Flouridated water helps by coating the teeth, or absorbtion in the digestive track?

[Philster]

Cecil did not make it clear: Flouride in drinking water protects one's teeth by caoting the teeth, or is there some benefit to having the flouride absorbed in the digestive track when the water is swallowed?

[hawthorne]

The column is Is fluoride in water a good thing or a danger? (http://www.straightdope.com/columns/070202.html)

[Q.E.D.]

I don't think putting flour in water has any benefit for your teeth at all. (I think you may have meant fluoride and fluoridation.) ;)

Now, if I'm reading this (http://jada.ada.org/cgi/content/full/131/7/887?ck=nck) rather technical article correctly, the fluoride in drinking water acts by direct topical application to the tooth enamel rather than via absorption into the bloodstream, per the bolded section below:
In summary, fluoride present in the water phase at low levels among the enamel or dentin crystals adsorbs to these crystal surfaces and can markedly inhibit dissolution of tooth mineral by acid. Fluoride that acts in this way comes from the plaque fluid via topical sources such as drinking water and fluoride products. Fluoride incorporated during tooth development is insufficient to play a significant role in caries protection. Fluoride is needed regularly throughout life to protect teeth against caries.

[DSYoungEsq]

I don't think putting flour in water has any benefit for your teeth at all. (I think you may have meant fluoride and fluoridation.) ;)
There appears to be absolutely no use of the world flour in the OP. Not sure what you are referencing... :confused:

[Q.E.D.]

There appears to be absolutely no use of the world flour in the OP. Not sure what you are referencing... :confused:

Let me help you out:
Flouridated water helps by coating the teeth, or absorbtion in the digestive track?

Cecil did not make it clear: Flouride in drinking water protects one's teeth by caoting the teeth, or is there some benefit to having the flouride absorbed in the digestive track when the water is swallowed?

[mcorsen]

It always gets my ire up a bit to hear that the only people who don't want fluoride in their water are conspiracy theorists. Fluoride is meant to be applied topically and that really is the only way it is beneficial to teeth. A trip or call to your dentist will confirm this. So will just reading the side of fluoride treatment products. They say: (usually in bold, all caps letters) "do not swallow".

Fluoride is toxic, and to my knowledge there are no studies that conclude that small dosages over a long period are just fine. In fact there are several that suggest this causes problems with the thyroid. Just do a web search on "fluoride thyroid" and you'll find plenty of information on the subject.

The benefits of drinking fluoridated water just to have a little bit of fluoride wash over your teeth are iffy at best - especially when it's in just about every kind of toothpaste you can buy. And if that's not enough fluoride for you, it's available in greater dosages in prescription toothpastes and fluoride mouthwashes.

[Doctor Who]

It always gets my ire up a bit to hear that the only people who don't want fluoride in their water are conspiracy theorists. Fluoride is meant to be applied topically and that really is the only way it is beneficial to teeth. A trip or call to your dentist will confirm this. So will just reading the side of fluoride treatment products. They say: (usually in bold, all caps letters) "do not swallow".

Fluoride is toxic, and to my knowledge there are no studies that conclude that small dosages over a long period are just fine. In fact there are several that suggest this causes problems with the thyroid. Just do a web search on "fluoride thyroid" and you'll find plenty of information on the subject.

The benefits of drinking fluoridated water just to have a little bit of fluoride wash over your teeth are iffy at best - especially when it's in just about every kind of toothpaste you can buy. And if that's not enough fluoride for you, it's available in greater dosages in prescription toothpastes and fluoride mouthwashes.
Plus.... Have you ever seen a commie drink a glass of water?

[DSYoungEsq]

Let me help you out:
:smack: :smack: :smack: :smack:

[John W. Kennedy]

Fluoride is toxicAs we all learned a week or so ago, so is water.

[gazpacho]

As we all learned a week or so ago, so is water.
My god the commies are putting water in our fluoride.

[antechinus]

You beat me too it John W Kennedy.

Hyponatremia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyponatremia) can be caused by consuming too much water.

[Una Persson]

According to the ADA, at this link: http://www.ada.org/public/topics/fluoride/fluoride_article01.asp#systemic
Systemic Fluorides

Systemic fluorides such as community water fluoridation and dietary fluoride supplements are effective in reducing tooth decay. These fluorides provide topical as well as systemic protection because fluoride is present in the saliva.

Community Water Fluoridation

Fluoride is present naturally in all water sources. Community water fluoridation, which has been around for over 50 years, is simply the process of adjusting the fluoride content of fluoride-deficient water to the recommended level for optimal dental health. That recommended level is 0.7 - 1.2 parts fluoride per million parts water. Water fluoridation has been proven to reduce decay in both children and adults. While water fluoridation is an extremely effective and inexpensive means of obtaining the fluoride necessary for optimal tooth decay prevention, not everyone lives in a community with a centralized, public or private water source that can be fluoridated. For those individuals, fluoride is available in other forms.
(emphasis added)

[Philster]

Fluoride. Fluoride. Fluoride.

I know. I know. I know.

Just doesn't feel proper when I'm typing it. One of them words I frequently type incorrectly.

[Sophistry and Illusion]

Our baby books (you know, the ones every parent reads when having a kid--What to Expect When You are Expecting, etc.) indicated that children need to have fluoride in their diet while their teeth are developing, b/c the fluoride in their diet makes the enamel more resistant to decay. So if you don't consume fluoride while your permanent teeth are actually being formed underneath the gum, you will be more prone to cavities. This is why some infant vitamins actually have fluoride in them--you know, so the baby will actually ingest it.

[copperwindow]

If there's such a great need for health in the community, why don't we also add vitamin C and calcium to tap water?

[Q.E.D.]

If there's such a great need for health in the community, why don't we also add vitamin C and calcium to tap water?
Calcium would clog up the pipes eventually, and vitamin C would taste horrible.

[DSYoungEsq]

..., and vitamin C would taste horrible.
:D :D :D




I was happy to see that Unca Cece was pretty evenhanded, admitting to a bit of a libertarian though process about the whole concept. What's next, forcing people to wear seat belts? :p

[Q.E.D.]

:smack: :smack: :smack: :smack:
Don't feel bad. Having worked in the industry (one of the products a former employer produced were electronic ballasts for fluorescent lighting), I've gotten very sensitized to that particular misspelling; it sticks out like a flashing neon sign to me.

[Sophistry and Illusion]

If there's such a great need for health in the community, why don't we also add vitamin C and calcium to tap water?
Actually, it's not uncommon to add essential nutrients to food. Iodized table salt is the most obvious example. Also, I think now most bread sold in the US has folic acid as an additive, to prevent neural tube defects in the babies of women who are in the very early stages of pregnancy. So, even though you are being a smartass, in fact there are food additives aimed at promoting community health. Do you think something is wrong with that?

[Bryan Ekers]

My god the commies are putting water in our fluoride.
They want to sap and impurify all of our precious bodily fluids!

[Bosda Di'Chi of Tricor]

My god the commies are putting water in our fluoride.

And Peanut Butter in our Chocolate!

[Philster]

I like the lead they sometimes put in my water to protect me from any radiation that might escape from my microwave oven.

[antechinus]

If there's such a great need for health in the community, why don't we also add vitamin C and calcium to tap water?

Adding iodine to tap water might be a good idea though.

Iodine is important for the development of a growing brain. Deficiencies in iodine are now becoming apparent (http://www.mja.com.au/public/issues/184_06_200306/letters_200306_fm-2.html), since iodine is no longer used as a sanitiser in milk manufacturing. Residual iodine fortified the milk as a by-product of the plant sanitisation process. Chlorine is now used more commonly in the milk industry as a sanitiser.

Many people do not use iodised salt, so you might be on to something copperwindow - fortification of the tap water might work by supplimenting chlorine disinfection with iodine. I will work out the costs and start lobbying.

Now if only I can think of a way of getting bromine and astatine in the water, then the halides will rule ... bwahh ha ha ha

[haysboy4]

Okay, repeat after me:

Anyone who thinks water fluoridation is anything except a perfectly safe and effective health program that protects our health and bones just like our friendly neighborhood dentist tells us is a delusional, tin foil hat wearing, flat earther, wacko conspiracy theorist just like the raving General Jack Ripper in Dr. Strangelove who pronounced fluoridation a violation of our precious bodily fluids. Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!!!!!

Okay, now that we've all gotten that off our chests, how about looking at the actual SCIENCE of water fluoridation. The best resource I've found on the Internet that analyzes the pros and mostly cons of water fluoridation is the website, fluoridealert.org. I'll admit there's a lot of pseudoscience floating around the Internet, from people who believe the moon landings were hoaxed to little cadres of new age spiritualist types who believe our benign space brothers from Sirius are preparing to rescue the Earth from destruction, but this website is definitely not a haven for such people. It's balanced, well-researched and provides abundant links to peer-reviewed studies supporting the anti-fluoridation stance. If you still believe water fluoridation "protects children's teeth", as some posters here have proclaim, start reading.

I would appreciate your feedback. Thanks.

