate observers. When reporting their results they must rely on being able to describe those observations in plain language. If they want their papers to be read, they must keep their summaries succinct.

    Maybe you know the researchers? Or, perhaps you have access to the full dataset and have interviewed some of the participants? Possibly you’re a fellow dental health researcher?

    I’m not informed about the data, except by reading the full report of the study and, I suspect, it’s the same for you. We must therefore rely on the researcher’s own conclusions until we can see a study that changes the overall picture.

    [My opinion of the data is] informed by the fact that there was no statistically significant association between fluoride exposure and caries.

    I can only repeat what I said earlier, as you appear unable to take a hint, read the science – as many governments, aided by experts, have done – the facts are the opposite. You’re entitled to your own opinion, Dan, you’re not entitled to your own facts.

    Peace.



    Report abuse

  • The 4ppm max was set in 1975. The NRC was very clear in that this ought to be lowered, and that additional research needs to be carried out in light of recent evidence to determine what that number should be. The EPA’s number was set to avoid skeletal fluorosis only, they weren’t considering other health factors at that time. Considering recent evidence the margin of safety is frighteningly small. I fail to see how this is a point of contention.

    Why do you feel that an endocrine disruptor and neurotoxin should be treated in some special category because it may have a therapeutic effect at a level slightly higher than that which appears to be toxic? A therapeutic effect that has never been verified by a single randomized controlled trial? And delivered in a manner that can’t be controlled?

    For example, food is typically the main source of background exposure besides drinking water. However food processed in an area with fluoridated water can easily result in exposure far above the typical background level, but this isn’t being tracked so we really don’t know. Again, another important unknown variable in a laundry list of unknown variables.

    In light of recent data, fluoride ought to be treated as a contaminant and toxin first, and therapy second, and only after the proper trials and data gathering have been completed. If that work backs up what current numbers are pointing to, then the infrastructure currently in use for fluoridation should be put to use to de-fluoridate natural levels to an acceptable level, as determined by the EPA study that we’re still waiting on 8 years later.

    What ever happened to the precautionary principle? We’re really playing with fire on this.



    Report abuse

  • Hi Bryan,

    I was particularly interested that you took this conversation in a new direction:

    The WHO went with fluoridation because it was championed by the USA, who were influenced by the same cherry picked studies.

    That’s a very big idea. Do you have similarly big evidence that this is how the WHO works?

    If that’s really how it works and I were, say, President of Brazil, or Russia, I’d be cancelling my membership. I’d want to have a say and an input and some proper discussion.

    It seems to me that if I were a political leader of a WHO member country that, for whatever reason, might like to give the good ’ol US of A a poke in the eye – finding and presenting the non-cherry-picked studies would be a priority, no?

    Of course it’s probably just me, but if I were a political leader of any kind I’d want to have my medical interventions and services based on the real McCoy.

    In addition, why would the government of any country, the US included, feel obliged to add something to drinking water that had no benefit. True, it’s incredibly cheap but if there were any serious question … ?

    Forgive me, but, I’m struggling to see the logic of your argument.

    The CDC’s Oral Health Division must not get much oversight over at the CDC, either, as they’ve apparently been given a blank check and rubberstamp to run rampant.

    If health professionals thought the CDC was wrong, surely we’d have heard something by now – after 100,000,000s of people taking millions of doses over 70 years (according to poster Dan)?

    There are those of us calling on Congress for new hearings on fluoridation …

    I agree with this goal. We need to work out exactly how fluoridation works, apparently no-one has funded the studies needed to find this out. I believe this science is being suppressed by the toothpaste companies – they don’t want us to find out we’ve been shelling out millions of dollars for fluoride toothpastes for no benefit.

    [There are those of us calling on Congress for new hearings]to force the EPA to conduct the study strongly recommended by the NRC, which they haven’t touched since 2006 …

    Pesky budget cuts to regulators … pfff.

    Why are you following a comment on the CDC with a comment on the EPA in the same paragraph? They appear to not be related to me, as they’re different agencies with different remits, but I’m prepared to be educated.

    … some municipalities have followed their advice to reduce the ‘optimum’ level to .07ppm (from 1.2-1.4 previously), but that is a very small victory

    Victory for what?

    … and very little comfort for the pregnant women and infants still drinking this stuff.

    As a parent and husband I have had no reason to need comforting over humanitarian fluoridation of my domestic water supply. I am, however, delighted by my family’s low dental bills and lovely toothy smiles. Perhaps I missed your point: What did you mean by this comment?

    Peace.



    Report abuse

  • “a benefit that has never been demonstrated by single randomized controlled study”

    "The turning point in terms of evidence came with the publication of a study in 1950 – Dr. H. Trendley Dean, head of the Dental Hygiene Unit at the National Institute of Health published the results of a study in Grand Rapids, Michigan in which fluoride was added to the drinking water of one community and not another. The study revealed a 50% decrease in dental cavities in the fluoridated community compared to the control. This and other evidence led to the recommendation to adjust the fluoride levels of local water supplies to about 1 mg/L (or 1 part per million, ppm). Some communities have natural levels of fluoride in the water at higher levels, and these are often reduced. The decision on whether and how to adjust fluoride is made at the municipal and local governmental level – not the Federal level. Therefore, some communities add fluoride while others do not."

    “On the IQ studies, the Harvard team was very clear in their assessment that additional studies should be a high priority, and even though the studies cited had problems, they consistently pointed to the same result. Also note that only 1 of the 39 studies involved levels reaching 11ppm, most of the studies showed an effect at much lower levels, even as low as 2ppm.”

    The Harvard study is actually not a new study, but a review of prior research. Further, the studies reviewed did not involve water fluoridation programs. The review concludes:

    “The results support the possibility of an adverse effect of high fluoride exposure on children’s neurodevelopment. Future research should include detailed individual-level information on prenatal exposure, neurobehavioral performance, and covariates for adjustment.”

    “The possibility” of an effect justifying future research is not the same as concluding that there is an effect. But the problems with the way this review is being presented go far deeper. The implication being implied by anti-fluoride groups is that the fluoridation program in the US and elsewhere is putting children’s IQs at risk. This data, however, cannot be used to support that conclusion.

    First it should be noted that almost all of the studies reviewed were conducted in China (one was conducted in Iran) – not in the US. China had a limited fluoridation program for a time, and has had no fluoridation of drinking water since 2002. So why, then, are most of the studies from China?

    There are many rural areas of China that have naturally high levels of fluoride in the well water. The studies were largely looking at this exposure. Two studies looked at fluoride exposure from inhaling smoke from coal burning. So the question is – how do these levels of exposure relate to the amount of fluoride being added to water in the US (because toxicity is always all about dose)? There was a lot of variability across the studies, but generally the high fluoride groups were in the 2-10 mg/L range, while the reference low fluoride groups were in the 0.5-1.0 mg/L range (not including the coal burning studies, which had much higher fluoride levels).

    As ever, SBM should be anyone’s first stop.



    Report abuse

  • Yes the Harvard study was a meta-study of older studies, and all but 1 of them pointed in the same direction (lower IQ with higher fluoride levels). Yes there were shortcomings in the studies, but due to the consistency between them the researchers emphasized more research is needed, and should be made a priority. Do you disagree with the team’s finding? If so why, exactly?

    As far as evidence from the 1950’s is concerned, I don’t think it’s relevant in light of more recent data. The NRC feels the same way. Are you suggesting we should ignore the NRC’s findings in their report? A quick browse through the Recommendations section at the end of each chapter is very revealing in terms of evidence for a wide range of health problems and the need for more research on all of them.

    http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=11571&utm_expid=4418042-5.krRTDpXJQISoXLpdo-1Ynw.0&utm_referrer=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nap.edu%2Fopenbook.php%3Frecord_id%3D11571%26page%3D338

    Again, still waiting on a randomized controlled trial. The 2008 study cited in the SBM article is no such thing. If we see potential deleterious effects as low as 2ppm, we don’t have near the margin of safety required to protect pregnant women, infants, etc. It is therefore irresponsible to mass-medicate until the data is in at the very least.



    Report abuse

  • Some more background on the Grand Rapids study:

    http://www.slweb.org/connett.html

    6. Why were these early studies so poorly designed? In some cases it may simply have been the result of over-zealous promotion. For example, in the Grand Rapids, Michigan, study the control city was dropped six years into the study, supposedly because they wanted the children in this city to get the benefits as well. In the case of Hastings, New Zealand, this study was unmistakably fraudulent. Here the control city of Napier was dropped after only two years and the method of diagnosing tooth decay was changed during the course of the study, which quite artificially inflated the drop in decay. This change in diagnosis was made without this being stated in the final report (6). I am not aware of any double blind examination to investigate the efficacy of water fluoridation (i.e. one in which neither investigator nor subject is aware of which subjects have been exposed and which have not).

    Here’s a paper giving a detailed review of the NRC report, by Dr. Robert Carton, former Risk Assessment EPA scientist (1972-1992). Please explain why his risk assessment is incorrect:

    http://www.fluorideresearch.org/393/files/FJ2006_v39_n3_p163-172.pdf



    Report abuse

  • Agrajag Sep 19, 2014 at 9:27 pm

    Water fluoridation is one of the most successful public health measures http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtmL/00056796.htm ever implemented.

    @Link: – Fluoridation of drinking water began in 1945 and in 1999 reaches an estimated 144 million persons in the United States. Fluoridation safely and inexpensively benefits both children and adults by effectively preventing tooth decay, regardless of socioeconomic status or access to care. Fluoridation has played an important role in the reductions in tooth decay (40%-70% in children) and of tooth loss in adults (40%-60%) (5) – Burt BA, Eklund SA. Dentistry, dental practice, and the community. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: WB Saunders Company, 1999:204-20.

    As a dentist for the last 25 years, I’ve seen the effects of fluoridation, and they’re all positive.

    Unless you live in an area of high natural fluoride and drink water which is not properly monitored.
    When I was in the Canary Islands, we were warned that in some some volcanic water sources, there were high levels of various toxic minerals, but that the locals drank from these springs and told people the water was good!



