Flouride shows how bad science has staying power.
March 26th, 2008
|
When it comes to cell phone and wifi radiation, “electrosensitivity,” chemical sensitivity, depleted uranium, anti-vaccine movements and other fear-based and antiscientific trends, one might think that it’s only a matter of time before cooler heads prevail and eventually these wacky beliefs end up falling by the wayside. It does happen occasionally, as in the case of silicone breast and body implants, which are finally making a comeback after being accused of causing every medical condition in the book in the 1990’s. However, there might not be so much reason to be optimistic about the lifespan of anti-science movements.
Take the case of flouridiation of water. Although it does not get as much attention as at one time, there is still quite a following of the anti-fluoride movement and indeed the opposition to fluoride has managed to attach itself to other movements, such as vaccines, chemtrails and government conspiracies. The image to the right was taken from a real website. It seems completely over the top and downright offensive to imply that fluoride in water is a Nazi plot with a fluoride tank marked with a swastika. Survivors of the atrocities of the Nazis might not find the idea very palatable.
However to more than a few, the idea of adding fluoride to municipal water supplies is nothing but a massive conspiracy to pollute our precious bodily fluids. Just a few activism sites include: The Fluoride Action Network, Health Hazards of Fluoride, Fluoride is Poison, Washington State Citizens for Safe Water, The New York Coalition to Oppose Fluoride, The Conspiracy to Overdose America, Toxic Chemicals in Your Water, Fluoride: A Deadly Poison.
A little background…
Fluoride is the reduced form of the element fluorine. It’s an ion of fluorine which, in practice generally means a simple fluorine-based inorganic salt compound. The fluorine ion is therefore present in water where there are fluorine-salt based minerals which exist in the local water supply. Many areas naturally have a trace of fluorine in the water to begin with, but some areas do not have fluorine to begin with in the water supply. In areas which do not have fluoride in the water supply due to natural occurrence, it is often added in concentrations of about .7-1.2 parts per million. In the US all major cities add fluoride to the water supply and 70% of water systems are supplemented. In Canada it’s around half and in Europe it’s considerably less but many major cities have fluoride programs.
Fluoride is a necessary “trace mineral” which is necessary in order for the body to properly absorb and use calcium. A deficiency of fluoride is associated with poor bone health and especially with poor tooth formation and weak tooth enamel. In areas where fluoride is not avaliable in the environment, tooth formation can be impacted as can the general effeciency of calcium uptake into both teeth and bones. In some cases, fluoride therapy is called for in order to provide the necessary fluoride ions for proper tooth formation and dental health.
The controversy stems from the fact that fluoride is indeed toxic in large concentrations. Too much fluoride can also lead to an interruption of the body’s ability to absorb calcium and in very large doses it can be acutely toxic. Make no mistake: Fluoride is certainly not homeopathic, but like many trace minerals, such as iodine and cobalt, only a tiny amount is needed by the body in order for proper health. Potassium, for example of a nutrient which is necessary but can be deadly if administered in a single large concentration.
The controversy:
Fluoride was recognized as essential to dental health as far back as the early 1900’s and fluoride treatments were already common by the 1920’s and 1930’s. The first programs to supplement fluoride-deficiently water supplies began shortly after the Second World War. This is also when the controversy started. The contentions incuded that the fluoridation of water being a means to get rid of a “toxic waste of aluminum production that big aluminum companies have conspired to dispose of in water supplies.” (Some fluoride compounds are a byproduct of aluminum refining.) Others where that it was an attempt to reduce the world population, to eliminate the under classes, to control the minds of citizens, to make Americans or others weaker.
The conspirators included: the Nazi party, which was alleged to be operating from South America and planning to take over the world after fluoride killed everyone else; The Soviet Union; Corrupt factions of the US government; big companies; the medical profession; the United Nations and so on.
There have, of course, been plenty of studies done which show that the practice is safe and an effective way of insuring that the necessary levels of fluoride are provided, especially to children. The result of fluoridation has been general better dental health wherever it is used.
By 1959, it was becoming recognized that the anti-fluoride movement was not scientifically based and backed by a lot of really nutty conspiracy theorists. That was when Stanly Kubrick created the dark comedy “Dr. Strangelove.” If you have not seen it, you really should because it’s a great movie in general. In the movie, a nuclear attack is ordered on the Soviet Union by a paranoid US general who is convinced that fluoridation of water is a Soviet plot to pollute the precious bodily fluids of the world, without consent and with the intent of destroying all things good and decent. Nuclear war, therefore, is the only way of stopping humanity from being destroyed by fluoride.
This entry was posted on Wednesday, March 26th, 2008 at 10:38 am and is filed under Bad Science, Conspiracy Theories, Culture, History. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
View blog reactions
March 26th, 2008 at 10:58 am
General Ripper was a great character creation but not really based entirely on fiction. It’s a comic overstatement, but I love the way the logic is portrayed in Dr. Strangelove. Kubrick saw how idiotic it was at the time and I’m sure he wasn’t the only one. Many see how idiotic these same ideas or similar ones are today, but they still don’t go away.