[Q.E.D.]

The best resource I've found on the Internet that analyzes the pros and mostly cons of water fluoridation is the website, fluoridealert.org.
Sorry, pal, but any website with the name "fluoridealert" is automatically to be considered biased right from the get-go, since they clearly have an agenda that is spelled out right in the name. How about some actual, unbiased clinical studies which examine BOTH sides of the issue with equal impartiality such as this (http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/321/7265/855), which concludes that:
Given the level of interest surrounding the issue of public water fluoridation, it is surprising to find that little high quality research has been undertaken. As such, this review should provide both researchers and commissioners of research with an overview of the methodological limitations of previous research.

The evidence of a reduction in caries should be considered together with the increased prevalence of dental fluorosis. No clear evidence of other potential negative effects was found. This evidence on positive and negative effects needs to be considered along with the ethical, environmental, ecological, financial, and legal issues that surround any decisions about water fluoridation. Any future research into the safety and efficacy of water fluoridation should be carried out with appropriate methodology to improve the quality of the existing evidence base.

[haysboy4]

Excellent, my bait snagged a fish! (From the looks of it, a loud-mouthed bass :D!). Now it's time to reel him in.

First, a few preliminaries:

Sorry, pal, but any website with the name "fluoridealert" is automatically to be considered biased right from the get-go, since they clearly have an agenda that is spelled out right in the name.
Oh, really? Then what do you think of the following website?

http://fluoridealert.com/

You'll notice that it's a mouthpiece for the American Dental Association, which--if lightning didn't recently strike its sponsors and provoke them to convert to an anti-fluoridation stance--continues to promote water fluoridation wholeheartedly. Needless to say, this shoots down your assertion that the use of "fluoridealert" in the website name automically implies a bias against fluoridation.

But your point is well taken. I think my original posted spelled out the fact that fluoridealert.org is definitely biased against fluoridation, but the way I worded things I seemed to imply that it was basically a balanced and unbiased review of fluoridation. like the BMJ article you quoted appears to be (more on that below).

Actually, what I meant was that it was relatively free of the "paranoia" Cecil refers to in his original column. In addition to abundant links to articles that debunk fluoridation's claimed "safety and effectiveness", it also includes hundreds of links to pro-fluoridation journal articles, CDC and ADA websites, as well the BMJ article. I also have personally met and talked to fluoridealert.org's webmaster, and its defacto CEO, Paul Connett, a professor of chemistry at St. Lawrence University in New York. I can attest to their thorough knowledge of BOTH sides of the fluoridation issue, and this is why stand by the website as an outstanding tool for informing oneself about fluoridation.

Now, the BMJ article you quote, is often referred to as the "York Review." As a science writer who has been studying this issue for close to ten years, I'm quite familiar with both the conclusions of the York Review and with its many errors. Keep in mind that when an article appears in one of the most prestigious medical journals in the world, its authors aren't somehow miraculously annointed with the power of absolute objectivity and freedom from bias.

But I'll let the writers at fluoridealert.org do the talking on this one. Here's a link to the article, followed by a few choice quotes:
http://www.fluoridealert.org/york-critique.htm

The York Review is a response to a request from the British government to "carry out an up to date expert scientific review of fluoride and health". In my view, this review is extremely limited in scope and it would be unfortunate if the British government treats this as the "last word" on the "science of efficacy and safety" of fluoridation. However, even with its limited parameters, and with its shortcomings (which I will be addressing specifically, below) there should be enough in this review to shake the British government's current enthusiasm for putting this highly toxic material into the public drinking water.


As far as addressing these parameters of the Precautionary Principle is concerned the York team must be given a failing grade. They have failed to achieve a), because of their exclusion of animal and other toxicological studies which provide supporting evidence to indicate that fluoride can cause great harm. I elaborate on this below. Their review of b) is limited and in certain places (e.g. hip fractures) marred by major errors and in other places with omissions (e.g. osteosarcoma — Cohn,1992). Their review of c) and d) are also limited by several things. i) They failed to acknowledge that a large number of leading dental researchers are now admitting that fluoride does not have to be swallowed to achieve its benefits. Putting this together with the fact that it is well recognized that swallowing excess fluoride leads to dental fluorosis, (a subject they covered well) would suggest that by applying fluoride topically (e.g. via toothpaste) achieves the supposed benefits while minimizing the proven problem of dental fluorosis.

I look forward to your response. Thanks for posting.

[Q.E.D.]

You'll notice that it's a mouthpiece for the American Dental Association, which--if lightning didn't recently strike its sponsors and provoke them to convert to an anti-fluoridation stance--continues to promote water fluoridation wholeheartedly. Needless to say, this shoots down your assertion that the use of "fluoridealert" in the website name automically implies a bias against fluoridation.
Actually, what I said was it should be considered biased. Which it should, at least until one has had a chance to research it. Compare the fluoridealert.org website to the fluoridealert.com one and the differences are striking. The .org site practically screams "fanatical crackpot." Frankly, I would not be surprised if the ADA registered the fluoridealert.com domain as a response to the obvious militant anti-fluoride campaign being waged at the .org site.

I also have personally met and talked to fluoridealert.org's webmaster, and its defacto CEO, Paul Connett, a professor of chemistry at St. Lawrence University in New York.
So, he's neither a medical nor a dental authority, but a chemist with an agenda? That doesn't do much for his credibility, I'm afraid.

Now, the BMJ article you quote, is often referred to as the "York Review." As a science writer who has been studying this issue for close to ten years, I'm quite familiar with both the conclusions of the York Review and with its many errors.
Great, then you can answer some questions prompted by the article you quoted:

1) Where are these animal studies that are referred to? I'd like to see for myself their conclusions and what their methodology was. Seems to me that if human studies found no significant risk from fluoridation other than dental fluorosis, then the results of animal studies are moot.

2) Your article says that the York study was "limited" by several things, yet conveniently omits what those limitations were. I haven't got the time to read the entire article, so it's possible they are mentioned elsewhere; if so, can you point them out to me?

3) The article claims that topical application of fluoride should be just as efficacious as systemic fluoridation, but offers no evidence that this is, indeed, the case. What is this assertion based upon? Where are the peer-reviewed clinical studies that show this?

Keep in mind that when an article appears in one of the most prestigious medical journals in the world, its authors aren't somehow miraculously annointed with the power of absolute objectivity and freedom from bias.
Keep in mind that when an original article is posted online at a site controlled by the author, that it has very likely not passed through peer review, something that every article published in any prestigious medical journal has done. That is why the York Review has credibility where the Connett does not.

[haysboy4]

First of all thanks for the rebuttal. I love a good scientific debate, even if it's on a minimally trafficked message board like this one.

The .org site practically screams "fanatical crackpot." Frankly, I would not be surprised that the ADA registered the fluoridealert.com domain as a response to the obvious militant anti-fluoride campaign being waged at the .org site.
I'm not sure what aspect of this website provokes the "fanatical crackpot" and "militant" responses. There are a number of other anti-fluoride websites out there that give ME those impressions, but what specific elements on the .org site provoke those reactions in you? I'm curious, because if there's anything obvious that I'm missing due to my own already admitted bias against fluoridation, maybe other newcomers are getting the same reaction you did. If so, this would be good feedback for the webmaster that might lead to a major edit of the homepage and yield a better first impression.

So, he's neither a medical nor a dental authority, but a chemist with an agenda? That doesn't do much for his credibility, I'm afraid.
I don't put too much stock in appeals to "authority", nor should anyone else who practices serious science. Science progresses not by “trusting authority”, but by pushing the boundaries of the known. I can't put it any better than the late Carl Sagan who wrote in his last book, The Demon Haunted World, "Arguments from authority carry little weight - 'authorities' have made mistakes in the past. They will do so again in the future. Perhaps a better way to say it is that in science there are no authorities; at most, there are experts."

As far as the credibility issue goes, however, I would sooner trust a chemistry professor's opinion on fluoridation than I would a dentist's, especially if he has any training or knowledge in toxicology, which Connett, in fact, does in spades. Connett has been researching and writing articles on environmental toxins since the 1970’s. Most dentists, on the other hand, have very little, if any, training in toxicology.

From my own perspective, a professional toxicologist’s opinion of fluorine based compounds carries a lot more weight than someone who caps teeth for a living and still thinks it’s okay to put mercury—one of the most lethal elements known to man—inside a person’s mouth and leave it there in the guise of a filling. I’ll grant you that the BMJ authors are a lot more well versed in fluoride science than most dentists, so their review is not to be taken lightly; however, neither is Connett’s.

And, by the way, Connett is hardly a lone gadfly in coming out against fluoridation. At least 13 Nobel Prize winners, the entire health departments of most of Western Europe, and two former high profile fluoridation advocates, who later changed their minds, have all spoken out against the practice. See the following links for more details:

http://fluoridealert.org/carlsson-interview.html

http://www.fluoridealert.org/limeback.htm

http://www.fluoride-journal.com/98-31-2/312103.htm

Your article says that the York study was "limited" by several things, yet conveniently omits what those limitations were. I haven't got the time to read the entire article, so it's possible they are mentioned elsewhere; if so, can you point them out to me?