    Report abuse

  • Bryan Sep 23, 2014 at 5:41 pm

    In regards to fluoridated countries vs. non-fluoridated and carries rates, it’s the WHO’s own data that supports the assertion that there is no statistically significant difference.

    You don’t think that middle-eastern countries having areas of high natural fluoride levels in their ground-water, and the increased use of fluoride toothpaste in non-fluoride water supply areas as a result of increasing awareness, might be a factor in these figures?



    Report abuse

  • Alan4Discussion. When I look at the information in studies presented by the anti-fluoride brigade, it seems flawed because they generalise and fail to take into account areas with very low concentrations of naturally occurring fluoride in water.
    In such cases, added fluoride improves dental health when all other variables are kept the same I.e. Dental hygiene, sugary food, regular check-ups at the dentist.
    As far as I know, fluosis is not evident in the Sydney population of over 4 million people. Newspaper accounts ( for what they’re worth), claim victory for this public health measure.
    Those opposing this measure seem very passionate in their opposition. I really wish that fluoride had been added to our water when I was growing up and I’m very grateful that my kids saw the benefits.



    Report abuse

  • Bryan Sep 25, 2014 at 9:39 am

    So we have an alarmingly small margin of safety separating an alleged therapeutic effect from very credible evidence of real, sometimes permanent negative health effects, including reduced IQ (it is a neurotoxin).

    Err do we? This up-to date-study was linked earlier on this discussion: –
    http://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/abs/10.2105/AJPH.2013.301857
    Objectives. This study aimed to clarify the relationship between community water fluoridation (CWF) and IQ.

    Methods. We conducted a prospective study of a general population sample of those born in Dunedin, New Zealand, between April 1, 1972, and March 30, 1973 (95.4% retention of cohort after 38 years of prospective follow-up). Residence in a CWF area, use of fluoride dentifrice and intake of 0.5-milligram fluoride tablets were assessed in early life (prior to age 5 years); we assessed IQ repeatedly between ages 7 to 13 years and at age 38 years.

    Results. No significant differences in IQ because of fluoride exposure were noted. These findings held after adjusting for potential confounding variables, including sex, socioeconomic status, breastfeeding, and birth weight (as well as educational attainment for adult IQ outcomes).

    Conclusions. These findings do not support the assertion that fluoride in the context of CWF programs is neurotoxic. Associations between very high fluoride exposure and low IQ reported in previous studies may have been affected by confounding, particularly by urban or rural status. (Am J Public Health. Published online ahead of print May 15, 2014: e1–e5. doi:10.2105/AJPH.2013.301857)

    We also have credible scientific bodies saying that this needs to be looked at more closely and made a priority, but we’re sitting on our hands.

    We seem to have a whole host of informed expert bodies, in various parts of the world, recommending the use of fluoridation.
    https://www.richarddawkins.net/2014/09/fluoride-still-not-poisoning-your-precious-bodily-fluids/#li-comment-156240 – as I pointed out earlier.



    Report abuse

  • Well I don’t know if my post will ever appear, it’s been a couple hours and it keeps telling me it’s a duplicate if I post again. I’ve added some content, so here it is (again), my apologies if it ends up being a duplicate after all.

    Some more background on the Grand Rapids study:

    http://www.slweb.org/connett.html

    6. Why were these early studies so poorly designed? In some cases it may simply have been the result of over-zealous promotion. For example, in the Grand Rapids, Michigan, study the control city was dropped six years into the study, supposedly because they wanted the children in this city to get the benefits as well. In the case of Hastings, New Zealand, this study was unmistakably fraudulent. Here the control city of Napier was dropped after only two years and the method of diagnosing tooth decay was changed during the course of the study, which quite artificially inflated the drop in decay. This change in diagnosis was made without this being stated in the final report (6). I am not aware of any double blind examination to investigate the efficacy of water fluoridation (i.e. one in which neither investigator nor subject is aware of which subjects have been exposed and which have not).

    Here’s a paper giving a detailed review of the NRC report, by Dr. Robert Carton, former Risk Assessment EPA scientist (1972-1992). Please explain why his risk assessment is incorrect:
    http://www.fluorideresearch.org/393/files/FJ2006_v39_n3_p163-172.pdf

    This survey conducted by the National Institute of Dental Research (NIDR), released June 21 1988, found no correlation between carries rates and fluoride exposure. This was a nationwide survey costing in excess of $3 million:
    http://www.fluorideresearch.org/232/files/FJ1990_v23_n2_p055-067.pdf

    EPA Unions issued a press release leading up to the 2006 NRC review, calling for a moratorium on water fluoridation until the NRC completed their review. However due to restrictions put on the NRC by the EPA as detailed in Dr. Carton’s report, they were not able to determine a new MCLG:

    http://www.nteu280.org/Issues/Fluoride/Press%20Release.%20Fluoride.htm



    Report abuse

  • Hi Bryan,

    Thank you for replying in detail. I appreciate that.

    The 4ppm max was set in 1975 … The EPA’s number was set to avoid skeletal fluorosis only, they weren’t considering other health factors at that time.

    I haven’t looked into the history, but such a decision seems to be perfectly in line with the EPA’s remit. As an agency that must advise on maximum controlled limits following any incidence of pollution they can only use known effects as justification. The alternative, it seems to me, would be to say something like:

    ‘Well, what bad thing do you imagine might happen?’ [enter Government official’s fantasy here] ‘Oh, okay, we’ll control for that then’.

    Anyone who uses the controlled substance regularly would be up in arms about Government over-reach. You and I would (I think?) agree that, sometimes, it’s better to look before you leap, but this is a hard principle to apply when the legal, business and social framework is based on everything is allowed until expressly forbidden.

    Considering recent evidence …

    Not sure what this refers to?

    … the margin of safety is frighteningly small.

    Since I posted earlier I have read your other post @ Sep 25, 2014 at 2:49 pm in which you appear to verify my data.

    I fail to see how this is a point of contention.

    The difference between the EPA & CDC figures is a factor of at least 17. That’s the equivalent of me reporting my earnings to the Internal Revenue Service as $50,000 when my actual earnings were $850,000. To pretend that EPA scales and CDC scales are comparable is nothing short of a massive fraud.

    Why do you feel that an endocrine disruptor and neurotoxin should be treated in some special category because it [has] a therapeutic effect at a level … higher than that which appears to be toxic?

    Paracetamol, in even small overdoses, can be fatal. Acute overdoses of paracetamol can cause potentially fatal liver damage.

    In 2011 the FDA required manufacturers to update labels of all products that contain paracetamol to warn of the potential risk for severe liver injury and launched a public education program to help consumers avoid overdose. The same has also been done in other countries. The reason: People did not realise they are taking doses of paracetamol – even though paracetamol was a listed ingredient (perhaps by another name).

    Paracetamol toxicity is the foremost cause of acute liver failure in the Western World, and accounts for most drug overdoses in the United States, Great Britain, Australia and New Zealand.

    According to the FDA, in the United States alone there were “56,000 emergency room visits, 26,000 hospitalizations, and 458 deaths per year related to [Paracetamol]-associated overdoses during the 1990s. Within these estimates, unintentional … overdose accounted for nearly 25% of emergency department visits, 10% of hospitalizations, and 25% of deaths.”

    How could this be? Why are these countries, including the US, not taking a safety first attitude? Why is this terrible compound not simply banned?

    Paracetamol is a widely used over-the-counter analgesic (pain reliever) and antipyretic (fever reducer). In the U.S. and Japan paracetamol is known as acetaminophen, or APAP, and the trade names Tylenol and Panadol. It is also frequently prescribed by Doctors for lower back pain, post-surgery pain and other conditions because it is highly effective, inexpensive and non-carcinogenic.

    Nevertheless, compared to other over-the-counter pain relievers, paracetamol is significantly more toxic in overdose, and it remains easy to overdose.

    Basically Bryan I see the argument for banning acetaminophen as being the same as the argument for calling an end to the humanitarian addition of fluoride to domestic water supplies – except for two vital points:

    Statistically, we know that fluoridation works, in the same way that, statistically, more vaccinations mean less disease. You may counter that we don’t know how it works. I won’t argue the toss on that point, because it’s true. But, just like vaccines and acetaminophen, we don’t have to understand how it works. It works, and that’s truth enough.
    See also my previous post to Dan on dosage. Just like paracetamol, or oxygen, fluorides can be poisonous. Yes, you’re right about that. Doctors prescribe substances that are known poisons – if taken in overdose – every hour of every day. Therefore, saying that fluorides taken in overdose are poison is not news, it makes no point, it is immaterial, it’s not an argument. It fails.

    A therapeutic effect that has never been verified by a single randomized controlled trial?

    Yes. Doctors [shock-horror] have been giving us medicines for centuries that are not understood except by their consistent results [/shock-horror].

    Okay, back to more serious discussion. You’re right, of course, such a widespread intervention in the supply of a vital utility as water should be better understood and, yes, I too would much prefer that we were working in the full light of enlightened knowledge. You and I are as one on this: We need more, and better, science.

    In the meantime you have failed to impress on me any need for change. The stats are clear. Following immunisation’s example, adding fluoride (at CDC levels) to potable water has only improved our overall health.

    And delivered in a manner that can’t be controlled?

    I don’t understand this question. Companies have been caught out not regulating what they are doing when fluoridating water. Others have been caught (as I understand it) not properly processing water with pollution levels of fluoride and still others have continued to pollute water cycles by not properly managing their use or disposal of fluorides.

    None of that says to me that it can’t be controlled. It says we need properly funded policemen in the field and manufacturer (e.g. the EPA), properly funded policemen in the Water Company (e.g. the CDC) and properly funded policemen in the toothpaste (etc.) factories and medicine factories (e.g. the FDA). It can be controlled, and mostly is.

    For example, food is typically the main source of background exposure besides drinking water. However food processed in an area with fluoridated water can easily result in exposure far above the typical background level …

    You seem to me to be making the same point again so, yes, we need more and better science.

    In light of recent data …

    Sources please. I do hope we’re not going to go round the that’s a pollution study not a potable water study loop … again.

    … fluoride ought to be treated as a contaminant and toxin first, and therapy second, and only after the proper trials and data gathering have been completed.