It was the Soviets but now it’s the Bush Administration or some other currently in-vogue conspirator. Otherwise it’s the same arguments rehashed.
The more things change the more they stay the same.
Quote Comment
March 26th, 2008 at 11:23 am
When I was a kid I lived in an area where the water supply came from a few local municipal wells. There was no big water works, so there was not any major treatment (it didn’t need it) and no fluoride.
Because of this the dentists insisted that my parents give all the kids fluoride treatments when we went in and also that we used fluoride mouthwash and toothpaste.
I wonder if these actions are ever taken now by parents who run houses where you never drink tapwater but only bottled water. It would be about the same, I think.
Quote Comment
March 26th, 2008 at 12:13 pm
The water in my hometown in Ontario was not fluoridated, mostly out of concern that its prized qualities (it is very hard, but amazing water known in Canada as the source for the Sleeman brewery) might be lessened as a result. Of course, this means flouride treatments at the dentist (and they still haven’t figured out ways to make that taste good).
My concern would be, in the modern context of drinking only bottled water which usually has that 1ppm fluoride or greater, combined with dental fluoride treatments may result in some people developing brown, pitted teeth (ugly, but very resilient) as a result of over-fluoridation.
But yeah, the tinfoil-hat crowd needs to stop believing there’s a mind-control/genocidal motive. Everybody knows that’s what flu immunizations are for.
Quote Comment
March 26th, 2008 at 12:14 pm
Against Stupidity, the Gods Themselves Contend in Vain
Quote Comment
March 26th, 2008 at 12:45 pm
DV82XL said:
Are you saying the Gods are not Hominy Potent? Blast femur!
Quote Comment
March 26th, 2008 at 12:56 pm
No, I saying that Friedrich Schiller had our number
Quote Comment
March 26th, 2008 at 12:57 pm
I don’t know for sure about fluoride but I’ll say this much and that is that I’ve always been very suspicious about it. I don’t think it’s trying to kill anyone, eventhough it is highly toxic it isn’t enough to kill. What I have read though, and it was first an book which talked about it about ten years though, is that it does the exact opposite of what they say.
There have been experiments and even populations of people which prove that fluoride actually gets into the teeth and takes the place of calcium and stops it from solidifying like it should. Then the fluoride basically breaks off and any calcium attached to it comes with it and the result is the on a microscopic level you have holes in the teeth. Of course these grow and your teeth are so spongy that stuff gets in them and it decays them like crazy. It is like if you had no paint on a piece of metal it would rust. The enamal of your teeth is what fluoride attacks.
I think the myth of fluoride started with some dishonest dentists who used it to cause tooth problems. The problem is the government and the big organizations won’t admit they were wrong for so many years so now it’s taught as if it were the other way.
Quote Comment
March 26th, 2008 at 1:02 pm
DV82XL said:
If human stupidity could be converted to energy, we would likely burn up the planet. Alas, it sits quantum mechanically at the zero-point energy level.
Nice that somebody outside Germany knows old Friedrich. He was born just a few miles from where I was. Old Albert E. not much farther.
Quote Comment
March 26th, 2008 at 1:03 pm
I found out this site also says depleted uranium is also not bad, so I think that shows how much it can be trusted!
Quote Comment
March 26th, 2008 at 1:08 pm
Wolly said:
It sure does. Depleted uranium is a lot like fluoride salts in that both are toxic in high enough doses and in both cases the dangers at low levels are at best grossly overstated and in generally things people are lied to about.
The fact that this website gives it straight out like it is and even does so if that means being unpopular and inviting in the trolls, I think that tells me how much to trust it.
Quote Comment
March 26th, 2008 at 2:11 pm
What is strange about this issue is that the other two halogens that have been introduced into our diet by legal fiat, chlorine and iodine, just as toxic in concentrated solutions, draw little fire from the nutbars.
Quote Comment
March 26th, 2008 at 3:07 pm
KLA said:
There’s actually a dangerous amount of energy there; it’s just that stupidity is relative. Half the population believes that the other half is stupid (and vice-versa), so it all cancels out and, in the end, nothing happens. This cancelling-out process converts the deadly potential energy of stupidity to harmless blog comments.
Quote Comment
March 26th, 2008 at 3:12 pm
Wolly said:
Yes, watch out, you’re in the land of those who prefer evidence over hysteria.
Quote Comment
March 26th, 2008 at 3:23 pm
DV82XL said:
Yes, not only that, people use the dangerous metal, sodium, a metal that burns when in contact with water and produces explosive gases, and the poison gas chlorine together as sodium-chloride. Run, run, the conspiracy is poisoning us. It’s even found in significant quantities in the oceans.
Quote Comment
March 26th, 2008 at 3:41 pm
DV82XL said:
Yes, of course iodine is basically the same thing. Iodine is very toxic and there’s a reason why iodine mixed with alcohol is used as a disinfectant: because it is so reactive that it will kill most bacteria and microbes.