Connett’s critique of the York review is quite long, so you’re forgiven for not wading through it all. I don’t have time to list the bullet points of the study’s many flaws, but the one that stands out for me is the fact that its authors only looked at the benefits and risks of fluoridation in water, and not in all the other sources of fluoride that we’re routinely exposed to—which include everything from processed chicken and tea, to cereals and Teflon coated pans. While the range of fluoride added to water runs from .75 to 1.25 ppm, depending on the climate, various studies have estimated that American’s actually ingest anywhere from 3 ppm to 8 ppm on a daily basis. Here’s another link that covers this particular angle:

http://fluoridealert.org/f-sources.htm

The article claims that topical application of fluoride should be just as efficacious as systemic fluoridation, but offers no evidence that this is, indeed, the case. What is this assertion based upon? Where are the peer-reviewed clinical studies that show this?

Actually, the latest science basically demonstrates that there is NO benefit from systemic fluoridation, since it only works by topical application and not by ingestion. Since you asked for peer-reviewed studies on this issue, I can think of no better example than the article that appeared in the July 2000 issue of The Journal of the American Dental Association, author JB Featherstone. Here’s a choice quote: “Fluoride incorporated during tooth development is insufficient to play a significant role in caries protection.”

Also, here’s a link to a more thorough list of article citations, demonstrating fluoride’s effects are topical and not systemic:

http://fluoridealert.org/health/teeth/caries/topical-systemic.html

Keep in mind that when an original article is posted online at a site controlled by the author, that it has very likely not passed through peer review, something that every article published in any prestigious medical journal has done. That is why the York Review has credibility where the Connett does not.

You're right; you got me on this one. Connett's own comments are not peer-reviewed. However, most of the time Connett is simply giving his educated opinions on the existing peer-reviewed literature. When he does so, he always provides abundant references to the scientific literature. Here’s an example below that I high recommend. Even if you read none of the other links I provided, at least read this one. Get back to me when you have articulated a rebuttal to his major points. And I apologize if I didn't get a chance to reply to every single one of your own points. Take care.

http://www.fluoridealert.org/50-reasons.htm

[Bosda Di'Chi of Tricor]

First of all thanks for the rebuttal. I love a good scientific debate, even if it's on a minimally trafficked message board like this one.





"Minimally trafficed"?

If you had more than 6 posts, I'd smack you with a wet trout for that line!

We're one of PC Magazine's top 101!
http://www.pcmag.com/category2/0,1874,7488,00.asp

[Pushkin]

If you think about it, you're not supposed to swallow toothpaste :)

[tim314]

It always gets my ire up a bit to hear that the only people who don't want fluoride in their water are conspiracy theorists. Fluoride is meant to be applied topically and that really is the only way it is beneficial to teeth. A trip or call to your dentist will confirm this. So will just reading the side of fluoride treatment products. They say: (usually in bold, all caps letters) "do not swallow".
Yeah, because they don't want children to get "very light spots" on their teeth -- this is according to the American Dental Association (http://www.ada.org/prof/resources/positions/statements/fluoride.asp), who have argued that the warning labels on fluoride toothpastes are excessive (see the link).

Fluoride is toxic, and to my knowledge there are no studies that conclude that small dosages over a long period are just fine. In fact there are several that suggest this causes problems with the thyroid. Just do a web search on "fluoride thyroid" and you'll find plenty of information on the subject.
Yeah, from sites like "fluoridealert.org" and "nofluoride.com". :rolleyes: And yet the word "fluoride" doesn't seem to appear once on the American Thyroid Association's website (thyroid.org). Their handbook on hypothyroidism (one of the innumerable conditions fluoride oppents claim are caused by fluoride) mentions many factors that can cause or exacerbate the condition, yet fluoride is strangely absent. It's odd that an organization of 900 doctors and researchers specializing in the thyroid is unaware of fluoride's role in the condition, when it's so obvious to the anti-fluoride activists. :dubious:

Incidentally, many of the studies touted by those anti-fluoride websites as demonstrating the dangers of fluoride aren't published in peer-reviewed journals (http://www.uwf.edu/rsnyder/reports/fluoride.html), and have been shown to contain significant errors (see the link). But sites like fluoridealert.org don't care if it's good science -- they're happy to pick and choose whatever studies support their agenda. The overwhelming scientific concensus seems to be in favor of water fluoridation, as evidenced by the numerous well-recognized professional organizations of doctors and dentists who support water fluoridation (http://www.fluoridefacts.org/fluoride/flu_supp_org.asp).

[Q.E.D.]

Incidentally, many of the studies touted by those anti-fluoride websites as demonstrating the dangers of fluoride aren't published in peer-reviewed journals (http://www.uwf.edu/rsnyder/reports/fluoride.html), and have been shown to contain significant errors (see the link). But sites like fluoridealert.org don't care if it's good science -- they're happy to pick and choose whatever studies support their agenda. The overwhelming scientific concensus seems to be in favor of water fluoridation, as evidenced by the numerous well-recognized professional organizations of doctors and dentists who support water fluoridation (http://www.fluoridefacts.org/fluoride/flu_supp_org.asp).
This is exactly the reason I'm not interested in a debate with someone whose sole source of information appears to be one website with an agenda. Sorry, haysboy4, you'll have to find someone else to play with. I'm done here.

[haysboy4]

QED, I have no problem with you bowing out of the debate, since other posters seem to have taken up the gauntlet. But I have just one parting question: how do you define the word "agenda"? The American Dental Association's website, fluoridealert.com, definitely has an "agenda". The "agenda" is to promote good oral health and the "safety and effectiveness" of water fluoridation. In contrast, fluoridealert.org has the "agenda" of demonstrating why fluoridation is unsafe and ineffective, contrary to widespread public perception and so-called "consensus" opinion from health and dental authorities. In fact, you could argue that every website taking up space on the Internet has an “agenda”. So what’s your point?

Bosda Di’Chi
Thanks for cluing me in to “maximal” traffic on this board. It’s good to hear more than a handful of people may be looking at these posts. :smack:

tim314
I appreciate the link to the Escambia County fluoridation review. I'm always scouring the Internet and other sources for both pro and anti fluoridation literature for a series of articles I'm writing, and this one has so far escaped me. I’ll add to the foot long drawer of pro-fluoridation articles I already have on file. From my first reading, there are very few points in it that I haven’t already seen in other places, and that haven’t already been addressed by the much better informed fluoridation foes. I’ll address the Escambia paper last.

Here are my comments on your some of your other points:

1. Re: “very light spots”, otherwise known as dental fluorosis. According to the ADA, these are just “cosmetic” effects. Here’s what Arvid Carlsson, an internationally renowned pharmacologist and the 2000 Nobel Prize winner in Medicine/Physiology has to say about the issue: “[Fluorosis] it is a toxic effect and a cosmetic effect. These are not mutually exclusive. It's toxic and it's cosmetic.” It defies logic and all common sense to think that the teeth are somehow the only part of the body affected by swallowing fluoride. Fluorine and fluoride compounds are universal enzyme inhibitors. There really is no debate on this issue from either side. You have to ask yourself what other less visible parts of the body are being damaged by fluoride on its way to damaging the teeth.

2. Re: Fluoride and Thyroid function. I agree it is indeed “odd that an organization of 900 doctors and researchers specializing in the thyroid is unaware of fluoride's role in the condition.” One can only conclude that they are either ignorant of pharmacological history or don’t want to seem like “crackpots” or “alarmists” by even indirectly implying fluoride has a suppressive effect on thyroid function. Organic fluoride compounds in the form of Pardinon and Capacin (drug names) were at one time used to treat hyperthyroidism, mostly in Germany. Here’s a link that includes the history of fluoride-iodine antagonism: http://www.bruha.com/pfpc/html/thyroid_history.html

3. Re: “many of the studies touted by those anti-fluoride websites as demonstrating the dangers of fluoride aren’t published in peer-reviewed journals”. Okay, let’s take a look at one of those so-called dangers, namely hip fractures. Here are some links to a few discussions, along with the scientific references:
http://www.fluoridealert.org/health/bone/fracture/epi.html#1ppm
http://fluoridealert.org/health/bone/fracture/mechanisms.html
But I guess periodicals like the American Journal of Epidemiology, the Journal of Bone and Mineral Research or the American Journal of Physiology are not “peer-reviewed.” :rolleyes: And for the record, almost all journal articles “contain errors”. The real question is whether or not they contain enough errors to nullify the author’s conclusions. Also, don’t minimize the danger of hip fractures in the elderly; this is often a life-threatening trauma resulting in rapid decline and death.