    I don’t understand this argument. According to another poster called Dan, humanitarian fluoride dosing of domestic water supplies has been going on for 70 years. In my own search I discovered that an estimated 355 million people World-wide currently receive artificially fluoridated water, in addition to at least 50 million World-wide who receive water naturally fluoridated to recommended levels (total: over 400m, but round it down to keep it simple).

    Assuming that fluoridation took off slowly, as foreign countries hoped and watched for US citizens dying like flies – and were surprised and disappointed – I’ll take a low mean of 150m fluoride drinkers per annum. Each, of course, taking daily doses of fluoride in their drinking water, at minimum.

    70 x 365 x 150,000,000 x (average dosage figures generally higher than today) =

    Perhaps that’s not fair, let’s look at the current daily total fluoride intake:

    400,000,000 x 4 (daily doses) = (we can add in food too, later, if you like)

    Or perhaps long exposure is where the problem lies:

    50(yrs) x 4(doses) x 365(days) x 150,000,000 =

    I’m in that group, above – I shortened the exposure time to 50 years even though I already accounted for subject number growth in my mean subject exposure figure (150,000,000) because we can’t be sure of life expectancies of subjects irrespective of fluoride consumption.

    And no health problems, except for the well known fluorosis victims, attributed.

    … you do the math.

    Data, we got.

    If that work backs up what current numbers are pointing to …

    Sources please, as before.

    … then the infrastructure currently in use for fluoridation should be put to use to de-fluoridate natural levels to an acceptable level, as determined by the EPA study that we’re still waiting on 8 years later.

    And back to confusing pollution control with humanitarian aid.

    What ever happened to the precautionary principle?

    As above, under law and social policy, and under-funded regulation.

    We’re really playing with fire on this.

    No, we’re really not.

    Peace.



    Report abuse

  • @ Stephen of Wimbledon: did you read any of the NRC report? They clearly state the 4ppm level should be lowered, and call for more research to determine that level. That is the point I’ve been trying to make multiple times. As far as sources go, the NRC report is the primary one, but there are countless others. The journal Fluoride is a good one.

    As far as efficacy, how many treatments do you suppose are put on the market without a single controlled randomized trial? The exact mechanism of action is often not known, but we need properly controlled studies nevertheless.

    More sources, please read and you be the judge. This is not fringe science, but a highly politicized issue where real data has become very hard to parse from the BS, but there are those making valiant attempts to do so.

    NRC Report:
    http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=11571&utm_expid=4418042-5.krRTDpXJQISoXLpdo-1Ynw.0&utm_referrer=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nap.edu%2Fopenbook.php%3Frecord_id%3D11571%26page%3D338

    Details on shortcomings in studies cited as proof of efficacy:

    http://www.slweb.org/connett.html

    Former EPA Risk Assessment scientist’s review of the NRC report:

    http://www.fluorideresearch.org/393/files/FJ2006_v39_n3_p163-172.pdf

    This survey conducted by the National Institute of Dental Research (NIDR), released June 21 1988, found no correlation between carries rates and fluoride exposure:

    http://www.fluorideresearch.org/232/files/FJ1990_v23_n2_p055-067.pdf

    EPA Unions issued a press release leading up to the 2006 NRC review, calling for a moratorium on water fluoridation until the NRC completed their review. However due to restrictions put on the NRC by the EPA as detailed in Dr. Carton’s report, they were not able to determine a new MCLG:

    http://www.nteu280.org/Issues/Fluoride/Press%20Release.%20Fluoride.htm

    Again, apologies if this is more duplicate posting, I don’t know if it’s my browser but none of my posts have been showing up a good portion of the day



    Report abuse

  • Bryan, almost all those studies were nothing to do with water fluoridation (The act of adding fluoride to the water supply), it seems that China stopped fluoridation as of 2002 (It was limited to start with).

    Do i disagree with teams findings? No, but those findings are not relevant where water fluoridation is concerned. They are to do naturally high fluoride levels in the water supply of mostly rural areas.



    Report abuse

  • @ veggiemanuk: The concentration levels in areas of naturally occurring fluoride should still pertain to those found in artificially fluoridated ones, in terms of health effects. Some contend that calcium fluoride is less harmful than fluorosilicates, but I haven’t been able to find any credible evidence to back that up, however that would make the numbers even more alarming. Maybe I don’t fully understand the reason you feel the difference is relevant?



    Report abuse

  • @Stephen of Wimbledon

    Measured evidentiary response. Plaudits for the time spent to construct your response.

    I’ve followed this debate with Bryan’s posts and rebuttals from the regular contributors. I’m sorry Bryan, but I am not in the least moved by your postings. And if I could make an observation and probably a generalization. There is nothing any rational poster could write on this forum which will move Bryan from his position. You can post all the science, data, opinion and rationale you like. Bryan is not for moving.

    Which leads me to the point of this digression, with appologies in advance to Bryan, who seems a good sort. But the parallels in Bryan’s thinking processes are worthy of further comment. Who else in these forums, do we meet that cannot be budged from their position, regardless of the weight of evidence. Global warming deniers. The religious. The zealot on some topic or other. There is a commonality with the way the Byran argues his case, and can’t be moved, with sadly too many other fellow human beings who are not open to reason.

    For good decision to be made about our, and the planets future, you need the scientifically skeptical mind, that can assess the evidence, and decide accordingly, but far more importantly, in Bryan and any other fundamentalist believers case where this is absent, the ability to be able to change one’s mind as the evidence changes. This is the mental process that should be encouraged for a better future. A closed mind, that cannot be opened, can be a threat. In Bryan’s case, it may result in a few more dental caries, but other immobile minds can be quite lethal.

    Just an observation of the progression of Bryan and other posters debate.



    Report abuse

  • Hi Bryan,

    The concentration levels in areas of naturally occurring fluoride should still pertain to those found in artificially fluoridated ones, in terms of health effects.

    That’s surely only true if the levels of fluoride are so high they rise above the CDC’s maximum limit?

    It is, of course, entirely possible for natural fluoride sources to push fluoride levels above the current CDC advised maximum level. Veggiemanuk seems to be saying that the scenario under discussion in a study that you linked to, is about exactly this phenomenon but – worse – pushing fluoride levels above the EPA’s maximum (Did I get that right Veggiemanuk?).

    Even if I misunderstood which level is under discussion, the control measures for naturally occurring fluorides in ground water, versus humanitarian dosing of domestic water supplies, must surely be very different?

    Are we confusing pollution control and studies of the health effects of pollution (poisonous levels) with far lower doses (therapeutic levels) of the same substances, or are we confusing ground water controls with utility controls, or both?

    Peace.



    Report abuse

  • Stephen of Wimbledon Sep 26, 2014 at 6:10 pm

    You have made a very clear analysis of the issues.

    Sources please.

    The problem with quotes from pseudo-science websites which have cherry-picked anything which disparages their target, is that their pseudo-science “experts” quote figures from scientific reports, but don’t even know when different reports are dealing with different topics.

    I do hope we’re not going to go round the that’s a pollution study not a potable water study loop … again.

    This is the essence of the the confusion here!
    Pollution levels in groundwater are being confused with trace additives in public water supplies. They have basically got it backwards.
    The fluorosis risk is from the higher concentrations in the groundwater not the water supply.

    Apart from naturally dissolved minerals from bedrocks, there are inputs to the hydrological cycle from toxins mined in coal and burnt, along with river pollution from drainage water from mines, and from industrial and agricultural pollution.

    There is also the Gish-Gallop of repetitive wrong assertions from these sites. –

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18039290

    Fluoride intake and urinary excretion in 6- to 7-year-old children living in optimally, sub-optimally and non-fluoridated areas.
    Mean fluoride intake from diet and toothpaste ranged from 0.031 (+/-0.025) mg/kg body weight (bw)/day for the low-fluoride area to 0.038 (+/-0.038) and 0.047(+/-0.008) mg/kg bw/day for sub-optimally and optimally fluoridated areas respectively. Contribution of toothpaste to total fluoride intake ranged from 3% to 93% with mean values of 57%, 35% and 47% for children receiving low, sub-optimally and optimally fluoridated water respectively. FUFE ranged from a mean of 32% (+/-13%) for the optimally fluoridated area to 44% (+/-33%) for the low-fluoride area. Fluoride retention was not correlated with the fluoride concentration of home water supply, but was strongly positively correlated (P < 0.001) with total daily fluoride intake.

    CONCLUSIONS:

    In an industrialized country, total fluoride intake, urinary excretion and consequently fluoride retention no longer reflect residence in a community with a non-fluoridated or fluoridated water supply. Fluoride toothpaste contributes a significant proportion of total ingested fluoride in children, particularly in low-fluoride areas.



    Report abuse

  • My thanks to Stephen and others for filleting these anti-fluoridation arguments, side stepping the curiously over-wrought language and getting to the facts. The claims to neurotoxicity possibly confound me the most. This is a case utterly unproven at therapeutic levels. The most recent information from a long term (38 years) study in New Zealand of fluoride toothpaste plus a prophylactic 0.5mg tablet used in children under 5 years of age showed no correlation with IQ through the next 38 years. (Variously Fluoride ingestion from toothpaste in young children is put at 0.1 to 0.42mg/brushing and 0.6mg/day (sorry misplaced reference)). Apologies if this is a repeat.

    Again the curious focus on these marginal prophylactic levels as the problem to be solved rather than the better control of high natural levels brings the political libertarian issue to the fore as the major likely driver for this concern.

    This is a pity. It could be argued reasonably that fluoridation though dirt cheap is not as cheap as fluoride in toothpaste, which topical application is more effective. It may be that fluoridation, once needed is less needed or needed only at still lower levels. Or it could be argued that for the sake of those few sensitive to fluoride levels fluoride levels in drinks and foodstuffs should be identified.

    All of this modest tweaking could have been discussed in a reasonable manner. But standing on anti bulk treatment principles for such modest levels and arguing for fluoride as the new lead seems wasteful of time and attention.

    I’m pleased to have read so much about prophylactic Fluoride. But I could have used the time to learn about something far more useful.