They put it in salt though and the idea is to insure that everyone gets a trace in their diet relatively consistently since salt is in just about everything. When was the last time you saw someone with a goiter? It was once common in areas where there were no iodine-rich foods. It still is in some places.
It is the same as flouride. The body needs it for the chemical reactions but only a trace.
Quote Comment
March 26th, 2008 at 3:45 pm
It is amazing to me the staying power this has by constantly reinventing itself. Today fluoride goes hand in hand with chemtrails which the Bush administration is involved with and the illumaniti. A few years ago it was the underground government with the black helicopters and ufo’s. Before that it was the commies.
Fluoride used to be part of the same plot that had sputnik looking down on us and now it’s part and parcel of the 9/11 conspiracy folks. It’s like how wifi is the new cell phone radiation. Electrosensativity is the old multi-chemical sensitivity rehashed.
Same damn crap reenvents itself.
Quote Comment
March 26th, 2008 at 3:52 pm
Oh by the way. I know about the flouride crap that has gone on since I was a little kid. It comes up every once in a great while with the conspiracy claims. I have never seen Dr. Strangelove though.
I saw the clip though and that’s got a great really dark humor kind of thing to it. I just rented it on the way home and I’ll be watching it a bit later tonight. Hope it’s as good as you say!
Quote Comment
March 26th, 2008 at 4:13 pm
Iodized salt as the major source of dietary iodine for most of the population. Unfortunately, relying on salt for our iodine may not be effective. North Americans have been told to limit salt intake and are taking the advice to heart. Because excessive sodium intake can increase hypertension risks, many agencies now recommend reducing salt intake.
Iodine is necessary for the body’s production of thyroid hormones which, in addition to regulating metabolic rate, direct brain development, so iodine is critical in the fetus (the brain is formed during the 1st trimester of pregnancy), infants and children (brain development continues through adolescence). Lack of sufficient iodine is the leading cause of preventable mental retardation in the world. Even a mild iodine deficit in pregnant women, infants, and children, can lower intelligence by 10-15 IQ points, lessening an individual’s mental abilities throughout life.
Public-health studies over the past 30 years indicate that iodine levels in the U.S. population, particularly in women of childbearing age, are too low. Urinary iodine (the standard means of evaluating iodine levels in the body) has plummeted by almost 50% in adults, and the frequency of moderate iodine deficiency (urinary iodine excretion of less the 50 mcg per liter) in pregnant women has jumped from 1% to 7%. To underscore how low this is, the WHO defines iodine deficiency as a urinary iodine excretion of anything less than 100 mcg per liter.
Quote Comment
March 26th, 2008 at 4:27 pm
Definately salt intake is something we’re now supposed to limit, but everyone gets salt because it’s added to so many foods that I would have thought that even just the fact that salt is added and that nearly all salt is iodized would be enough even with low salt intake.
That’s interesting though. You don’t need very much iodine. What could be the answer? Add a little more to salt? or could that mean some would get too much? Maybe add it to other things like food products in general.
I think that no matter what, iodine in salt still helps tremendously compared to where it’s not done. It’s a question of does it help enough? If not maybe it should be added to other things or even suppliments for certain groups?
I have been thinking the same thing about the fact that kids are not given tap water to drink like they used to be. Everything is bottled water now. When I was a kid I also know I got a lot of tap water through concentrated drinks, but I don’t think people buy frozen juice concentrate like they used to.
Quote Comment
March 26th, 2008 at 4:34 pm
The suggested solution is to increase the level of Iodine in table salt (ie salt for human consumption) but the debate is by how much.
Quote Comment
March 26th, 2008 at 9:07 pm
Chuckles said:
It is extremely funny in a very dry and dark way. It’s a great piece of cultural history. The cinematography in it is amazing. The lines and characters in it have become iconic they’re so good.
I think you’ll like it. It’s one of my favorite movies.
Quote Comment
March 26th, 2008 at 10:48 pm
This is totally anicodtal, but I think it is a claim which is backed up with actual scientific study that confirms it. I remember my dentist telling me that there was a very noticable difference with kids who grew up with flouride water versus those who did not. Those without it had a much higher resistance to cavities.
Sadly for me, I grew up without it until I moved when I was 12 to an area with it. My two bothers, both younger than me had it when they were forming their adult teeth. By the time I moved it didn’t make as much difference. I was always jealous of them. Neither has had a cavity to this day, after 15 years. Not so lucky myself. I’ve been drilled at least four times. I’m not sure how many cavities total. I lost count.
Quote Comment
March 27th, 2008 at 7:36 am
Just checking, IrishKel, can you confirm that you accidentally reversed the sense of the last sentence in your first para?
And, for all, is the skull in the pool in the opening picture so obvious as to not be worth mentioning, or does it pass unnoticed?