4. Ah, the old list of unquestionably reputable “organizations that support fluoride.” Interestingly, in the Escambia County article you link to, the authors state, “The search for truth in science does not progress via a voting or poling mechanism.” But I can produce my own list of scientists that do NOT support fluoridation. Incidentally this is a list of individuals and not faceless organizations (who merely fell into line behind the U.S. Public Health Service when they threw their weight behind fluoridation. Most of the organizations listed in your linked page are trade organizations, and don’t do any original scientific research of their own):
http://safewater.tripod.com/voices.html
One can also add to the list the entire health ministries of Russia, China, India, Japan and Western Europe, with the exception of the UK. Actually, on the world stage, only about 300 million people (out of a total world population of 6.5 billion) are exposed to compulsory fluoridation. Even setting aside the third world, this hardly represents a “concensus” [sic] of support for fluoridation in the industrialized world.

Now to the Escambia County report. I don’t have either the time or the inclination and go through every paragraph of this report and point out its many errors, so I’ll just make a few observations:

1. Overall, it’s a fairly balanced and accurate report, especially when discussing Fluorine Geochemistry.

2. It makes a number of excellent points to the chagrin of fluoride opponents, such as claiming that Albert Schatz discovered streptomycin when he didn’t, or that Fluoride claims to be a peer-reviewed journal when it definitely isn’t.

3. The article points out that up to 50% of fluoride is deposited in the bone and other calcified tissues, but then goes on to say, “of the fluoride retained within a human, most will be sequestered in the bones and teeth, and its bioavailability, as defined by its ability of affect biological processes in the body would be considered rather low.” This is pure conjecture and treats bone as inert tissue, when in fact it isn’t; bone is almost universally regarded by contemporary physiologists as living tissue, with a continuous interchange of minerals between bone and blood supply. See the links above to my comments about hip fractures.

4. The entire discussion under “Caries Prevention” and “Mechanisms of anti-caries activity” is now widely recognized to be inaccurate and is scientifically out of date. As I stated in my previous post, the benefits of fluoride are realized by topical application, as in brushing, and not by swallowing it. In other words, swallowing fluoride to protect your teeth makes as much sense as swallowing suntan lotion to protect your skin. See: http://fluoridealert.org/health/teeth/caries/topical-systemic.html)
By the way, one of the key journal references was originally published in the Journal of the American Dental Association (July, 2000). Oh, but I’d better check to see if that one is a “peer-reviewed” journal.

The most difficult part to critique in any journal article or newspaper science piece is what the author leaves out. As far as I’m concerned the whole issue of fluoridation is rendered completely moot by the fact that it is unethical to medicate entire populations without their consent. Consider: a) sodium fluoride tablets can only be obtained by prescription, and not over the counter; thus it is a prescription medication and not simply “another additive” like chlorine or other agents used to make the water safe to drink. Those agents are treating the water whereas fluoridation is treating the consumer; this is enormous difference. b) Whenever fluoridation issue comes up in communities for vote, the vast majority reject it. c) fluoride is readily available through toothpaste, rinses, tablets (via prescription) and even by drinking large amounts of tea. Those who want it can easily get it. So why force on those who don’t want it? By the way, all you posters should go back and look at the last few sentences of Cecil’s column. He makes this exact same point.

I’ll leave this incredibly long-winded and no doubt yawn inducing post with one final quote from Dr. Peter Mansfield, a physician on the board of the York Review, that Q.E.D. originally cited:

“No physician in his right senses would prescribe for a person he has never met, whose medical history he does not know, a substance which is intended to create bodily change, with the advice: 'Take as much as you like, but you will take it for the rest of your life because some children suffer from tooth decay. ' It is a preposterous notion.”

[John W. Kennedy]

No, the "agenda" of the ADA is to promote good oral health, period.

The further you go, the further you dig yourself a hole, using all the rhetorical florishes that have been characteristic of unthinking propaganda ever since Gutenberg. A good example is the absolute "so-called", immortalized by the unfortunate Englishman who delivered himself in the 1940s of the immortal phrase "these so-called Germans".

If you want people to pay attention to you, stop using language that says you don't want that attention to be too close.

[haysboy4]

No, the "agenda" of the ADA is to promote good oral health, period.
Okay, sorry. My bad. I guess the extra clause in my original sentence added one too many "rhetorical florishes" for you. So let's keep it simple. Here's a quote straight from the ADA's flouridealert.com site:

For over five decades, the American Dental Association has continuously endorsed the fluoridation of community water supplies and the use of fluoride-containing products as safe and effective measures for preventing tooth decay.
Sounds like they promote the "safety and effectiveness" of fluoridation to me. So it's one part of "good oral health." So what? It's still an "agenda."

The further you go, the further you dig yourself a hole, using all the rhetorical florishes that have been characteristic of unthinking propaganda ever since Gutenberg.
Since you bring up the issue of propaganda, the fluoride promoters are no slouches at it, themselves. Edward Bernays, often called the "father of PR", was one of the original members of the fluoridation promotion team when it was first introduced into the U.S. Here's my favorite quote from him: "You can get practically any idea accepted," Bernays explained, "if doctors are in favour. The public is willing to accept it because a doctor is an authority to most people, regardless of how much he knows or doesn't know."

Also here's a link to the history of how fluoride changed it's image from a maligned environmental hazard and active ingredient in rat poison to "a beneficial provider of gleaming smiles". It includes a few paragraphs toward the middle of the article showing how Bernays was instrumental in this campaign.

Fluoride: Commie Plot or Capitalist Ploy (http://fluoridealert.org/f-industry.htm)

If you want people to pay attention to you, stop using language that says you don't want that attention to be too close.
Huh??? Aside from all those "rhetorical florishes" I've been using, most of what I've tried to do in my posts is simply summarize the research I've discovered that doesn't support fluoridation's "safety and effectiveness", then provide links to the articles and scientific references. Actually, I would love it if readers pay close attention. It also would be nice if they would open their minds enough to cut through this quasi-religious idea most of us have about water fluoridation's miraculous powers to dramatically reduce cavities without affecting any other part of the body.

Of the posters here who still think anti-fluoridationists are pseudoscientists, cranks or propaganda fiends, I have yet to see anyone attempt a rebuttal of any the information included in those links and references.

For example, I challenge any poster here to actually LOOK at the recent evidence demonstrating that fluoride only works by applying to the surface of the teeth, and not by swallowing it. If you think I'm picking and choosing my references to support my viewpoint, then how about just rebutting the conclusions of JDB Featherstone who published an article in the July 2000 issue of the Journal of the American Dental Association which included the statement, "Fluoride incorporated during tooth development is insufficient to play a significant role in caries protection." And, by the way, in the same paper he also talks about the insufficient role for fluoride circulating in the saliva.

Here's the link again for those have been thrown off the trail by all of my high fallutin', propaganda-laden verbiage:

Flouride Works By Topical Application and Not By Swallowing (http://fluoridealert.org/health/teeth/caries/topical-systemic.html)

[Czarcasm]

I'm curious. However do you manage to swallow all that fluoride without letting it coat your teeth first?

[John W. Kennedy]

Okay, sorry. My bad. I guess the extra clause in my original sentence added one too many "rhetorical florishes" for you. So let's keep it simple. Here's a quote straight from the ADA's flouridealert.com site:That is so massive a fallacy as to constitute the moral equivalent of a direct lie. Go away.

[haysboy4]

I'm curious. However do you manage to swallow all that fluoride without letting it coat your teeth first?
Great question!!! However, I don't know about you, but when I take a swig of water, it doesn't spend a lot of time touching my teeth. With the average gulp of bottled water (which a lot of people drink nowadays), most of the water goes past my teeth and spends the majority of time touching my tongue and the top of my inner mouth before moving past my throat. At most, it spends half a second touching the back of my teeth, and I'm sure I'm not that different in my swallowing habits than most people.

So maybe the ADA should start recommending that we swish our bottled water around in our mouths before swallowing it??? Show me the quote where they recommend this and I'll shut up.

[Czarcasm]

So maybe the ADA should start recommending that we swish our bottled water around in our mouths before swallowing it??? Show me the quote where they recommend this and I'll shut up.
Why do I have trouble believing this?

[haysboy4]

Touche, Czarcasm. (I love your moniker, by the way. Wish I'd thought of it first.)

But you'll likely get your wish anyway. Unless this discussion evolves beyond glib comments into a serious scientific debate, I won't waste my energy posting here anymore. So far it reminds me too much of the pointless arguments I used to have with fundamentalist Christians during my college daze. They weren't really open to looking at any evidence beyond their tightly constricted belief system. Except for the few posters who already had doubts about fluoridation, the same applies here.

Over and out.

[Q.E.D.]

Unless this discussion evolves beyond glib comments into a serious scientific debate, I won't waste my energy posting here anymore.
If it's genuinely a serious debate you are after, you're in the wrong forum. I urge you to open a new thread in the Great Debates forum, which is specifically set aside for just this purpose and gets easily ten times the traffic that the Comments on Cecil's Columns forum does. I must warn you, however, that unless you bring a broader range of cites for your position from sources other than the one you apparently shilling for, you'll have a rough time of it.