    Report abuse

  • Stephen, What I was getting at is that the Harvard paper is more about Naturally occurring high levels of fluoride in the water supply in rural areas of China and NOT about high levels of fluoridation in the US or any other country that may fluoridate their water.

    China seems to have stopped all fluoridation as of 2002, probably due to the reasons of high naturally occurring levels and coal burning pollution.



    Report abuse

  • Hi Nitya, Hi David, Hi Alan4, Hi Phil,

    Thank you for your kind thoughts. Special thanks to Alan4 and Phil who provided support (albeit unwittingly in some cases) for my arguments.

    I responded to Bryan in detail mostly because he deserved it. He’s clearly someone who’s heart is in the right place, is intelligent, is inquisitive and tries to research before forming an opinion and who is energetically engaged on this social issue.

    While I was also motivated by a desire to correct some mistakes, Bryan was my main focus.

    I hope those of us who are regulars at http://www.richarddawkins.net can also see that, while he was wrong on many counts, Bryan also put forward some very pressing and pertinent points.

    Chief among these is that public policies based on science need to be supported by science that is of a high quality, and that we should not rest on our laurels. Bryan, to his great credit, has actually highlighted some very pertinent points where this applies to fluoridated water, as you will no doubt have noticed in my response.

    Part of the reason that this whole subject is an issue, and not just done-and-dusted, is that large numbers of highly questionable studies have been produced. The York Review, as I recall, rejected many on the basis of poor quality. For some strange reason poor quality particularly affects studies that have prematurely reported possible links to negative health outcomes from fluoridated water – none of which have stood up to further scrutiny (as the York Review highlights).

    This should motivate us all. When we push for science-led decision making we should also be clear that we want our precious taxes to be spent wisely. Money invested in science research needs to be managed by people who know what a quality output looks like – most politicians are therefore disqualified. If that’s not possible, then give the money to higher education to improve the quality of scientists.

    Finally, a word about many, many, posters on this site.

    I am surprised, nay astonished, no still not strong enough – utterly gob-smacked – that I, as a non-US citizen, almost daily, must teach US citizens how their Government is organised and how it functions.

    What the blue blazes is up with that!?

    Peace.



    Report abuse

  • I prefer the taste of filtered water and seem to have stomach problems when I don’t filter my water. There is a warning on the simple carbon filters about build up behind the carbon that might wash through and give you higher doses of chemicals and minerals when filling your glass through the tap on my fridge. I stopped using them since I found that out. Better a steady flow I thought but stomach not right. Obviously I don’t know the levels it can go up to but I would like to go back to using filters that are cheap and do not filter out minerals that I might need. Information I have found has not been very useful…Anyone got any information on this?

    Before anyone jumps on the band wagon, my eldest son drinks nothing but tap water and has never liked fizzy or sweet drinks and his IQ at the age of 14 was the highest possible for under 16’s and he does not suffer from stomach problems.



    Report abuse

  • I hope you have the opportunity to look at the sources I provided. Please, by all means, you be the judge.

    As for the journal Fluride I linked to earlier, it may be woth noting that PubMed has refused to index it. The journal’s editors respond to the reasons given here (again, you be the judge, the editors can explain it better than I):

    http://www.fluorideresearch.org/424/424/files/FJ2009_v42_n4_p256-259.pdf

    And my apologies once more for all the duplicate posts, they weren’t showing up the better part of the afternoon for whatever reason.



    Report abuse

  • Bryan Sep 27, 2014 at 11:14 am

    As for the journal Fluride I linked to earlier, it may be worth noting that PubMed has refused to index it.

    That would be a normal response to any self-styled “journal” which did not meet high enough scientific Standards or failed to conduct independent reviews.

    The journals of scientific bodies won’t publish pseudo-science from AIG, Intelligent Design, or anti-vax nutters either – and they also whinge, shout conspiracy, and pretend they do “superior science”!

    The journal’s editors respond to the reasons given here (again, you be the judge, the editors can explain it better than I):

    http://www.fluorideresearch.org/424/424/files/FJ2009_v42_n4_p256-259.pdf

    A new application to the US National Library of Medicine for inclusion of”Fluoride”[“journal”] in MEDLINE and its rejection are reported.

    If the world leading medical library has repeatedly rejected it, you should recognise a red-flag over the contents of this magazine which calls its self a journal.

    Bryan Sep 26, 2014 at 5:54 pm

    Well I don’t know if my post will ever appear, it’s been a couple hours and it keeps telling me it’s a duplicate if I post again.

    Particularly posts with links in them often have to wait for the moderators to clear them before they appear.



    Report abuse

  • That would be a normal response to any self-styled “journal” which did
    not meet high enough scientific Standards or failed to conduct
    independent reviews. The journals of scientific bodies won’t publish
    pseudo-science from AIG, Intelligent Design, or anti-vax nutters
    either – and they also whinge, shout conspiracy, and pretend they do
    “superior science”!

    Did you read the editors’ response? I truly think it’s worth your time, like I said they explain it better than I can. Maybe even check out some studies while you’re there, before you jumping to conclusions. Or not, suite yourself.

    http://www.fluorideresearch.org/424/424/files/FJ2009_v42_n4_p256-259.pdf

    No creationists here, that I’m aware of, or anti-vaxers for that matter, only anti-vaxers in the sense that they wouldn’t want immunizations distributed through the water supply any more than they would fluoride or any other medical treatment, but clearly this board is curiously unanimous in their support of this route of delivery. You can’t properly determine efficacy with any real certainty (or deliterious effects, for that matter) when noboby is monitoring total exposure over time, as they would be with virtually any other delivery method. It flies in the face of all Western medical practice when it comes to administering drugs. And that’s what we’re dealing with after all, calling it a nutrient is nothing short of comical.

    A new application to the US National Library of Medicine for inclusion
    of”Fluoride”[“journal”] in MEDLINE and its rejection are reported. If
    the world leading medical library has repeatedly rejected it, you
    should recognise a red-flag over the contents of this magazine which
    calls its self a journal.

    I bring it up to draw attention to the built-in bias in favor of fluoridation, and what an up-hill battle it is for anyone to challenge the status quo, cliché though it may sound. Thankfully there are people smarter then myself working on it, please let them speak for themselves, read the links I provided and judge for yourself. The NRC report is quite long, but a browse through the Recommendations section following each chapter can be very revealing.

    Note the NRC’s findings are in light of their mandate to evaluate EPA’s existing MCLG in relation to risk of dental and skeletal fluorosis. Evidence of other health effects have mounted since then and are duly noted throughout the report, reflected in the recommendations. Follows is an excerpt from the committee’s findings (emphasis added):

    FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

    Maximum-Contaminant-Level Goal

    In light of the collective evidence on various health end points and total exposure to fluoride, the committee concludes that EPA’s MCLG of 4 mg/L should be lowered. Lowering the MCLG will prevent children from developing severe enamel fluorosis and will reduce the lifetime accumulation of fluoride into bone that the majority of the committee concluded is likely to put individuals at increased risk of bone fracture and possibly skeletal fluorosis, which are particular concerns for subpopulations that are prone to accumulating fluoride in their bone.

    Recommendation:

    To develop an MCLG that is protective of severe enamel fluorosis, clinical stage II skeletal fluorosis, and bone fractures, EPA should update the risk assessment of fluoride to include new data on health risks and better estimates of total exposure (relative source contribution) in individuals and to use current approaches to quantifying risk, considering susceptible subpopulations, and characterizing uncertainties and variability.



    Report abuse

  • Bryan Sep 27, 2014 at 4:47 pm

    As Stephen pointed out here, https://www.richarddawkins.net/2014/09/fluoride-still-not-poisoning-your-precious-bodily-fluids/#li-comment-156620 The EPA is dealing with, and is responsible for, pollution levels in environmental water, NOT additives to public drinking water supplies.

    If you are suggesting pollution levels should be reduced or polluted water avoided as a source for drinking water, I would agree with you, but this has nothing to do with additions of fluoride to water lacking it for dental protection.

    I bring it up to draw attention to the built-in bias in favor of fluoridation, and what an up-hill battle it is for anyone to challenge the status quo, cliché though it may sound.

    Some people have pointed to some very old studies calling for further investigation.
    I have linked modern studies which are perfectly clear about the myth of neurotoxin, and the denial of reduced caries due to fluoride treatments.
    https://www.richarddawkins.net/2014/09/fluoride-still-not-poisoning-your-precious-bodily-fluids/#li-comment-156647

    https://www.richarddawkins.net/2014/09/fluoride-still-not-poisoning-your-precious-bodily-fluids/#li-comment-156617

    to draw attention to the built-in bias in favor of fluoridation,

    What bias? You need to recognise the different standards between the EPA (pollution levels) & CDC (Drinking water supply). – as do the posers at the dubious “journal” you are linking as evidence!

    Thankfully there are people smarter then myself working on it, please let them speak for themselves,

    That is where you are confused! You have been copying cherry-picked and misinterpreted information from people who THINK THEY ARE SMARTER than you, and smarter leading scientific bodies.
    That is not the same as actually being smarter or better informed!

    Some of us here know why people running quack websites with sciency sounding titles, THINK they are smarter than leading scientific bodies. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect



    Report abuse

  • So you reject my sources out of hand, rather than evaluate their validity for yourself? All I ask is my sources be taken for their own merit, not categorized as faux science before reading any of it. How is that objective science, exactly?

    And the NRC’s findings? We should ignore them? Or how about the EPA employee unions and over 7000 environmental and public health professionals of the Civil Service who called for a national moratorium on fluoridation programs, that’s inconsequential as well?

    http://www.nteu280.org/Issues/Fluoride/Press%20Release.%20Fluoride.htm

    Or the letter they sent to members of Congress calling for investigations of fraud, irrelevant?

    http://www.nteu280.org/Issues/Fluoride/fluroride%20.unions.congress.htm

    As for the New Zealand study cited, see this press release critiquing it, and by all means explain why their analysis is flawed:

    http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/study-claiming-fluoride-does-not-lower-iq-is-flawed-260752731.html

    Follows is a survey conducted by the National Institute of Dental Research (NIDR), June 21 1988, found no correlation between carries rates and fluoride exposure. It had to be pried loose via a FOIA request, and was only given in paper form, hence the scanned PDF rather than text. Again, I’ve linked to it before, and I invite anyone to dissect it and explain why it’s wrong:

    http://www.fluorideresearch.org/232/files/FJ1990_v23_n2_p055-067.pdf

    By all means show me why these are wrong without resorting to genetic arguments or appeals to authority, you’ve thoroughly made your point on that, I get it. At least acknowledge the NRC’s finding that the MCLG ought to be lowered. If not at least that much, I don’t know what else to say, other than it makes me sad.