Quote Comment
March 27th, 2008 at 7:47 am
OOps. Yes I mean. Those with it had higher resistance and those without had a higher caivity rate. Sorry!
Quote Comment
March 27th, 2008 at 7:48 am
Fluoridation began with the belief that INGESTED fluoride reduced tooth decay. Modern science proves that theory wrong. According to the Centers for Disease Control, fluoride absorbs into tooth enamel TOPICALLY to make it harder. Swallowing fluoride via the water supply exposes whole populations to fluoride’s adverse effects.
Fluoride is neither a nutrient nor required for heathy teeth. Fluoride-free diets do not lead to more cavities. Like all drugs, fluoride has side effects for some.
The fluoride most used for fluoridation are silicofluorides – impure waste products of phosphate fertilizer manufacturing which has never been safety tested on animals or humans.
Studies by Coplan and Masters and bolstered by CDC research shows that fluoridation chemicals increase children’s blood lead levels when lead is already in their environment.
Higher blood lead levels are linked to higher rates of tooth decay which may be one of the reasons that tooth decay is increasing in our largest US fluoridated cities.
the scientists and professionals which make up the EPA says science indicates that fluoridation is ineffective and unsafe. Management ignores them like they do on most politically sensitive topics. They and over 1600 professionals now urge the end of fluoridation and congressional hearings held about why federal officials continue to push fluoridation in the face of growing evidence of harm. Join them at http://www.FluorideAction.Net
The March 2006 National Research Councils fluoride toxicology report reveals credible research linking fluoride, even at low levels added to water supplies, to thyroid dysfunction, kidney, bone and tooth damage and found studies plausible which links fluoride to cancer and lowered IQ
Fluoridation 101
http://www.orgsites.com/ny/nyscof
Quote Comment
March 27th, 2008 at 8:14 am
Fluoride is not a drug, it’s a trace mineral. A mineral like iron, calcium, phosphorus, iodine etc.
It’s not something that is needed in any kind of quantity but it is necessary as a trace because the ionic activity of fluoride is important to enabling the chemical reactions which build calcium into the proper structure. Fluorine is somewhat unique in the high activity of the ion in chemical reactions. You don’t need very much and too much is harmful. Yes, we know this. That’s not new.
It’s amazing to me this is still taken seriously. This has been debated and debated for decades. People were panicking about this before I was born and still are.
Quote Comment
March 27th, 2008 at 8:14 am
It takes 25 comments until someone raises the civil liberties issue. It’s not so much that fluoride is a nasty addition (it isn’t terribly bad for the great majority) but surely we should be concerned about giving government the power to medicate everyone whether the everyone needs it or not? Whatever happened to the sovereignty of the free citizen?
Quote Comment
March 27th, 2008 at 8:21 am
Interestingly I found that a bunch of european countries started flouridation at some point and then stopped after a few years due to pressure from various groups. Not only in europe though, but also apparently this happened in Japan and in New Zealand there were plans for it but fanatical opposition stopped it. There are a few US states that stopped too.
In the UK, the “Greens” refer to fluoride as “poisoned water supply” and make it a campaign issue.
The UK medical review council did one of the most extensive reviews of all medical literature and studies on the issue. Hundreds of studies were cited. They concluded there was no evidence of danger and that the benefits were moderate to very large and supported by a substantial amount of data.
Quote Comment
March 27th, 2008 at 8:27 am
KMcC said:
Medicate everyone? Jesus. It’s not a medication. What about those who get their water from aquifers which have fluoride in it to begin with?
Look, the government is responsible for certain things like legislating the air quality and water regulations and so on. This is the same bull**** you hear with nuclear plants “involentarily irridiating the population”
What about the fact that we all breathe air and the stuff that goes into our atmosphere is, in part, by virtue of what is allowed by the government? The government demands catalytic converters on cars which means there is more Co2 and less Co and ozone and such coming out the pipe. Maybe I wanted to breathe that CO in my atmosphere. Who are they to tell me?
But seriously, it’s by government sanction that coal plants operate and pump **** into my lungs. Where’s the outrage about that? That’s actually bad for you.
The government takes the damn water and has a responsibility to provide it in a clean, safe healthy manner. They filter it (do I want to drink filtered water? Doesn’t matter they filter it if I like it or not). Then they add enough chlorine to reduce microbial activity. Then they add fluoride. I have zero choice in either.
Quote Comment
March 27th, 2008 at 8:29 am
KMcC said:
If you are so concerned about the fluoride in the water, then you’re free not to drink it. Purchase your water from someone else. Have it delivered in bottles or a tanker truck. Or put in a cistern or drill a freakin well.
it’s not like anyone is forcing you to drink the municipal water supply. Go vote with your feet and do something else.
Quote Comment
March 27th, 2008 at 8:33 am
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration regulates fluoridated toothpaste as a drug for topical application. It has a poison warning on the back.
You can’t buy fluoride without a prescription.
Arsenic is naturally found in water. It doesn’t mean it’s a beneficial element.