[Jackmannii]

Frankly, I would not be surprised if the ADA registered the fluoridealert.com domain as a response to the obvious militant anti-fluoride campaign being waged at the .org site.I think it's more likely that anti-fluoridationists created the .org site in response to the ADA's education efforts. Some militant fringe health "activists" use the tactic of registering domain names that are similar to those of respected organizations, hoping to trick people into being exposed to their propaganda.

Since haysboy4 identifies himself as a "science writer" of long standing, I wonder if he could identifiy some of the publications for which he's written (a link to any articles he may have composed on the Deathly Threat of Fluoridation may be too much to ask, but would be appreciated as well).

[tim314]

haysboy4, science doesn't progress by "polling", but it does progress by scientists looking at the data and eventually reaching a scholarly concensus. Those "faceless organizations" you deride are made up of actual scientists and doctors, who have no doubt read many studies on the effects of fluoride. They clearly outnumber the anti-fluoride crowd by a sizeable margin, and yet you seem to give their opinions far less weight. What makes you think you know better than them? Are you more qualified to judge the merits of fluoride than the Amerian Dental Association? Are you more qualified to judge its risks than the Center for Disease Control?

It's not so much your dislike of fluoride that bothers me, it's the fact that you seem overly willing to conclude that a large number of scientists and doctors are either liars or incompetant. Even if in your personal analysis you think that fluoride poses an unrecognized danger, a humble person would be able to say, "Wow, a lot of people who are in a better position than me to know don't agree." Even if all those doctors are wrong, your apparent sense of certainty suggests that you have very little respect for the scientific community.

To respond in brief to a few specifics:

- You argue that if fluoride affects the teeth, then it must affect other parts of the body. Perhaps, but that doesn't mean the effect is damaging. As I understand it, the spots that excessive fluoride produces on the teeth aren't any weaker than the rest of the teeth, they're just a different color. If you have different colored spots on your bones as well (but they continue to be just as strong), then who cares? (Besides, my point was that they deliberately limit the amount of fluoride to avoid producing these spots in the first place.)

- You cite the many countries that don't put fluroide in water as evidence against consensus. That's comparing apples and oranges. I'm saying there's a scientific concensus that low levels of fluoride (like there are in the U.S. water supply) aren't dangerous. Just because another country chooses not to fluoridate their water supply, that doesn't mean they consider it dangerous. They could just as well consider it simply unnecessary, or too costly, or they're providing fluoride through different means (e.g., fluoridated salt). If you want to argue that most of the world thinks fluoride is dangerous, find me a statement from a prominent, say, French medical association saying you should avoid even small amounts of fluoride. Don't just leap from "The French don't fluoridate" to "The French think fluoride (at the level found in the U.S. water supply) is unsafe."

[Askance]

2. Re: Fluoride and Thyroid function. I agree it is indeed “odd that an organization of 900 doctors and researchers specializing in the thyroid is unaware of fluoride's role in the condition.” One can only conclude that they are either ignorant of pharmacological history or don’t want to seem like “crackpots” or “alarmists” by even indirectly implying fluoride has a suppressive effect on thyroid function.No, those are not the only possible conclusions. Another one is that they have found no link between fluoride and thyroid function. But it seems clear that they are the only possible conlusions you allow yourself to consider.

[haysboy4]

tim314,

Thanks for making the debate a little juicier again. I'll respond to your post and a couple others in a few days when I have more time. Stay tuned.

[Jackmannii]

Here are a couple of good (http://www.quackwatch.org/03HealthPromotion/fluoride.html) links (http://www.acsh.org/healthissues/newsID.724/healthissue_detail.asp) on fluoridation benefits and the tactics of the scaremongers. From the American Council on Science and Health:

*People who drink fluoridated water for a lifetime will develop up to 70 percent fewer cavities (occurrences of tooth decay) than they would have without fluoridation.
* Because the technology is so simple and the fluoride supplement so inexpensive, fluoridation is extremely cost-effective. Studies indicate that a $100,000 investment in water fluoridation prevents 500,000 cavities.
* Each dollar invested in fluoridation prevents over $80 of dental treatment. Few disease-prevention efforts, and even fewer government-sponsored programs, achieve that level of return on investment.
* The average per capita cost of fluoridating America's public water supplies is 54 cents per year (or $40.50 over a lifetime). The cost of an average single-surface dental restoration is $55. Thus, provision of fluoride in water for a lifetime costs less than one small dental filling.

An example of how anti-fluoridationists misrepresent the facts (http://quackfiles.blogspot.com/2005/06/experts-condemn-anti-fluoride-claims.html).

Still waiting to hear haysboy4 explain more about his science background and how it trumps the qualifications of the vast majority of scientists and health professionals who have weighed in on fluoridation's benefits.

[haysboy4]

Ladies and Germs, the fly in the fluoridation ointment is back. (Sorry, for the delay, but my working hours can be unpredictable.) Rather than post one long, yawn inducing post, your resident crackpot anti-fluoridationist haysboy4 will break things up and respond to each poster individually.

Q.E.D

If it's genuinely a serious debate you are after, you're in the wrong forum. I urge you to open a new thread in the Great Debates forum, which is specifically set aside for just this purpose and gets easily ten times the traffic that the Comments on Cecil's Columns forum does. I must warn you, however, that unless you bring a broader range of cites for your position from sources other than the one you apparently shilling for, you'll have a rough time of it.

Thanks for the tips. I'll probably post a few more times here then call it quits, based on your advice. I assumed that a message board devoted to the Straight Dope, which is concerned with separating fact from mythology, would be more science oriented. Obviously, I was incorrect on that score.

Regarding the "shilling" comment, I don't really care where I find my scientific references, as long as they are from reputable sources, include good data than can be replicated in other peer-reviewed sources, and its authors use sound reasoning--unlike a lot of pro-fluoride "scientists" who jump to unfounded conclusions based on dubiously gathered statistics. (See the aforementioned Why I Changed My Mind About Water Fluoridation (http://www.fluoride-journal.com/98-31-2/312103.htm) for examples of faulty statistical methodology.)

So, in other words, I don't have any special loyalty to the folks at fluoridealert.org. In fact, I don't particularly care for some aspects of their website, and I also agree with some of the criticisms against it. For instance, they do support and cite studies from the journal Fluoride, which is not a peer reviewed journal and publishes many studies of negligible value. Also, their homepage does have a slight "militant" flavor, now that I think about it. I would rather they led with an article spelling out how and why sound science debunks the ADA's "safe and effective" claims, and perhaps one with an overview of scientific history demonstrating how "consensus science" has been wrong many times before.

However, they still seem to be the best repository of links to peer-reviewed scientific references and articles that support their position. For the record, I've been looking at both pro- and anti fluoridation information for close to ten years and fluoridealert.org is just one of hundreds of websites, journals and books I've looked at.

[haysboy4]

Askance,

Here's your quote and my reply:No, those are not the only possible conclusions. Another one is that they have found no link between fluoride and thyroid function. But it seems clear that they are the only possible conlusions you allow yourself to consider.
For the record my original quote was as follows:
One can only conclude that they are either ignorant of pharmacological history or don’t want to seem like “crackpots” or “alarmists” by even indirectly implying fluoride has a suppressive effect on thyroid function
Good for you for pointing out how dogmatic my statement really was. I'll try to do better in future posts. What I SHOULD have said was something more like the following:

One POSSIBLE conclusion is that they are not looking far enough back into the annals of pharmalogical history or they don't want to seem like crackpots, etc....

I did another look at the primary literature on fluorine compounds and thyroid function and came up with a few more tidbits:

1. Andreas Schuld, who is involved with a website called Parents of Fluoride Poisoned Children, has a link to all of the fluorine-thyroid antagonism studies here (http://bruha.com/science/html/f-___thyroid_i.html)

2. Schuld had to dig deep into the archives, mostly from Germany, to find a lot of these studies; so perhaps our most of our American thyroid experts can be forgiven for not being aware of them--although it would be nice if they would at least look at Schuld's site and make some kind of analysis and/or rebuttal of the data, especially given the statements from the National Research Council that I'm posting below.

3. I posted a link (http://www.bruha.com/pfpc/html/thyroid_history.html) earlier to a history of fluorine-thyroid antagonism earlier. Perhaps it would be better to provide a choice quote, rather than force everyone to scour through the web page and try to make sense of it, so here it is:

1944 - The editorial in the Journal of the American Dental Association (JADA) acknowledges that "...drinking water containing as little as 1.2 to 3ppm of fluorine will cause such developmental disturbances...as goitre".

1946 - The Atomic Energy Commission (Department of Pharmacology & Toxicology - headed by Harold Carpenter Hodge, incomprehensibly at the same time also head of the International Association for Dental Research (IADR) - acknowledges the German findings that all fluoride compounds - organic or inorganic - inhibit thyroid hormone activity, and declares this issue a research priority. No further research into this issue is conducted, however.

1947 - Casterra uses Knoll’s "K17", later to be renamed "Capacin”, in the successful treatment of 500 hyperthyroid patients.

1948 - Steyn (Africa) finds that fluoride has definite anti-thyroid effects. He investigates the incidence of endemic goiter in the North Western Cape Province in South Africa and reports that his findings "closely agree with the ... 1944 JADA editorial", and that goiters are actually 'fluoride-induced'.