    Report abuse

  • 146
    Caractacus says:

    Amalgam fillings are harmless? Hmm. Perhaps you can explain this for me?

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ylnQ-T7oiA

    And fluoride is harmless? Okay, interesting idea, maybe you can explain this?

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22820538

    Oh dear, that would be actual scientific research. Not just some committee full of industry representatives. I’m so sorry to have embarrassed you like this when your argument is supported by … well, a very attractive picture of a shower-head. Congratulations on that.



    Report abuse

  • As for mandates regarding pollution levels (EPA) vs water supply supplements (CDC), I understand the difference, but thanks anyway. The point is total daily exposure in a fluoridated area will be more than for an individual in a non-fluoridated area due to other sources. Therefore if the MCLG is lowered, let’s say for the sake of argument to 2ppm, which had been considered the safe level for 25 years prior to the 1985 review, we are back to the same problem I’ve been trying (and failing) to demonstrate. A dangerously small margin of safety between the MCLG and that which people especially in fluoridated areas due to the cumulative nature of exposure, exposure which is naturally increased when accounting for sources in addition to drinking water. Why is that so hard to understand?

    http://fluoridealert.org/researchers/epa/nrdc/

    http://www.fluoridealert.org/wp-content/uploads/nrdc-april86.pdf

    NRDC LAWSUIT

    In 1985, the EPA increased the maximum level of fluoride allowed in drinking water to roughly twice the level previously deemed safe. Following EPA’s alteration to the standard, the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) filed suit against the Agency. The NRDC argued that the new, weakened standard was unsafe and a violation of the Safe Drinking Water Act. As noted by NRDC’s attorney. Jacqueline Warren:

    “I’ve never seen scientific evidence discounted and refused to be looked at the way they’re doing with fluoride. . . . They’re changing the standard for reasons that have nothing to do with science.”

    A Union of EPA scientists and professionals agreed with the NRDC, and in what some considered an unprecedented move, the EPA scientists “filed on behalf of the environmentalists, and against the agency.” According to the President of EPA’s Headquarters Union, Dr. Robert Carton: “Our responsibility to defend EPA professionals’ reputations and to protect public health in this situation requires us to put loyalty to the public interest and to moral principle above loyalty to persons or to [a] government department.”

    Although the NRDC did not prevail in this lawsuit, its criticism of the MCL has since been vindicated by the National Research Council (NRC) which, in 2006, concluded that the MCL is unsafe and needs to be lowered. EPA has yet to do so



    Report abuse

  • An excerpt from Connett’s York Review paper regarding the journal Fluoride, which believe it or not, was included amongst the source material for the Review.

    4.3 While they did not fully mine the information contained in the back issues of Fluoride, they did not shun from using articles from this journal. This is a welcome departure from those who have treated this international journal with disdain. Since 1968 the editors of this quarterly journal have attempted to maintain a scholarly and impartial attitude to articles written in many different fields of fluoride research. Even though some of the editors have taken an anti-fluoridation editorial position, the International Society for Fluoride Research, which publishes the journal and has sponsored no less than 23 conferences on fluoride research around the world, has members who are both pro and anti-fluoridation. It steadfastly refuses to take a position on fluoridation in the belief that if the science is followed impartially it will eventually lead to the truth.



    Report abuse

  • Ten years ago, after considering fluoride’s risks and benefits, I stopped using it in all forms other than fluoridated public water. I’ve experienced no dental problems. I’d prefer that medicine not be added to my community’s water supply, particularly since, in the case of fluoride, it is readily available for low cost to those who wish to use it.



    Report abuse

  • Bryan Sep 27, 2014 at 8:30 pm

    Recent classification of fluoride as a neurotoxin:

    A passing mention in a long list of other chemicals is a claim – not evidence. I posted a link specifically dealing with testing fluoride on children and it debunked this claim as far as dosages in water supplies are concerned.

    http://www.thelancet.com/journals/laneur/article/PIIS1474-4422(13)70278-3/abstract
    >

    The lawsuit links pertain to the fact that the 4ppm max was set against the will of EPA scientists and environmental groups, who have now been vindicated with the NRC’s findings that 4ppm is indeed unsafe.

    As I and others have previously pointed out:- this is about pollution levels and has NOTHING to do with raising drinking water to the ‘optimum’ level of 0.07ppm ( 1.2-1.4 previously).



    Report abuse

  • Bryan Sep 27, 2014 at 9:08 pm

    http://fluoridealert.org

    Again, please don’t criticize the source, but the message.

    We really don’t have time or space to go over all the misleading details, quote-mining, and misrepresentations, posted on dubious websites which are selling their ideologies and pretending they are science.

    Pseudo-science and low-grade magazines posing as scientific journals, are well known to include material which the reputable journals will not publish.

    Some of them are “peer-reviewed” but they are their own pet “ideological peers”, not scientific peers.

    Creationists launch ‘science’ journal – http://www.nature.com/news/2008/080123/full/451382b.html

    Did you read the editors’ response?

    Yes I did! – He is just whinging on about competent scientists refusing to recognise his low-grade articles as competent and reputable science.
    Creationist pseudo-scientists at AIG, and websites like “Watts-up-with-that”, do exactly the same,



    Report abuse

  • Bryan Sep 27, 2014 at 7:06 pm

    As for the New Zealand study cited, see this press release critiquing it, and by all means explain why their analysis is flawed:
    . . ..
    http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/study-claiming-fluoride-does-not-lower-iq-is-flawed-260752731.html
    . . . . .
    NEW YORK, May 27, 2014 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ — A recent New Zealand study published in the American Journal of Public Health, which claims to exonerate a link between fluoride and lowered IQ, is scientifically flawed and reveals blatant examiner bias, says the Fluoride Action Network (FAN).

    So a biased, anti-fluoride quackolgy organisation, says in a newsblog , that a peer-review article in the American Journal of Public Health, is wrong, and you choose to believe them!!!!!!

    What’s new????



    Report abuse

  • I understand it’s from a news blog, that’s not the point. I wanted a critique of the review, where is the thinking wrong, and why? And he’s claiming Broadbent, a vocal fluoridation promoter, is wrong, not the journal. It’s difficult to produce an unbiased report when one is starting from that position, yes?

    1) The study’s small sample size of non-water-fluoridated subjects (99 compared to 891 water-fluoridated subjects) means it has low ability to detect an effect. Even worse, 139 subjects took fluoride tablets, but Broadbent does not say which. Since fluoride tablets are only recommended for children living in non-water-fluoridated areas, there may have been little difference in total fluoride intake between his comparison groups. Broadbent’s failure to consider total fluoride exposure may thus explain why he found “no effect”.

    2) Broadbent falsely criticizes 27 previous studies linking fluoride to children’s lower IQ – implying they didn’t adjust for any potentially confounding variables like lead, iodine, arsenic, nutrition, parent’s IQ, urban/rural and fluoride from other sources. In fact, several of the studies did control for these factors. A good example is Xiang’s work, which has controlled for lead, iodine, arsenic, urban/rural, fluoride from all sources, parent’s education, and socio-economic status (SES). Ironically, Broadbent failed to adjust for most of these factors in his own study despite having access to information on many of them.

    3) Of the four factors Broadbent did adjust for, most were only crudely controlled. For example, SES was determined solely by the father’s occupation and classified into just 3 levels. Inadequate adjustment for SES could obscure a lowering of IQ caused by fluoride, because almost all of the non-water-fluoridated children came from one outlying town that had lower SES than the fluoridated areas.

    Broadbent is one of New Zealand’s leading political promoters of fluoridation. He is a dentist not a developmental neurotoxicologist,” says Connett. “This single weak study is hardly sufficient to outweigh the substantial body of evidence showing fluoride’s potential to harm the developing brain at relatively low exposure levels.”



    Report abuse

  • That study on dosing was interesting, however puzzling at the same time. If exposure to fluoride in drinking water results in such an inconsequential level passed through urine (and thus the body), it would seem the practice is even more useless, but maybe I’m misunderstading the study.

    As far as the EPA is concerned, if the MCLG is lowered to 2ppm where it was originally, we don’t have the proper margin of safety to protect the most vulnerable in the ‘optimum’ levels, either. How low does it have to be set before you accept that it’s dangerous? Or take a look at the Recommendations section following each chapter, and tell me you disagree, or that it doesn’t look like fluoride may cause a spectrum of health problems at a range doses.



    Report abuse

  • As for the journal Fluoride, it was good enough for the York Review (see the excerpt below). It’s comprised of both pro and anti-fluoridationists, by the way.

    So that’s where we’re left, you refuse to read Dr. Connett’s work and judge it based on its merits, using genetic arguments as your rationale. I’m not asking you to run all over the net, I gave you specific links you refuse to read. Simply stunning.

    One more quote from Connett’s paper on the York Review, behold the quackery! Such an emotional, unbalanced, delusional writer!