Fluoride replaces to hyhdroxyl group in teeth and does make the outer enamel harder. However, it may hide decay and not prevent it. Teeth are made of very tightly spaced rods. Decay causing organisms can seep between those “micro-spaces” and cause decay not seen with the visible eye and not big enough to be seen on an x-ray.
However, a new electronic device called the diagnodent is revealing what dentist cause “fluoride bombs”
Quote Comment
March 27th, 2008 at 9:04 am
Drinking fluoride-free bottled water is not a remedy. Fluoride is absorbed in baths, inhaled in showers and cold mist humidifiers. it’s absorbed in foods such as rice and pasta and condensed in slow cook foods such as soups, gravies, and sauces.
You have to look at every product in the supermarket to see where it was bottled, canned, baked, manufactured and/or created as most tap water contains fluoride and most processed foods use tap water.
Additionally, fluoride containing pesticide residues remain on foods. As a result high amount of fluoride can be found in some grape juices and wine.
Other odd places for fluoride are in mechanically de-boned chicken in infant baby foods.
Fluoride condenses in bone as well as teeth and fluoride containingbone dust invariably gets into the baby foods, vienna sausages, chicken nuggets and other formed meat products.
Fluoride should never be in water supplies where dose is regulated by thirst – not body weight, age and health.
Over 10,700 individuals have signed the petition to stop fluoridation. you should too
http://www.fluorideaction.net
We have enough pharmaceuticals in our drinking water that we can’t control. Stopping fluoridation only takes political will and this flip of a switch
Quote Comment
March 27th, 2008 at 9:23 am
I can find 10,700 that will sign a petition for anything. As usual in cases like this people are getting excited about something small when there are much larger issues that swamp any effects that their pet beef might have.
A recent study at the University of Queensland disproved the commonly held notion of “fluoride bombsâ€, i.e. occult lesions being due to fluoride exposure. On this basis, they concluded the term “fluoride bomb†should be dropped from the lexicon of dental slang.
Your going to have to do better that link to some site that’s making a living off of fear and donations to impress this crowd.
Quote Comment
March 27th, 2008 at 10:50 am
Well put DV82XL.
Want to start a petition to stop petitions to stop fluoridation?
Or how bout a petition to stop stupidity? Although don’t ask me how to implement that one but from the petitions I’ve seen in the past, you don’t need to provide a feasible logical course of action, just demand the stop of something.
What I want to know is why people make crusades out of small issues like wifi, cell towers, fluoridation, padding street lamps to protect people who shouldn’t be walking and texting at the same time but what about the truely important issues? Are those too difficult?
Just read an op-ed piece about the $53 trillion SS/Medicare bomb that’s looming in the next decade. Where’s the petitions and crusades to fix that? or is that too difficult since it involves math? or perhaps its because there’s no easy solution and the hard solutions involve increased taxes and decreased benefits, two things that are never popular with the general public.
Quote Comment
March 27th, 2008 at 10:59 am
Joffan said:
I actually noticed the skull before the swatika but did you notice the town name on the water tower is Docileville? just wondering how many more cliche conspiracy references they could have added in there…
Quote Comment
March 27th, 2008 at 11:55 am
Actually, the 7,000 scientists and other professionals that make up the Environmental Protection Agency – whose job is to protect your health are opposed to fluoridation as well as those individuals who have signed the petition. In addition 1600 professionals including about 219 dentists also oppose fluoridation.
the January 2008 issue of Scientific American reports Second Thoughts about Fluoride:
“Some recent studies suggest that
over-consumption of fluoride can raise the risks of disorders affecting teeth,
bones, the brain and the thyroid gland,” reports Scientific American editors
(January 2008). “Scientific attitudes toward fluoridation may be starting to
shift,” writes author Dan Fagin.
Fagin, award-wining environmental reporter and Director of New York
University’s Science, Health and Environmental Reporting Program, writes,
“There is no universally accepted optimal level for daily intake of fluoride.”
Some researchers even wonder whether the 1 mg/L added into drinking water is
too much, reports Fagin.
After 3 years of scrutinizing hundreds of studies, a National Research Council
(NRC) committee “concluded that fluoride can subtly alter endocrine function,
especially in the thyroid — the gland that produces hormones regulating
growth and metabolism,” reports Fagin.
Fagin quotes John Doull, professor emeritus of pharmacology and toxicology at
the University of Kansas Medical Center, who chaired the NRC committee thusly,
“The thyroid changes do worry me.”
Fluoride in foods, beverages, medicines and dental products can result in
fluoride over-consumption, visible in young children as dental fluorosis –
white spotted, yellow, brown and/or pitted teeth. We can’t normally see
fluoride’s effects to the rest of the body.
Reports Fagin, “a series of epidemiological studies in China have associated
high fluoride exposures with lower IQ.”
“(E)pidemiological studies and tests on lab animals suggest that high fluoride
exposure increases the risk of bone fracture, especially in vulnerable
populations such as the elderly and diabetics,” writes Fagin.