1949 - Richard May reports on the highly successful use of the organic fluoride compounds Pardinon (IG Farben) and Capacin (Knoll AG) in the treatment of hyperthyroidism. Up until 1943, 10,000 patients had been cured.

Perhaps the most damning statements I've seen regarding fluoride and thyroid function comes from the 2006 National Research Council report entitled, "Fluoride in Drinking Water: A Scientific Review of EPA's Standards." For those of you not familiar with the NRC, they are made up of scientists from the National Academy of Sciences, one of the most respected--if not THE most respected--collection of scientists in the United States. Their earlier findings back in the 80's and 90's regarding fluoridation were used to guide the CDC's policies on this public health measure. Here is a quote from the NRC's report (http://www.nap.edu/catalog/11571.html?onpi_newsdoc03222006) :

FLUORIDE’S EFFECTS ON THE THYROID:

“several lines of information indicate an effect of fluoride exposure on thyroid function.” p197

“it is difficult to predict exactly what effects on thyroid function are likely at what concentration of fluoride exposure and under what circumstances.” p197

“Fluoride exposure in humans is associated with elevated TSH concentrations, increased goiter prevalence, and altered T4 and T3 concentrations; similar effects on T4 and T3 are reported in experimental animals..” p218

“In humans, effects on thyroid function were associated with fluoride exposures of 0.05-0.13 mg/kg/day when iodine intake was adequate and 0.01-0.03 mg/kg/day when iodine intake was inadequate.” p218

“The recent decline in iodine intake in the United States (CDC 2002d; Larsen et al. 2002) could contribute to increased toxicity of fluoride for some individuals.” p218

“Intake of nutrients such as calcium and iodine often is not reported in studies of fluoride effects. The effects of fluoride on thyroid function, for instance, might depend on whether iodine intake is low, adequate, or high, or whether dietary selenium is adequate.” p222

[Askance]

1944 - The editorial in the Journal of the American Dental Association (JADA) acknowledges that "...drinking water containing as little as 1.2 to 3ppm of fluorine will cause such developmental disturbances...as goitre"So where is the epidemic of goitre that should now have been rife in most of the Western world for the last 50 years? A bit of quick research shows goitre is hugely more common in the developing world, precisely where there is less artificial fluoridation going on.

[Jackmannii]

If there was "damning" evidence that fluoridated water was bad for public health, the National Academy of Sciences could have been expected to denounce it.

Instead, the NAS's press release (http://www8.nationalacademies.org/onpinews/newsitem.aspx?RecordID=11571) (which does not even mention the thyroid) only warns that high fluoride levels (the maximum allowed by the EPA) can cause tooth discoloration and pitting in children (something we already knew) and that a lifetime of drinking water with this high level could predispose to bone fractures. The amount they're talking about is associated with natural fluoride levels in some communities and is approximately four times higher than the amount in places that add fluoride to water to prevent tooth decay.

The concept that something that is beneficial at a low dose may be detrimental at a higher one, seems alien to anti-fluoridationists, as well as to crackpots in other health spheres.

As to researchers not digging far enough "back into the annals of pharmalogical history" - if you go rooting deeply enough into medical/scientific journals, you can find all sorts of mistaken ideas. If fluoride's opponents are reduced to skimming 1944 dental journals (and ignoring the American Dental Association's long-term support for water fluoridation), that speaks strongly to the weakness of their arguments.

[John W. Kennedy]

The concept that something that is beneficial at a low dose may be detrimental at a higher one, seems alien to anti-fluoridationists, as well as to crackpots in other health spheres.Except, of course, for the psycho^H^H^H^H^H^Hhomeopaths.

[Ludovic]

Fluoride! Apply directly to the teeth! Fluoride! Apply directly to the teeth!

[haysboy4]

Jackmannii,

Since haysboy4 identifies himself as a "science writer" of long standing, I wonder if he could identifiy some of the publications for which he's written (a link to any articles he may have composed on the Deathly Threat of Fluoridation may be too much to ask, but would be appreciated as well).

My ground breaking book, "Fluoride: The Great Evil" is due out from Random House next month. The subtitle is, "How water fluoridation is responsible for every human ill from hangnails to global warming." Anyone reading it will be forced to bow down and genuflect before my unparalleled scientific expertise, since I have multiple PhDs in cellular biology, toxicology, orthomolecular ichthyology, bedbug entomology and bullshitology. :D

Demented humor aside, what you are essentially asking is "What is so great about hayboy4's qualifications that his opinions matter more than the entire staff of scientists at the American Dental Association and all of those other fifty or so organizations that support fluoridation?"

This question is largely a red herring, and by the tone of your post, I think you know that. First of all, as you'll see in most of my posts, I've provided links to the opinions of other scientists--including dentists, chemistry professors, former fluoridation advocates and in at least one case, a Nobel Prize winning pharmacologist. If necessary, I can provide links to the statements of hundreds of other reputable scientists with credentials in medicine and/or dentistry, all of whom disagree with the ADA and CDC's support of water fluoridation in this country. To say that all of these people are "crackpots" is a bit of a stretch. But, in any case, my qualifications are largely irrelevant. I'm just the messenger here.

More to the point, I suspect your question was probably provoked by my blustering onto this message board with my "science writer" announcement, like my opinions should mean more than anyone else's here. If I could go back and edit out that statement, I would. I think my original motive was simply to emphasize the water fluoridation is a subject I've studied in great detail, both from a pro- and anti- perspective. It's easier just to say "science writer."

For the record, in case anyone gives a hoot, my background can be summed up as follows: I've been a science junkie since grade school, participating in science fairs, taking extra science classes, reading hundreds of non-fiction science books, and immersing myself in scientific topics from astronomy to cellular biology. I majored first in nuclear engineering at the University of Illinois, then switched to a double major in clinical psychology and biology, as a pre-med student, with the aim of becoming a psychiatrist. Later I dropped that goal and received a graduate degree in technical communication. Since then I've worked professionally as a technical writer, a lab technician and an IT professional for assorted companies, including stints at Bellcorp (now Lucent) the University of Chicago, Northwestern University and the Aon Corporation. Most of the professional writing I've done is proprietary and can't be accessed online (there are many kinds of "science writing", by the way). While I've had a few articles published a while ago in small press, currently, the only science writing, so to speak, that I've been doing for public consumption is for Booklist magazine (see this review (http://www.amazon.com/Hype-About-Hydrogen-Fiction-Climate/dp/1559637048/sr=8-1/qid=1171576593/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/103-5453605-9456601?ie=UTF8&s=books) of "The Hype About Hydrogen" at amazon.com for an example.) I am, however, working on a book tentatively titled, "The Truth Robbers" (a poor title, I admit; I'm just waiting for the inspiration for something better to pop in my head) criticizing science journalism in the mainstream press. My basic thesis is that, unlike political reporting, investigative reporting is basically nonexistent when it comes to science journalism. Science journalists simply lap up the crumbs provided by health and other scientific "authorities" and report it as fact. Any dissenting opinions are either ignored or spun in such a way that their mouthpieces are seen as unreliable.

But as I said, most of that background is largely irrelevant. Anyone can surf the Internet and come up with the same references to the fluoridation foes that I've found. What's more important here, I think is the amount of research I've put into this. Since I'm pretty a hardcore skeptic about a lot things (just a few of my favorite science oriented magazines are Skeptic and Skeptical Inquirer, which I've been reading for a good ten years now), I was initially very skeptical about the anti-fluoridationist position. When sites like fluoridealert.org and others began appearing on the Internet about five years ago, I began a pet project of debunking them. If you look hard enough on the Internet you can find websites supporting just about any kind of nonsense, from holocaust deniers to people believing in secret cabals that control the world's banking interests. I just assumed, like most people on this board, that the anti-fluoridationists were misinformed nut cases. In fact, if I had been posting here five years ago, I would have posted pretty much the same kind of arguments as everyone else here who criticizes my conclusions. Who are they to argue with the CDC, the ADA, the World Health Organization, and 35,000 studies on fluoride's safety and effectiveness?

The more I researched the issue, however, the more I realized how much the ADA, et al.'s stance rests on shoddy science, dogma, politics, groupthink and unfounded, uninvestigated assumptions. Apart from the effectiveness question, the idea that there are really thousands of studies out there proving fluoridation is safe and effective is simply bogus. What they are really referring to in these kinds of statements are thousands of studies using the same faulty methodology to prove fluoridation's effectiveness (none of which include a randomized controlled double blind study using either animals or humans) along with countless letters and reviews (none of which qualify as an original study). As far as "safety" studies go, if you don't look for toxic effects, you won't find them. As the saying goes, "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." But there are still enough valid peer-reviewed, replicated studies out there demonstrating fluoridation's toxicity, even in small "therapeutic" doses, to nullify water fluoridation's value as a public health measure.

As I wrote in my letter to Cecil, "I've come to the conclusion that fluoridation is based less on sound science than a kind of quasi-religious faith in fluoride as a panacea for bad oral hygiene."