    2.8 I will now examine the York team’s rationale for excluding animal and toxicological studies in their review. In my view, the York team has made a huge mistake when they say, “In general, when human data are available, animal or laboratory data do not bear significant weight on decisions about interventions, and such data will not be considered in this review” (1.0 Background, page 1). To give one example to illustrate the dangers inherent in this approach, consider the finding that exposure to fluoride in water and in toothpaste leads to dental fluorosis. Left as a matter of a “human health effect” it is too easy for officials to miss the point and describe the effect as a “cosmetic” or “aesthetic”. Pursued at the biochemical level, however, it raises a different level of concern. From animal studies it has been demonstrated that dental fluorosis is caused by fluoride inhibiting enzymes in the growing tooth cell responsible for laying down the enamel (DenBesten, 1999). The last stage in this process involves enzymes called proteases, which chew up the protein remaining between the mineral prisms, which form the enamel. If this protein is not completely removed, it leads to small opaque patches on the enamel. It is well known from biochemical studies that fluoride inhibits enzymes in test tubes, which is the reason why a number of Nobel Prize winners (e.g Dr. James Sumner, the world’s leading enzyme chemist in his time) are among those who have expressed their reservations about fluoridating water. Dental fluorosis is thus an indication that fluoride even at 1 ppm in water can inhibit enzymes in the body. In a way, it is extremely lucky that fluoride inhibits these particular enzymes because the effect is visible. Thus we have a visible warning signal that something is happening. The key question then becomes (or should become): What other enzymes is fluoride inhibiting in the body that we can’t see? Such questions have been probed with animal studies and to ignore them is reckless in my view. Of particular concern are the enzymes involved in bone growth and turnover, and enzymes present in other calcifying tissues like the pineal gland. The fact that the human pineal gland has been shown to accumulate fluoride to very high levels is highly significant in my view. Especially when coupled with the fact that Luke (1998) has shown that when animals are treated with fluoride, it significantly decreases their melatonin production, which is made in the pineal gland. These results suggest that one of the enzymes involved in melatonin synthesis has been inhibited by fluoride.

    The burden of proof is on the fluoridationists to prove efficacy and safety before mass-medicating, not the other way around. Epidemiological studies does not equate to proof. If it were any other issue you would be in agreement with me.



    Report abuse

  • More silly nonsense from the quack:

    2.5 The problem with subtle health consequences is that they are notoriously difficult to discover in a human population, let alone prove cause and effect with a single pollutant or pollutants in combination. This is particularly true, if a) we are dealing with a subset of the population which is vulnerable, because the number of people examined or followed has to be very large to encompass that subset, or if, b) the effect takes many years to manifest itself. We have seen this problem with several toxic substances like lead and dioxin. By their very nature, epidemiological studies are after the fact: by the time enough evidence has accumulated to convince the most skeptical observer, or overwhelm the most entrenched special interest, many millions of people will have been exposed and possibly damaged.

    2.6 Thus striving for certainty, before one acts, is a dangerous approach to public policy in these matters. This is why in Europe the “Precautionary Principle” has been espoused both by governments and non-governmental organizations. With this approach one doesn’t have to be certain that a substance introduced into the environment will make people sick, or that you wait until it has made people sick, before acting. Rather, one considers at least four things: a) the weight of evidence of all the science that one can bring to bear on the matter; b) the magnitude of the calamity if one adds the chemical and it does cause long term health damage to a part or all of the population, c) the significance of the benefit being pursued and d) the alternative actions to the goal being pursued.



    Report abuse

  • Bryan Sep 28, 2014 at 11:40 am

    That study on dosing was interesting, however puzzling at the same time. If exposure to fluoride in drinking water results in such an inconsequential level passed through urine (and thus the body), it would seem the practice is even more useless, but maybe I’m misunderstading the study.

    You and the quack journal are misunderstanding it. The report does not say it is useless. I says that so many people have recognised the benefits of fluoride that now the use fluoride toothpaste has provided the bulk of the source ingested, with the correlation being with the total amount ingested rather than just the level in the water supply.



    Report abuse

  • Bryan Sep 28, 2014 at 11:45 am

    As for the journal Fluoride, it was good enough for the York Review (see the excerpt below). It’s comprised of both pro and anti-fluoridationists, by the way.

    You have just spelt out why this campaign magazine is not a reliable source. Science does not do “fudge between two preconceived viewpoints”. It does objective testing and publication of evidence in reputable journals, with checking and review of the testing procedures by experts in the relevant field.

    Unchecked comic books, campaign articles, and news-blogs, have no such checking system using independent reputable scientists, and are free to ramble around with made-up arguments, doubt-mongering valid scientific work, and presenting false conclusions from scientific reports, which scientists will quickly spot, and non-specialists may uncritically swallow.

    (That does not mean they have never published reliable information.)

    If it is high quality science the peer-review magazines will publish it for expert discussion. If on expert examination it is too, out-dated or previously refuted, badly written, or too low-grade to even waste experts scientists time on, they will not.

    That is why the leading scientific and medical bodies will not recognise them as objective reliable sources, no matter how much they whinge about it, or try to project a reversed image of their own preconceived their biases on to the professional bodies.



    Report abuse

  • You and the quack journal are misunderstanding it. The report does not say it is useless. I says that so many people have recognised the benefits of fluoride that now the use fluoride toothpaste has provided the bulk of the source ingested, with the correlation being with the total amount ingested rather than just the level in the water supply.

    It was just me, thanks, I didn’t reference to anything the journal said about it. What that says to me is swallowed toothpaste is a much bigger problem than previously thought, and adding more through the water is superfluous at best.

    Or are you saying this makes the NRC’s findings irrelevant, since so much exposure is coming through toothpaste?



    Report abuse

  • OK, than let’s gather together a group of scientists with absolutely no opinion on fluoridation. No opininion at all. I challenge you. That’s what controls and blinding is for, for crying out loud. You’re holding my arguments to a ridiculous standard.



    Report abuse

  • Bryan Sep 28, 2014 at 12:51 am

    International Society for Fluoride Research, which publishes the journal and has sponsored no less than 23 conferences on fluoride research around the world, has members who are both pro and anti-fluoridation.

    This is just pointless rambling! Climate Change deniers and creationists hold numerous conferences around the world, and CLAIM to represent a balanced scientific view, while whinging about scientific bodies rejecting their claims.



    Report abuse

  • OK, than let’s gather together a group of scientists with absolutely no opinion on fluoridation. No opininion at all. I challenge you.

    I thought that’s what the long list of scientific and medical bodies I gave earlier, had already done!
    (Peer-review journals use multiple critical examination of papers, and independent testing to eliminate bias)

    Science (unlike campaign groups), does not begin with preconceptions, and does not use circular thinking.

    https://www.richarddawkins.net/2014/09/fluoride-still-not-poisoning-your-precious-bodily-fluids/#li-comment-156240
    Fluoridation is supported by the World Health
    Organisation, the Fédération Dentaire Internationale and the International Association for Dental Research as a safe and effective means of reducing tooth decay.
    Fluoridation is supported by the Faculty of Public Health of the Royal Colleges of Physicians, the British Medical Association, the British Dental Association, the US Public Health Service and many other medical, dental and scientific organisations in the UK and around the world.




    Report abuse

  • It’s unfortunate you’ve dismissed me as a nutter on par with creationists, for suggesting a known toxic substance may be harmful to some people at a level considered ‘optimal’, or perhaps below that in rare cases. We know it inhibits enzymes, therefore we can’t assume it doesn’t interact with other enzymes when taken systemically, so it’s perfectly reasonable to suggest other health effects could occur. Also consider that it accumulates in the bone over time, and we lack a system in place to track this exposure or its effects. Therefore I’m suggesting it may be premature to add more in addition to existing sources, increasing the burden to sensitive individuals, or the risk to infants and pregnant women, possibly sensitive themselves. When we have nothing but epidemiological studies of limited quantity and quality to base our decision on, and I say proceed with caution, I’m committing quackery in your view.

    The burden of proof is on the fluoridationists to prove efficacy and safety, not the other way around, I think that’s where we fundamentally disagree. For any other issue you would agree with Precautionary Principle protocols, but in the upside down and backwards world of fluoridation, we throw caution to the wind for some strange reason. Epidemiological studies are not proof, and that’s all we have. Some correlative evidence of weak quality should not be the standard we base a mass medication program on, it’s simply irresponsible, especially toward the most vulnerable populations. This isn’t lunacy, this is standard procedure in any other case, except in the bazaar case of water fluoridation!

    As for the quality of the evidence, take it from the authors of the York Review themselves. Dan posted it earlier, perhaps you missed it in the back and forth. It demonstrates quite plainly how poor the quality of evidence is that we’re basing this program on, and how the authors are concerned their work is being misrepresented (and not by the so-called quacks, mind you).

    (emphasis added):

    http://www.york.ac.uk/inst/crd/fluoridnew.htm

    We are concerned about the continuing misinterpretations of the evidence and think it is important that decision makers are aware of what the review really found. As such, we urge interested parties to read the review conclusions in full.

    We were unable to discover any reliable good-quality evidence in the fluoridation literature world-wide.

    What evidence we found suggested that water fluoridation was likely to have a beneficial effect, but that the range could be anywhere from a substantial benefit to a slight disbenefit to children’s teeth.

    This beneficial effect comes at the expense of an increase in the prevalence of fluorosis (mottled teeth). The quality of this evidence was poor.

    An association with water fluoride and other adverse effects such as cancer, bone fracture and Down’s syndrome was not found. However, we felt that not enough was known because the quality of the evidence was poor.

    The evidence about reducing inequalities in dental health was of poor quality, contradictory and unreliable.

    Since the report was published in October 2000 there has been no other scientifically defensible review that would alter the findings of the York review. As emphasised in the report, only high-quality studies can fill in the gaps in knowledge about these and other aspects of fluoridation. Recourse to other evidence of a similar or lower level than that included in the York review, no matter how copious, cannot do this.”

    As for other reasons against using epidemiological evidence as our standard, I’ll leave you with another excerpt. Please bear with me, I know you think he’s quote mining and twisting data, but I invite you to try and keep an open mind and listen to Dr. Connett’s arguments, you might even be surprised. You don’t need to desecrate your browser by clicking on my links, either, but it is a little bit of reading (emphasis added):

    From animal studies it has been demonstrated that dental fluorosis is caused by fluoride inhibiting enzymes in the growing tooth cell responsible for laying down the enamel (DenBesten, 1999). The last stage in this process involves enzymes called proteases, which chew up the protein remaining between the mineral prisms, which form the enamel. If this protein is not completely removed, it leads to small opaque patches on the enamel. It is well known from biochemical studies that fluoride inhibits enzymes in test tubes, which is the reason why a number of Nobel Prize winners (e.g Dr. James Sumner, the world’s leading enzyme chemist in his time) are among those who have expressed their reservations about fluoridating water. Dental fluorosis is thus an indication that fluoride even at 1 ppm in water can inhibit enzymes in the body. In a way, it is extremely lucky that fluoride inhibits these particular enzymes because the effect is visible. Thus we have a visible warning signal that something is happening. The key question then becomes (or should become): What other enzymes is fluoride inhibiting in the body that we can’t see? Such questions have been probed with animal studies and to ignore them is reckless in my view. Of particular concern are the enzymes involved in bone growth and turnover, and enzymes present in other calcifying tissues like the pineal gland. The fact that the human pineal gland has been shown to accumulate fluoride to very high levels is highly significant in my view. Especially when coupled with the fact that Luke (1998) has shown that when animals are treated with fluoride, it significantly decreases their melatonin production, which is made in the pineal gland. These results suggest that one of the enzymes involved in melatonin synthesis has been inhibited by fluoride.”