Fagin interviewed Steven Levy, director of the Iowa Fluoride Study which
tracked about 700 Iowa children for sixteen years. Nine-year-old “Iowa
children who lived in communities where the water was fluoridated were 50
percent more likely to have mild fluorosis… than [nine-year-old] children
living in nonfluoridated areas of the state,” writes Fagin. Levy will study
fluoride’s effects on their bones.
Quote Comment
March 27th, 2008 at 12:59 pm
nyscof said:
My toothpaste doesn’t. It has fluoride in it.
Sure you can. You want some fluoride compounds just like the ones that go into water supplies?
Here ya go: http://labdepotinc.com/cart/search.php?stype=2&search=fluoride
It would if those in areas with aresenic had better general health and no apparent signs of negative effects
If it’s too small to be seen on an x-ray it’s doubtful it could be seen with the naked eye on the surface and it is simply that it is so small and minor that it has not gotten to the point of diagnosable as a cavity yet
Quote Comment
March 27th, 2008 at 2:08 pm
nyscof – the usual cherry-picking and selective out-of-context quotes that every POV pusher has to snow us with on other topics.
For example the National Research Council report actually says:
“Estimates from 1992 indicate that approximately 1.4 million people in the United States had drinking water with natural fluoride concentrations of 2.0-3.9 mg/L, and just over 200,000 people had concentrations equal to or exceeding 4 mg/L (the presented MCL). In 2000, it was estimated that approximately 162 million people had artificially fluoridated water (0.7-1.2 mg/L)”.
In other words there is higher exposure from natural fluoride concentrations, than from artificial. It goes on:
“Severe enamel fluorosis occurs at an appreciable frequency, approximately 10% on average, among children in U.S. communities with water fluoride concentrations at or near the current MCLG of 4 mg/L. Thus, the MCLG is not adequately protective against this condition..”
So really they are saying that in places where the fluoride concentrations from natural sources is too high, deleterious effects can be seen.
Well no kidding.
Nobody here has said that high concentrations are harmless, but like everything the old adage ‘the dose makes the poison’ holds true.
Quote Comment
March 27th, 2008 at 2:58 pm
From the NRC report:
FLUORIDE’S EFFECTS ON THE BRAIN:
“A few epidemiologic studies of Chinese populations have reported IQ deficits in children exposed to fluoride at 2.5 to 4 mg/L in drinking water. Although the studies lacked sufficient detail for the committee to fully assess their quality and relevance to U.S. populations, the consistency of the results appears significant enough to warrant additional research on the effects of fluoride on intelligence.†p6
“Fluorides also increase the production of free radicals in the brain through several different biological pathways. These changes have a bearing on the possibility that fluorides act to increase the risk of developing Alzheimer’s disease.†p186
“More research is needed to clarify fluoride’s biochemical effects on the brain.†p186
“The possibility has been raised by the studies conducted in China that fluoride can lower intellectual abilities. Thus, studies of populations exposed to different concentrations of fluoride in drinking water should include measurements of reasoning ability, problem solving, IQ, and short- and long-term memory.†p187
“Studies of populations exposed to different concentrations of fluoride should be undertaken to evaluate neurochemical changes that may be associated with dementia. Consideration should be given to assessing effects from chronic exposure, effects that might be delayed or occur late-in-life, and individual susceptibility.†p187
“Additional animal studies designed to evaluate reasoning are needed.†p. 187
FLUORIDE’S EFFECTS ON THE ENDOCRINE SYSTEM:
“In summary, evidence of several types indicates that fluoride affects normal endocrine function or response; the effects of the fluoride-induced changes vary in degree and kind in different individuals. Fluoride is therefore an endocrine disruptor in the broad sense of altering normal endocrine function or response, although probably not in the sense of mimicking a normal hormone. The mechanisms of action remain to be worked out and appear to include both direct and indirect mechanisms, for example, direct stimulation or inhibition of hormone secretion by interference with second messenger function, indirect stimulation or inhibition of hormone secretion by effects on things such as calcium balance, and inhibition of peripheral enzymes that are necessary for activation of the normal hormone.†p223
“Some of these [endocrine] effects are associated with fluoride intake that is achievable at fluoride concentrations in drinking water of 4 mg/L or less, especially for young children or for individuals with high water intake. Many of the effects could be considered subclinical effects, meaning that they are not adverse health effects. However, recent work on borderline hormonal imbalances and endocrine-disrupting chemicals indicated that adverse health effects, or increased risks for developing adverse effects, might be associated with seemingly mild imbalances or perturbations in hormone concentrations. Further research is needed to explore these possibilities.†p7
“The effects of fluoride on various aspects of endocrine function should be examined further, particularly with respect to a possible role in the development of several diseases or mental states in the United States.†p224
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
FLUORIDE’S EFFECTS ON THE PINEAL GLAND:
