And Peanut Butter in our Chocolate!
I like the lead they sometimes put in my water to protect me from any radiation that might escape from my microwave oven.
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, 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
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.
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, which concludes that:
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:
Oh, really? Then what do you think of the following website?
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
I look forward to your response. Thanks for posting.
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.
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.
Great, then you can answer some questions prompted by the article you quoted:
-
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.
-
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?
-
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 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.
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.
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.
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.fluoride-journal.com/98-31-2/312103.htm
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
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
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.
“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!
If you think about it, you’re not supposed to swallow toothpaste 
Yeah, because they don’t want children to get “very light spots” on their teeth – this is according to the American Dental Association, who have argued that the warning labels on fluoride toothpastes are excessive (see the link).
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, 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.
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.
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:
-
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.
-
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
-
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. -
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):
fluoridation has dangerous long-term consequences to health:
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:
-
Overall, it’s a fairly balanced and accurate report, especially when discussing Fluorine Geochemistry.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.”
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.
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:
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.”
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
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:
I’m curious. However do you manage to swallow all that fluoride without letting it coat your teeth first?
That is so massive a fallacy as to constitute the moral equivalent of a direct lie. Go away.
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.
Why do I have trouble believing this?
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.