    In all fairness, do these sound like the ramblings of a mad man? I hear a measured, balanced, and cautious argument, based on real-world evidence.

    Seeing that fluoridation is an additive process, whereas chlorination’s end goal is subtractive (killing pathogens), it’s introducing additional risk for a benefit who’s existence or degree haven’t been verified by high quality evidence. Which brings us back to the burden of proof I mentioned earlier. We would not accept these standards for any other medical intervention, it baffles me how fluoride is granted an exception.



    Report abuse

  • It’s unfortunate you’ve dismissed me as a nutter on par with creationists,

    It is with a heavy heart that I concur with Alan4D. Your inability to assimilate any information contrary to the view you hold so dearly, means you are using parallel mental processes as deniers and creationists to maintain your position. It’s called cherry picking, like with the bible. You only reference material that agrees with your position. That is the same as climate change deniers and intelligent designers. There is no way anyone can reach you. You are not exhibiting a rational evidence based decision making process. The scientific skeptic, led by evidence.

    Everyone needs to do this every morning. Look in the mirror, and say 10 times, “What if I am wrong.” Then consider the consequences of what you are proposing, if in fact you are wrong. Your beef with fluoride might just mean more dental caries, but people with similar thought processes, like climate change deniers may bring on the extinction of civilization, and people so radically committed to religious views, can, given the right circumstances, fly planes into buildings.



    Report abuse

  • It is with a heavy heart that I concur with Alan4D. Your inability to assimilate any information contrary to the view you hold so dearly, means you are using parallel mental processes as deniers and creationists to maintain your position. It’s called cherry picking, like with the bible. You only reference material that agrees with your position. That is the same as climate change deniers and intelligent designers. There is no way anyone can reach you. You are not exhibiting a rational evidence based decision making process. The scientific skeptic, led by evidence.

    Everyone needs to do this every morning. Look in the mirror, and say
    10 times, “What if I am wrong.” Then consider the consequences of what
    you are proposing, if in fact you are wrong. Your beef with fluoride
    might just mean more dental caries, but people with similar thought
    processes, like climate change deniers may bring on the extinction of
    civilization, and people so radically committed to religious views,
    can, given the right circumstances, fly planes into buildings.

    I need better evidence, not (weak) epidemiological studies, and that’s all I’ve been shown, because that’s all that exists, per the authors of the York Review. So even when mainstream sources say the evidence is of poor quality, it’s OK to disregard the Precautionary Principle? Fluoridation is the only issue where this is even up for debate.
    And what if you’re wrong? Like Dan, suffering from skeletal fluorosis, millions more could be harmed, all for an alleged benefit that’s far better achieved through topical means.

    Former EPA Risk Assessment Officer made this sworn affidavit regarding fluoride’s safety:

    http://fluorideinformationaustralia.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/affidavit-of-dr-robert-j-carton-phd.pdf

    The Clean Water Act states that MCLGs should be set so “that the health of persons will be protected against known or anticipated adverse effects [of the substance], allowing an adequate margin of safety.” So we don’t need absolute certainty to protect against anticipated harm, and we have evidence showing a range of adverse effects at a range of dose levels (NRC 2006). Therefore due to existing exposure from other sources, the MCLG should be zero, or at least much lower, leaving no margin of safety for the most vulnerable. It’s amazing none of you can see this.



    Report abuse

  • Bryan Sep 29, 2014 at 11:06 am

    http://fluorideinformationaustralia.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/affidavit-of-dr-robert-j-carton-phd.pdf

    Former EPA Risk Assessment Officer made this sworn affidavit regarding fluoride’s safety:
    3.I have written three books on the subject of fluoridation. Two of these are in Dutch:
    “Fluoridering van het leidingwater,” 1973 and “Fluor Liever niet” in 1990.
    4.The third book is in English: “Fluoride, the Freedom Fight,” 1987.
    5.On March 20th, 1972, the city of Amsterdam began fluoridating
    its water supplies.
    This had a widespread effect on surrounding communities who derived their drinkingwater from the Amsterdam water suppliers, such as Heemstede, Bennebroek, Hoofddorp, Haarlemmerliede and many others.
    8.The adverse health effects began almost at once, with people, especially children, developing colicky pains. The parents of these children often did not even know that their water supplies were fluoridated. These sudden changes only took place in fluoridated Heemstede, and the cure
    was easy: non-fluoridated water.
    9.This cure was shown repeatedly to be the correct one, as parents made errors with the jerrycans of non-fluoridated water. As soon as fluoridated water was given, be it only one cup, the sensitive children began to yell again. This was particularly stressful in babies, who often yelled through the whole night.
    10.Other early symptoms were the small ulcers in the mouth called stomatitis aphtosa. I also saw how children with a known allergic condition that had been under control, such as children with atopic eczema, suddenly saw a return of their complaints.

    15.The list of the most common complaints we could readily identify with the exposure to fluoridation includes;

    Stomach and intestinal pains, Mouth ulcers, Excessive thirst, Skin irritation and eczema, Migraine-like headaches, Visual disturbances (blurred vision), Worsening of known allergic complaints, Mental depression.

    These are very outdated anecdotal claims!

    Strange? – that the water in my area has been fluoridated for over 40 years and we have yet to come across any significant numbers of these symptoms!

    Bryan – I need better evidence, not (weak) epidemiological studies, and that’s all I’ve been shown, because that’s all that exists, per the authors of the York Review.

    I gave you links to studies more recent than the York Review, so what is your basis for dismissing these peer reviewed studies which refute the earlier “poor” or “medium” work mentioned in that review?

    You have also yet to explain how the world’s leading scientific and medical bodies INDEPENDENTLY came to the positive conclusions about optimal levels of fluoride in drinking water with different levels for hot and cold climates. Conspiracy theories don’t cut it!



    Report abuse

  • I still don’t understand why dental caries are communicable. Unless what’s meant is the communications inherent to advertising and product placement for sugary treats. That everyone in a community may be suffering from the same disease doesn’t imply that the disease is communicable. If that were the case then cigarette smoking would be a communicable disease. Maybe it is by some definition. But I thought that a communicable disease requires some kind of physical contact or vector transmission. Infection or contagion. TV transmissions and movies sponsored by tobacco marketers might not count as relevant vectors.

    I have the same fundamental objection to flouridation:

    It’s mass imposition of a medical treatment on everyone. Would it not be equally sensible to impose mass prevention of sales of sugary food products? Especially seeing as sugar is at least as well-established scientifically as the proven cause of dental caries. Either approach is unethical.

    Flouridation is possibly more unethical because it’s more open-ended and more difficult to avoid. Banning sugar could only ever be partially effective, owing to the black market. We already know that eating sugar is not natural, but people do it anyway. Like cigarette smoking. But people are not likely to become addicted to flouride in the water. Personally I approve of flouride in my own water, and in toothpaste, and as a one-off treatment at the dentist. Without flouridated water then there are plenty of alternative options. But there’s little doubt that people who don’t eat sugar tend to have excellent teeth. Whether or not they’re exposed to flouride or dentists or toothbrushes. So flouridation of water is solving the wrong problem. Especially if, as is now known, dietary sugar is responsible for very much more mayhem than dental caries.

    Flouridation is unethical because most people are never likely to be informed enough to make an informed decision on such a technical subject. They can leave these decisions to the self-appointed experts, but if everyone did that then no one would be eating saturated fats and we’d all be on cholesterol lowering medication or drugs that prevent the digestion and absorption of dietary fat (probably via the town water supply). So we’d all likely to end up succumbing to early onset Alzheimers. So how do we establish that the dentists were right about flouride but that the vegan nutrition ‘scientists’ were wrong about dietary cholesterol and saturated fats? Yes we know these things now (with so many succumbing to cancer, cvd, and T3 diabetes epidemics etc) but how was it possible to know all this 60 years ago when it mattered? Was it just a matter of luck that mass-dosing technology of drugs that disrupt fat metabolism were not developed in the 1950s also?

    What was special about the scientific processes that occurred in 1950s dentistry compared to nutrition? Or was it just plain luck that flouride in water is not significantly toxic? Interesting crossover of events also in that blaming dietary fats as the cause of most non-communicable disease inevitably led to a massive surge in dietary sugars consumption. Luckily dentists turned out to be right about flouride or many of us would have bad teeth as well as heart disease, strokes, high blood pressure, cancer, diabetes, alzheimers, anaphalaxis, etc. We need these folks who don’t consume flouride or who do still consume saturated fats etc. to be around as controls. It would be foolish to discourage volunteers for this kind of non-participation medical experimentation.

    No real personal issues with dentists. Just joking there. If anything I have only good experiences. Generally I have reasonably good teeth. With minor lapses in early adulthood owing to bad diet. Plus basketball collisions. Only pain from dental treatment was a self-inflicted experiment to see how bad it would be with nil local anesthetic – testing pain control synesthesia tricks. Kind of worked. So much so that I’m the only patient of my current dentist to have actually dosed off during minor filling work. Possibly owing to sleep deprivation as much as synesthesia effects.



    Report abuse

  • Let’s look at your sources.

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18039290

    Wow, kids swallow toothpaste, who knew? This means very little in the grand scheme of things. Fluoride accumulates in the bone over time, long after age 7. Total exposure over a lifetime is still drinking water by far.