“The single animal study of pineal function indicates that fluoride exposure results in altered melatonin production and altered timing of sexual maturity (Table 8-1). Whether fluoride affects pineal function in humans remains to be demonstrated. The two studies of menarcheal age in humans show the possibility of earlier menarche in some individuals exposed to fluoride, but no definitive statement can be made. Recent information on the role of the pineal organ in humans suggests that any agent that affects pineal function could affect human health in a variety of ways, including effects on sexual maturation, calcium metabolism, parathyroid function, postmenopausal osteoporosis, cancer, and psychiatric disease.†p221-22
FLUORIDE’S EFFECTS ON INSULIN SECRETION/DIABETES:
“The conclusion from the available studies is that sufficient fluoride exposure appears to bring about increases in blood glucose or impaired glucose tolerance in some individuals and to increase the severity of some types of diabetes. In general, impaired glucose metabolism appears to be associated with serum or plasma fluoride concentrations of about 0.1 mg/L or greater in both animals and humans. In addition, diabetic individuals will often have higher than normal water intake, and consequently, will have higher than normal fluoride intake for a given concentration of fluoride in drinking water. An estimated 16-20 million people in the U.S. have diabetes mellitus; therefore, any role of fluoride exposure in the development of impaired glucose metabolism or diabetes is potentially significant.†p. 217
FLUORIDE’S EFFECTS ON THE IMMUNE SYSTEM:
“it is important to consider subpopulations that accumulate large concentrations of fluoride in their bones (e.g., renal patients). When bone turnover occurs, the potential exists for immune system cells and stem cells to be exposed to concentrations of fluoride in the interstitial fluids of bone that are higher than would be found in serum. From an immunologic standpoint, individuals who are immunocompromised (e.g., AIDS, transplant, and bone-marrow-replacement patients) could be at greater risk of the immunologic effects of fluoride.†p 258
“In addition, studies could be conducted to determine what percentage of immunocompromised subjects have adverse reactions when exposed to fluoride in the range of 1-4 mg/L in drinking water.†p259
FLUORIDE’S INTERACTIVE/SYNERGISTIC EFFECTS (w/ IODINE, ALUMINUM, ETC):
“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
“Better characterization of exposure to fluoride is needed in epidemiology studies investigating potential effects. Important exposure aspects of such studies would include the following: collecting data on general dietary status and dietary factors that could influence exposure or effects, such as calcium, iodine, and aluminum intakes.†p72
“Available information now indicates a role for aluminum in the interaction of fluoride on the second messenger system; thus, differences in aluminum exposure might explain some of the differences in response to fluoride exposures among individuals and populations.†p222
“With the increasing prevalence of acid rain, metal ions such as aluminum become more soluble and enter our day-to-day environment; the opportunity for bioactive forms of AlF to exist has increased in the past 100 years. Human exposure to aluminofluorides can occur when a person ingests both a fluoride source (e.g., fluoride in drinking water) and an aluminum source; sources of human exposure to aluminum include drinking water, tea, food residues, infant formula, aluminum-containing antacids or medications, deodorants, cosmetics, and glassware.†p42
“Another possible explanation for increased blood lead concentrations which has not been examined is the effect of fluoride intake on calcium metabolism; a review by Goyer (1995) indicates that higher blood and tissue concentrations of lead occur when the diet is low in calcium. Increased fluoride exposure appears to increase the dietary requirement for calcium (see Chapter 8); in addition, the substitution of tap-water based beverages (e.g., soft drinks or reconstituted juices) for dairy products would result in both increased fluoride intake and decreased calcium intake.†p43
“[G]iven the expected presence of fluoride ion (from any fluoridation source) and silica (native to the water) in any fluoridated tap water, it would be useful to examine what happens when that tap water is used to make acidic beverages or products (commercially or in homes), especially fruit juice from concentrate, tea, and soft drinks. Although neither Urbansky (2002) nor Morris (2004) discusses such beverages, both indicate that at pH
Quote Comment
March 27th, 2008 at 3:17 pm
Sorry – high concentration data doesn’t extrapolate back to low dose via the linear-nonthreshold dose-response model automatically. This is the biggest error in all of these low-exposure hysterias; things that are bad at high doses are not automatically bad at low doses. In fact they may be beneficial or even necessary to ingest at trace.
And for pity sake you are not going to make any point here by snowing us under with out of context quotes – we’ve seen it all before. At any rate there are no hard conclusions drawn there, it’s a call for further study. Proves nothing.
Quote Comment
March 27th, 2008 at 3:22 pm
Oh for CHRIST SAKE! Are we back to the whole “x number of experts/scientists/professionals/doctors say..” argument?
if you can show that a signifficant proportion of the established scientific body stands behind something then you might have a point. Do you know how many people in the world qualify for the title “scientist” by some definition or another? Depending on how loose your standard is for being qualified as a scientist it ranges from a real lot to nearly everyone!