But more on that in a later post. This one is already too long winded, and Czarcasm won't be happy.

[haysboy4]

Askance,

So where is the epidemic of goitre that should now have been rife in most of the Western world for the last 50 years? A bit of quick research shows goitre is hugely more common in the developing world, precisely where there is less artificial fluoridation going on.


Sorry for not being more selective with my quotes, Askance, or I would have spelled it out for you a little more clearly.

Goiter is just one of several thyroid disorders, which include Hashimoto's thyroiditis, hypothyroidism, nodules, etc. Goiter is, indeed, more closely correlated with iodine deficiency than anything else (here's a good summary from the NIH: Goiter (http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/print/ency/article/001178.htm))

However, in the link to Andreas Schuld's site, the scientific references highlight the suppressive effects of fluorine compounds on thyroid hormone more than anything else.

In my current day job working for a Chicago suburban hospital (the science writing has now been relegated to my "free" time), part of my responsibilities involve screening patients for assorted lab and radiology exams. Since I, personally suffer from thyroid dysfunction myself (okay no jokes implying that explains my crackpot opinions!!!), I take note when someone comes in with a thyroid related issues. Although my perspective is admiittedly biased, the amount of thyroid problems I'm seeing in the form of nodules, hypothyroidism, hyperthyroidsim and, yes, goiter, is curious if not downright disturbing.

Granted, there is no "epidemic" of goiter, but it definitely exists in this well developed country where, I should add, no shortage of iodized salt remains at hand.

What may be at epidemic proportions in this country, however, is hypothryoidism, i.e. suppressed thyroid hormone activity. According to RxList (http://www.rxlist.com/top200.htm), a site ranking the top selling pharmaceuticals, synthroid and levothyroxine (both prescribed for hypothyroidism) added together come in third place. I don't know how other people on this board define "epidemic" but this number at least provides food for thought.

Is there concrete, unassailable proof that fluoride is causing this incidence of hypothyroidism? No. But neither is there any proof that the pro-fluoride camp has eliminated this as a possibility. The much touted "safety" studies simply aren't there. Given that the NAS mentions fluoride-thyroid effects in their recent report, it should at least be a cause for concern. (And notice I said "concern", not "alarmism" or "scaremongering")

[haysboy4]

Jackmannii,

If there was "damning" evidence that fluoridated water was bad for public health, the National Academy of Sciences could have been expected to denounce it.

Uh, no. The report is an evaluation of the EPA’s maximum contaminant level, not a report evaluating fluoridation as a public health policy. According to Dr. Hardy Limeback, one of the members of the committee, “We were clearly instructed to avoid trying to figure out a new MCLG (maximum contaminant level).” The committee had a specific mandate to follow, and as objective scientists, they stayed within the limits of the study. Their conclusions are guided by science, not political grandstanding. In other words, “denouncements” would have been outside their guidelines. Here’s an interesting review of the NAS report by Robert J. Carton, a former risk assessment scientist for the EPA: NAS Review (http://www.fluoridealert.org/health/epa/nrc/carton-2006.pdf)

The concept that something that is beneficial at a low dose may be detrimental at a higher one, seems alien to anti-fluoridationists, as well as to crackpots in other health spheres.

Yeah, right. All those crackpot anti-fluoridationist dimwits, many of whom have advanced degrees in chemistry, toxicology and pharmacology, don’t know the difference between a therapeutic dose and a toxic dose. The evidence suggests otherwise. Here’s a quote straight from Professor Connett at fluoridealert.org:

From the toxicological point of view, the gap between the therapeutic dose, the dose which is supposed to be of benefit to the teeth, and the dose that can cause toxic effects, is very small. It's much smaller than what we normally want, a factor of a hundred - that the toxic dose is a hundred times greater than the therapeutic dose. The optimum level for drinking water is supposed to be 1 part per million, the maximum contaminant level as prescribed by the EPA is 4 parts per million. That gap is far too small in my view.

Everyone who knows how to read a scientific report here needs to spend some time with the following article, which discusses in detail the overlap between therapeutic dose and toxic dose (and by toxic, I mean that which can have damaging effects on the body over time; not that which immediately causes death):

A Critique of the EPA's Maximum Contaminant Level Goal for Fluoride (http://www.fluoridealert.org/health/epa/critiques/fan051216.pdf)

Here are just a few of the flawed assumptions he critiques—including your own flawed assumption, Jackmannii, that somehow 4mg/day is dramatically greater than 1mg/day and therefore safe:
1) People only drink 2 liters of water per day
2) People get no exposure to fluoride other than water.

So those who drink four liters or more a day of water are chopped liver? What about construction workers, athletes, anyone working outside in the heat, diabetics, people suffering from hypothyroidism (I drink an average of two liters a day, myself—distilled, of course. ;) ) ???

[haysboy4]

I see the interest in this thread dried up pretty quickly. Either people moved on to much hotter topics or they quickly realized that posting here would just encourage that windbag, haysboy4. The best way to get rid of a lunatic, after all, is to simply ignore him.

Of course, another possibility is that the pro-fluoride camp proved their case once and for all, so no sense reading the posts of someone who’s delusional!!! :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Either way, there are a lot more pressing issues besides the real or imagined dangers of something that’s added to the water in miniscule amounts. Compared to global warming and terrorism, for instance, this issue shrivels to the size of a nanobot.

I'm not complaining, however, since that just means I get the last word. :D . This is my last post here, anyway, and I’m only writing it as a rebuttal to Cecil’s recent answer to my published letter to the editor, which can be read here (http://www.chicagoreader.com/features/stories/letters/2007/070216/) .

Cecil,

I stand by the "lazily researched dope" wisecrack in my original letter. All you did was find excuses not to examine the existing scientific literature that undermines the pro-fluoridation position. Unfortunately, this is the same attitude taken by everyone who represents the “consensus opinion” on fluoridation’s safety and effectiveness. Everyone "assumes" fluoridation must be "safe and effective" because it has the weight of authorities such as the ADA and CDC behind this proclamation. Everyone also "assumes" that thousands of scientists have reviewed ALL the evidence both pro and con to reach this conclusion. But there are good reasons to believe those assumptions are FALSE. You'll find my analysis of those assumptions, along with my critique of "consensus science" below.

With respect to the scientific literature, I’ll go out on a limb here and make a bold statement: anyone--and I mean anyone--including current members of the pro-fluoride camp--who objectively researches ALL the scientific literature, both favoring and undermining fluoridation, will come to the same conclusion hundreds, if not thousands, of reputable doctors, dentists and toxicologists have: fluoridation is neither particularly effective, nor particularly safe, contrary to claims by the CDC, ADA, and other health authorities. While research proving beyond a shadow of doubt that fluoride is toxic in the dosages to which we are daily exposed may not yet be as overwhelming as the evidence condemning cigarettes, there are enough waving, bright red flags to end water fluoridation for good.

Read the stuff you're citing a little more carefully, bub. While fluoride works mainly by topical application, drinking fluoridated water is as good a method of topical application as any. John Featherstone, author of the study you mention, writes, "The clinical effects of fluoride . . . can be optimized by using delivery methods that bring fluoride to the surface of the tooth and into the plaque. . . . These topical delivery methods are equally applicable to adults and children and include fluoride in beverages and foods, dental products and drinking water" (Featherstone, John, "The Science and Practice of Caries Prevention," JADA, July 2000, page 892, available online).

I'm well aware of Featherstone's conclusions in the published journal article. In fact, I literally have an entire file drawer devoted to pro-fluoridation literature, most of which I've read at least two or three times. As I mentioned in an earlier post, my original stance toward the anti-fluoridation people was to debunk them, based on the abundance of literature supposedly "proving" that fluoridation is safe and effective in the small daily doses that we are exposed to over a lifetime. Instead of just "trusting authority", however, I actually read the anti-fluoridation literature--something most head-in-the-sand pro-fluoridation advocates refuse to do--and found that, contrary to my errant assumptions, virtually all the of qualified scientists and health professionals who do not support fluoridation are thoroughly well informed about BOTH sides of the argument. Furthermore, their arguments stand on a foundation of sound logic and a careful review of ALL the science involved with this issue. Most of the posters on the board, as well as most pro-fluoridation health officials assume that the "anti-fluoride crackpots" are misinformed, or twist the science in ways that support a militant and alarmist viewpoint. This is assumption is utterly false.

In any case, Featherstone's remarks are mostly just face-saving rhetoric. Think about it. Here you have a study that basically demolishes the ADA’s previously set-in stone scientific evidence that fluoride protects the teeth not only by topical application but by incorporating fluoride into the tooth enamel. Literally hundreds of journal articles, reviews and official ADA literature before 2000 repeats the dogma that " fluoride is incorporated into the hydroxyapatite in tooth enamel to increase the proportion of fluoroapatite", thereby making tooth enamel more resistance to decay (see, for instance, the discussion under "Caries Prevention" at the following link, which was cited in an earlier post on this board: http://www.uwf.edu/rsnyder/reports/fluoride.html ). Do you honestly think the ADA—which is a trade organization for dentists and not a research organization—is suddenly going to say they've been wrong all this time and that water fluoridation is a waste of money? And if they've been wrong all this time about one of the key anti-decay mechanisms of fluoride, what else have they been wrong about?