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=NHMRC+fluoride

    The NHMRC review was little more than a duplication of large chunks of the York review, albeit without the important caveats. The NHMRC had to find ways around the extensive evidence of harm given in the NRC report published the previous year, by emphasizing the effects were seen in the 2-4ppm range, and that water fluoridation is at 0.6-1.1mg/L. Now I know you don’t accept that there is a margin of safety issue for vulnerable populations (which you would for any other drug, except fluoride, strangely enough), but it’s worth noting the report made no mention to the fact that practically no studies on health effects have been published in Australia or other fluoridated countries at the 1ppm level. In 1 sentence, they served up a convenient excuse to dodge any need to review the NRC report, acknowledge its findings, or bother with any of its 1,100 references. Typical of a self-serving government report.

    http://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/abs/10.2105/AJPH.2013.301857

    While admittedly effect on IQ is probably small, the New Zealand study was headed by a vocal fluoridation promoter (I think you already touched on potential problems with this in reference to my sources), and contained several (other) important shortcomings:

    The small sample size pf non-water-fluoridated subjects is likely too small to detect an effect (99 compared with 891 fluoridated subjects).

    The 139 children ingesting fluoride tablets were not identified. Tablets are only recommended for subjects in non-fluoridated areas, so differences in total exposure may have been minimal.
    Variables such as lead, arsenic, iodine, urbn/rural, and fluoride from all sources that were known were not controlled for.

    Even if subsequent research cannot verify lowered IQ, which I freely admit may be the case, we have many more health problems to look at. It would be reckless to assume that an enzyme inhibitor was not having any other effects in the body, in fact it would be highly unlikely if that were the case. It being cumulative as well, with no system to monitor levels in bones when we could have had a substantial database across demographic groups by now, is also cause for concern. Stage II skeletal fluorosis could easily be miss-diagnosed as arthritis since the symptoms are more or less identical, but without measuring accumulation in bones over time we simply don’t know.

    It’s also worth noting that you refuse to accept that serious scientists have concerns, including those at the EPA calling for a moratorium until a new risk assessment can be completed. Again, in case you missed it:

    http://www.nteu280.org/Issues/Fluoride/Press%20Release.%20Fluoride.htm

    You may be surprised to know that Connett is among these serious scientists. He wrote a peer-reviewed paper in the BMJ, along with other scientists, citing concerns on fluoridation found here:

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1120532/

    Another paper published in the International Journal of Occupational and Environmental Health, unfortunately I can’t find a full text version:

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16523987

    He was also invited as a peer reviewer of the York Review, believe it or not.
    Other items worth noting:

    In October 2000, he was invited by the Irish government to present his views on fluoridation before the Fluoridation Forum, a panel established by the Irish Ministry of Health.
    In June 2001, Paul (together with Dr. William Hirzy) was invited to debate proponents of fluoridation at the annual conference of the Association for Science in the Public Interest (ASIPI) in Richmond, Virginia. The proponents refused to participate in this debate.
    In October, 2001, Paul was invited by the Japanese Society for Fluoride Research to address a meeting of their society in Tokyo.
    In November 2001, Paul (together with Dr. Phyllis Mullenix) were invited by the American College of Toxicology to debate proponents, but they again refused. On both the above occasions Dr. Connett gave a presentation of the arguments against fluoridation in lieu of the debate.-

    We’re not talking about some lone nut here, but a very rational voice, among others, being stymied by politics (he’s still waiting on a public debate with any of his peers). I’ll I’m trying to say is that serious scientists have serious concerns that shouldn’t be dismissed out of hand. I’m also suggesting that fluoride ought to be treated under the same standards as any other drug. I want at the very least a new risk assessment, and better studies on efficacy, and for this I’m labeled a kook, nut, quack, and whatever else you want to throw at me.

    You have also yet to explain how the world’s leading scientific and medical bodies INDEPENDENTLY came to the positive conclusions about optimal levels of fluoride in drinking water with different levels for hot and cold climates. Conspiracy theories don’t cut it!

    Now I’ll ask you for sources, please. The optimal level was set in the US In 1962 by HHS. Show me the studies that the science and professional bodies around the world used to make this determination independently of HHS. Presumably they were using the same studies cited by the York Review that were available up until that time, which we’ve established are of poor quality. Did they really examine the literature on their own in depth, or simply rubber-stamp the HHS standard instead? Besides, do we want studies published in the 1940’s and 1950’s to be the basis of a mass-medication program to begin with? They hadn’t even developed proper controls at the time.

    As for conspiracies, I don’t think there’s a smoke filled room with evil geniuses wringing their hands in glee, or some such thing. It’s simply vested interests doing what vested interests do, and that’s maintaining the status quo while protecting their credibility, a credibility that they’ve put on the line by promoting fluoridation for so many decades as an unequivocal public health miracle. Here is an example, taken from the book Fluoride Wars (2009), which is otherwise slanted in favor or fluoridation:

    There is one anti-fluoridationists charge that does have some truth to it. Anti-fluoride forces have always claimed that the many government-sponsored review panels set up over the years to assess the costs and benefits of fluoridation were stacked in favor of fluoridation. A review of the membership of various panels confirms this charge. The expert committees that put together reports by the American Association for the Advancement of Science in 1941, 1944, and 1954; the National Academy of Sciences in 1951, 1971, 1977, and 1993; the World Health Organization in 1958 and 1970; and the U.S. Public Health Service in 1991 are rife with the name of well-known medical and dental researchers who actively campaign on behalf of fluoridation or whose research was held in high regard in the pro-fluoridation movement. Membership was interlocking and incestuous.”

    When the bulk of the research is being done by pro-fluoridationists, and we have no randomized controlled studies to prove efficacy, I don’t think it’s a stretch to think there could be bias creeping in. Instead we chose to ignore peer-reviewed scientists at the EPA and elsewhere, and charge ahead dosing every man, women, and child at the same dose with an unapproved drug (the FDA has never touched it), while not monitoring exposure, with only poor quality epidemiological studies to go on. And I’m the nut. Simply stunning.

    I’ll leave you with an excerpt from the York Review:

    Water fluoridation is also a difficult subject on which to ensure the neutrality of the investigators. Some possible side effects of water fluoridation may take many years to develop and so unless a study is specifically designed to investigate the relationship of these outcomes to fluoridation the relationship may go undetected. An assessment of the effectiveness of fluoridation to prevent caries is difficult because there are potentially a number of factors that may influence caries protection other than fluoride in water and these have changed over time. These factors include the introduction of fluoridated toothpaste, mouth rinses and improved dental hygiene in general. Traditional reviews of the literature tend to ignore the variable quality of studies and are therefore unlikely to present an objective view. The explicit methods used in this systematic review will limit bias through the use of specific inclusion criteria, and a formal assessment of the quality of the studies reviewed. The use of meta-analysis will increase power and precision of estimates of treatment effects and exposure risks.”



    Report abuse

  • Bryan Sep 30, 2014 at 11:50 am

    Let’s look at your sources.

    Yes lets look a my links.

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18039290

    In total, 5418 nonduplicate citations were identified. After applying the inclusion and exclusion criteria, 408 citations were considered potentially eligible for inclusion in the review. After the review of the full papers of potentially eligible articles, 77 citations were included in the review.

    Wow, kids swallow toothpaste, who knew?

    That is the point which debunks all the garbage about the modern lack of differences in areas with fluoridated and non-fluoridated water supplies! It shows that people are compensating with fluoride toothpaste where their water is untreated, NOT that the treatment is “useless”!

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=NHMRC+fluoride

    Mean fluoride intake from diet and toothpaste ranged from 0.031 (+/-0.025) mg/kg body weight (bw)/day for the low-fluoride area to 0.038 (+/-0.038) and 0.047(+/-0.008) mg/kg bw/day for sub-optimally and optimally fluoridated areas respectively. Contribution of toothpaste to total fluoride intake ranged from 3% to 93% with mean values of 57%, 35% and 47% for children receiving low, sub-optimally and optimally fluoridated water respectively. FUFE ranged from a mean of 32% (+/-13%) for the optimally fluoridated area to 44% (+/-33%) for the low-fluoride area. Fluoride retention was not correlated with the fluoride concentration of home water supply, but was strongly positively correlated (P < 0.001) with total daily fluoride intake.

    Yes! They took detailed measurements of intake and excretion of fluorides showing:- Fluoride toothpaste contributes a significant proportion of total ingested fluoride in children, particularly in low-fluoride areas.

    You keep throwing in anything you can find which supports your preconceptions – letters from unions, books by anti-fluoride authors, etc. but refuse to accept the results of up-to-date peer-reviewed studies or the recommendations of a whole list of independent leading scientific bodies who have examined the subject in detail.



    Report abuse

  • 173
    Dubhlinneach says:

    I just noticed this discussion. I wonder if people are aware of one of the most recent pieces if research on the subject. In March this year, Public Health England, a state body, published a study entitled: “Water Fluoridation – Health Monitoring Report for England 2014.”

    The study compared dental health (and other) outcomes in local authority areas which fluoridate water supply with those that don’t.

    The main findings were:

    45% fewer children, aged 1-4, are admitted to hospital for tooth decay in areas where water is fluoridated than in those where it is not.
    In fluoridated areas, 15% fewer five-year-olds have tooth decay and 11% fewer 12-year-olds suffer from it.
    The respective figures rise to 28% and 21% when deprivation and ethnicity, important factors for dental health, are taken into account.
    The report looked at the comparative rates of hip fractures, kidney stones, cancers, Down’s Syndrome births and all-cause mortality and found no difference, concluding that there was no harm to health in fluoridated areas.

    The full report can be accessed at:

    https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/300202/Water_fluoridation_health_monitoring_for_England_full_report_1apr2014.pdf.

    For a short summary check the Guardian newspaper, http://www.theguardian.com., on 25 March 2014, article entitled: “Fewer Hospital Admissions for Tooth Decay in Fluoridation areas – study.”



    Report abuse

  • 174
    SalGagliano says:

    So people should have the right to choose to end their lives if they’re terminally ill, and not be forced to be kept on life support … BBBUUUUTTT, they SHOULD be forced to utilize fluoridated water. Got it. Very good …



    Report abuse

Leave a Reply

View our comment policy.