This comes up time and time again “10,00 scholars say chemtrails” ‘12,000 scientists say that rf may be harmful” “700 doctors said that homeopathy is valid”
I’m so sick of that whole line of thinking it’s making me sick! Jesus, if you look hard enough you can find enough “scientists” who are blowing smoke out their ass about a field they know nothing about or who are just despirate for attention or who are not nearly as qualified as you make them out to be or whatever the hell you want.
Listen to the goddamned science, not the goddamned scientists. They’re not feakin infalable especially when you go cherrypicking for the nuttiest self-proclaimed “scientist” or “researcher” in the goddamned bunch.
Quote Comment
March 27th, 2008 at 6:46 pm
If you would take the time to check out the science, it is simple to see that science never ever supported fluoridation. But you seem to have an unshakeable belief. so be it
Quote Comment
March 27th, 2008 at 7:03 pm
I have checked the science and because, unlike you, I can properly interpret what I read, I find that it says the same thing I have pointed out before: large doses are toxic, trace doses are beneficial. Having said that there are water supplies that have a higher than optimum fluoride load due to the source that the water is drawn from, and in these cases the F-ion burden should clearly be reduced. This however does not mean that F should be eliminated or that water supplies without should not be supplemented.
Quote Comment
March 27th, 2008 at 9:33 pm
hey. Thanks for the tip. Dr. Strangelove was a killer movie! It was the best I’ve seen since I can’t remember when!
Quote Comment
March 28th, 2008 at 8:23 am
It’s a fantastic movie. As far as fluoride: “Mr. President, it is not only possible….. it is essential!”
Quote Comment
March 28th, 2008 at 1:25 pm
Okay, I have a serious question: What is the difference between the optimal amount and an amount which could be excessive?
If it comes down to you need 1.0 ppm to have good tooth health but 3.0 ppm will cause an over intake of it in a given person, then what about the person who drinks three times as much water as average?
What I’m basically asking is what the safety margin is for doing more harm than good. Is there enough margin to be sure you don’t overdose people in general?
I am tending to think it’s still a good thing. I’m not agreeing with anyone against it but I honestly want to know how much leyway one has.
Quote Comment
March 28th, 2008 at 3:36 pm
National Research Council report states that artificially fluoridated water is in the range of 0.7-1.2 mg/L, problems have been seen in 10% of the population where natural values were at or near the current legal limit of 4 mg/L.
Quote Comment
March 28th, 2008 at 8:32 pm
Has anyone suggested that area with fluoride in the water naturally try to scrub it out? I know that they do actually do that for areas with very heavy amounts, like anything else. Has anyone suggested that we have standards of near zero fluoride and take measures to remove it even when it’s under the limit?
That would be an interesting take.
Quote Comment
March 28th, 2008 at 9:47 pm
That was a very good question and yet another good answer from DV82XL which I would never know.
Also, Q has a good question but I’ll bet the answer is no because usually the addition of “unnatural” things is what gets people angry.
Quote Comment
March 29th, 2008 at 12:25 pm
The only European country which fluoridates their water on a national scale are the UK and Ireland. other countries have done it in the past or it is done in a few cities but not as a rule.
I do not think it gets anywhere near that kind of attention in the areas of Europe where it has been established, such as the UK and Ireland. What is interesting is that years back the Supreme court of Sweden and I believe other countries declared that water fluoridation was a violation of one’s basic human rights to their body and to consent of medical treatment.
People take that very seriously in some places, but where there are long established fluoride programs it is the butt of jokes. “Those crazy Swedes with their wacky fluoride fears.” It probably sounds equally silly to the majority of North Americans. It’s one of those things people seem to fear until they actually live with it and see it’s nothing.
Quote Comment
March 29th, 2008 at 2:13 pm
That’s how it is. If you live with something without getting the idea it’ll kill you it’s hard to introduce it after everyone is already familiar and accustomed to the idea. In South Korea apparently around the time that electrical appliances became standard someone got the idea that an electric fan in a closed room would kill you and now the world looks at them with bewilderment about why they would ever be concerned about that.
There was a post on here about that a long time ago. I liked the title it was something like “South Koreans are really stupid but so is everyone else”
Quote Comment
March 29th, 2008 at 10:10 pm
No one noticed the chemtrails in the illustration?
Quote Comment
March 29th, 2008 at 11:56 pm
How is it that I missed that???
Quote Comment
May 28th, 2010 at 12:32 am
My father is a dentist and when I was a child, he always made sure we bought frozen concentrated juice instead of the bottled kind. That way when it was reconstituted with the municipal water it would assuredly have fluoride in it. He knew we as children were not fond of drinking water and preferred apple juice or something, and since you can’t really fight that, he just insisted that the water in it be from the tap to make sure it had fluoride in it.
I know this is unscientific, but my father always said that he could see a marked difference in people who grew up in an area with fluoride in the drinking water and those who did not. He said that if a child had a lot of cavities he would ask the parents if they had public water or their own well, which would not have fluoride. It was pretty consistent that not having the fluoride made an impact.
Quote Comment