As for fluoridealert.org, I notice that Stephen Barrett of Quackwatch includes its sponsoring organization, Fluoride Action Network, on a list of "questionable organizations" he views "with considerable distrust."

Cecil, if you sat down to think about this for more than a few minutes in your rush to get a rebuttal out ahead of the deadline, you’d realize how lame this argument is. What in the name of Galileo do the opinions of Stephen Barrett have to do with anything? (I mention Galileo because, like the Church authorities of the time who refused to look through Galileo's telescope, many fluoride advocates refuse to look at any evidence that undermines their own "faith" in fluoridation.) Did you actually try to read anything at the fluoridealert.org site instead of just adopting Barrett's own distorted opinion of it? This is nothing more than a thinly disguised version of the argument from authority. You, and the rest of the posters on this board would greatly benefit from perusing the following website on logical fallacies: Fallacy Files (http://fallacyfiles.org/)

Since two can play the reputation smearing game, however, it needs to be pointed out that, according to Barrett's biography on answers.com (http://www.answers.com/topic/stephen-barrett) , Barrett is an advisor to the American Council on Science and Health.
Here's what prwatch.org--the organization behind such muckraking books as Trust Us, We're Experts--has to say about the ACSH (from http://www.prwatch.org/prwissues/1998Q4/dogs.html):

Since its founding in 1978, it has actively courted industry support, offering itself as an off-the-shelf, available-on-demand source of "sound scientific expertise" in defense of virtually every form and type of industrial pollution known to the 20th century.

I’ve also been a frequent visitor at the quackwatch.com website, myself, since I'm a big aficionado of publications such Skeptic and the Skeptical Inquirer. Quackwatch was a major help to me several years ago when my wife was diagnosed with breast cancer. Since I didn't want to rule out any form of cancer treatment, including alternative therapies, quackwatch was invaluable in pointing out why most of the alternative cancer treatments failed to prove themselves in scientific studies. I found the analysis of those studies to be thorough, rigorous and relatively free of ad hominem attacks.

In jarring contrast to these objective and thoughtful reviews, however, the site still includes an embarrassingly feeble rant against anti-fluoridationists entitled, "Fluoridation: Don't Let the Poisonmongers Scare You!" (see: http://www.quackwatch.org/03HealthPromotion/fluoride.html)

The article is chock full of scientific errors, glaring omissions and fallacious reasoning. For instance the first two sentences reads as follows: "Fluoride is a mineral that occurs naturally in most water supplies. Fluoridation is the adjustment of the natural fluoride concentration to about one part of fluoride to one million parts of water."

Setting aside the manipulative use of the word "natural" (which almost every food company stamps on their products these days to give them a wholesome image), the chemical found naturally in water is calcium fluoride, and not hydrofluorosilicic acid, the chemical actually used to fluoridate the water in over 90% of fluoridated communities in the United States. Fluorine compounds vary widely in toxicity, from calcium fluoride to hydrogen fluoride. No safety studies have ever been performed on hydrofluorosilicic acid, which usually includes trace amounts of radium, lead, and arsenic.

The rest of the article is a hodgepodge out of date science, and ad hominem attacks. Not a single study cited by the anti-fluoridationists supporting their position is analyzed for flaws. While I won't go through all the errors in this article line by line, there is good debunking of the standard pro-fluoridation rhetoric at Deconstructing Michael Easley.
Deconstructing Michael Easley (http://www.fluoridealert.org/d-easley.htm)

Now as promised earlier, let's deconstruct the issue of consensus opinion in science. Many of the posters here have presented a very compelling argument that "consensus science" supports the safety and effectiveness of fluoridation. Jackmaani, and others have provided links to prominent health organizations as well as scientific reviews, like the Escambia County review cited above, which supposedly represents the accumulated weight of thousands of health officials. All of these officials have, one assumes, reviewed the accumulated scientific studies and not only support fluoridation but dismiss the small but vocal fringe of scientists and "poisonmongers" who irrationally, and apparently against all the evidence, claim that fluoridation is neither safe nor effective. Therefore--the logic continues--anyone who disagrees with the consensus viewpoint--whether it's little ol' me, haysboy4, or the other sources I've quoted, such as professor Connett at fluoridealert.org or the 2000 Nobel Prize winner in medicine, Arvid Carlsson--is more than likely misguided, misinformed or simply a "crackpot."

More than any other argument that's been posted here, this is probably the number one reason why most people assume the anti-fluoridationists are wrong.

However, there's another line of argument most of those in the "pro" camp haven't been considering. Let's just say it helps to have a thorough knowledge of scientific history:

I want to pause here and talk about this notion of consensus, and the rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you're being had.

Let's be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.

The above quotes are from Michael Crichton, physician and best-selling author of Jurassic Park, and come from a speech entitled Aliens Cause Global Warming (http://www.crichton-official.com/speeches/speeches_quote04.html). While I don't agree with his conclusions about global warming (in fact, the folks at realclimate.org have a pretty good rebuttal of his scientific views--free of ad hominem attacks, by the way), he has a lot of good points about "consensus science". He goes on to list many examples where consensus science eventually turned out to be wrong.

In addition, let me remind you that the track record of the consensus is nothing to be proud of. Let's review a few cases.

In past centuries, the greatest killer of women was fever following childbirth . One woman in six died of this fever. In 1795, Alexander Gordon of Aberdeen suggested that the fevers were infectious processes, and he was able to cure them. The consensus said no. There was in fact no agreement on puerperal fever until the start of the twentieth century. Thus the consensus took one hundred and twenty five years to arrive at the right conclusion despite the efforts of the prominent "skeptics" around the world, skeptics who were demeaned and ignored. And despite the constant ongoing deaths of women.

And shall we go on? The examples can be multiplied endlessly. Jenner and smallpox, Pasteur and germ theory. Saccharine, margarine, repressed memory, fiber and colon cancer, hormone replacement therapy…the list of consensus errors goes on and on.

Finally, I would remind you to notice where the claim of consensus is invoked. Consensus is invoked only in situations where the science is not solid enough. Nobody says the consensus of scientists agrees that E=mc2. Nobody says the consensus is that the sun is 93 million miles away. It would never occur to anyone to speak that way.

Crichton cites several examples. I can cite many more, even from recent scientific history. For a good list of fringe scientists and theories that later turned out to be true, see Ridiculed Discoverers, Vindicated Mavericks (http://amasci.com/weird/vindac.html)

My last comments in this long winded tirade have to do with the assumption everyone on this board seems to make that CDC officials, dentists and other health professionals have thoroughly examined the anti-fluoridation literature and found nothing in it to undermine fluoridation's safety and effectiveness. Personally speaking, I have worked closely with medical doctors and scientific researchers for over twenty years and I can tell you categorically most of them simply don't operate this way. They just don't have the time to review all the literature. An earlier poster on this board provided a link to a list of dozens of organizations that support fluoridation, under the implication that the scientists and researchers at these organizations are completely familiar with the scientific literature. A much more probable assumption, however, is that they've simply looked at one or two reviews or papers provided by health authorities such as the CDC, and put their seal of approval on fluoridation based on those reviews.

Well, here's an interesting review of the CDC's position on fluoridation. From my point of view as a longtime skeptic (and by the word "skeptic", I mean someone who is capable of questioning not only seemingly outlandish ideas, but commonly accepted ones as well), this review rips through the "consensus" support of fluoridation like a chainsaw. I honestly don't see how any educated person with even a basic understanding of science can get through this paper without at least entertaining serious doubts about fluoridation's supposed "safety and effectiveness." If there's one link in this entire post that you need to read, it's this one:

http://www.fluoridealert.org/cdc.htm


Cecil, I want to close with one final observation about the evolution of my own ideas on this topic. During my almost ten year research into the fluoridation controversy, I essentially went through four phases: 1) The anti-fluoridationists are obviously delusional; who hasn't seen "Dr. Strangelove," after all? 2) Hmmm. Well, okay, the anti-fluoridationists make some interesting points; but I'm sure all their arguments are sufficiently rebutted somewhere; after all, consensus scientific opinion favors fluoridation's safety and effectiveness. 3) This can't be right; the pro-fluoridation people are buttressing their viewpoint with bad science, poor statistical methodology, and shoddy logic. 4) It's clear as day when you survey all the scientific literature, fluoridation is neither safe nor effective, and the continued support of this policy by health authorities represents a triumph of distorted thinking over scientific reason.

If I had to guess, Cecil, I would say you are still stuck between stage 1 and stage 2. I give you credit at the end of your column for questioning why fluoridation should be forced on U.S. citizens, but it's obvious when I read it, that I'm much better informed than you on the issue. Sorry to sound arrogant, but it's true. Mind if I take over your job when you retire?

A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it." Max Planck