Ideas

What's Up With Fluoride?

My take on water fluoridation, based on current scientific knowledge, is that the benefits outweigh the risks.

By Ted Mitchell
Published November 26, 2008

I've been following the debate over water fluoridation with interest. There are two solitudes: scientists and policy makers who cannot seem to connect with the public; and various interest groups who grasp at whatever scientific straws are available and overinflate the concept of scientific uncertainty, adding large helpings of moral indignation.

Several years ago, I read a book by aerospace engineer and sociologist Alan Mazur entitled The Dynamics of Technical Controversy, which among other topics examined the chronicle of water fluoridation proponents and opponents over several decades.

The essence of this book was that in many controversies, you see a nonintuitive effect of increasing polarization of the allegations between opponents and proponents over time. Mazur's work is only a small part of the sociological literature for which this endless debate supplies a gold mine of material.

This controversy has been going on since the early days of the Cold War, where fluoridation of water was said to be part of a Communist plot to decrease the IQ of American children. More recent opposition is slightly more credible, but scientific objections are overwhelmed by political and moral objections.

Image: 'Fluoridate your water with confidence - use high purity Alcoa sodium fluoride' (Source: Mercola.com)
Image: 'Fluoridate your water with confidence - use high purity Alcoa sodium fluoride' (Source: Mercola.com)

On the pro-fluoride side, you have the organizations like the Canadian and Ontario Dental Associations, Health Canada, the WHO, CDC, and the U.S. Surgeon General who support fluoridation, but generally come across as condescending experts who dictate in top-down fashion what is good for us.

Image: You're not going to poison my water with fluoride! (Source: Illuminati News)
Image: You're not going to poison my water with fluoride! (Source: Illuminati News)

On the other hand, you have a mishmash of opponents, from rogue scientists and dentists to right wing nuts, some environmental groups, and a loud, ignorant public who couldn't think themselves out of a wet paper bag.

An interesting example of this muddled thinking is found in Wikipedia (I know...), where an article titled Water Fluoridation launches immediately into side effects of excess fluoride before efficacy is briefly discussed halfway down the page, and at least 2/3 of the article is dedicated to potential side effects.

A related page, Water fluoridation controversy redirects to Water fluoridation opposition, clearly a different subject. The resulting page is a confounded muddle of both topics, again heavily emphasizing potential harm.

When such heavy bias and failure to simply define the issue dominate internet search results, we have a deep problem.

The town I grew up in, Dryden, Ontario, recently decided to stop fluoridating water. There was strong public opposition to fluoridation, based in my opinion on moral indignation stoked by a hired gun scientific cynic. Self-righteousness is a recurrent theme up there.

More recently, a group of which I am - or was - a member, the Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment (CAPE), has embarrassingly waded in to this quagmire in opposing water fluoridation. Regardless of the rationale for this position, it is not worth being tainted by the company you keep. In my view, this endorsement degrades the many other more important health issues that CAPE aims to address.

The precautionary principle is the raison d'etre of CAPE, superficially consistent with opposing fluoridation, but missing the boat in that it should only be invoked in cases where scientific evidence is lacking or impossible to obtain.

This is not the case with fluoride.

I've sifted through a hundred or so scientific abstracts on the effects and safety of supplemental fluoride - just a small part of all the scientific articles published on the subject. It appears that the cavity reducing benefit from water fluoridation runs between 15 and 60 percent, is observed independently in many countries, and the effect is stronger in children.

Supplemental fluoride (e.g. toothpaste) is also important, but the additional effect of either supplements or fluoridated water when one of these is already present leads to diminishing benefits.

I couldn't find any credible evidence of harm in the doses used for fluoridation. This has been examined for many diseases and so far, nothing is worrisome. The only significant effect is a weak correlation with cosmetic dental fluorosis. More significant cases are almost always due to rare medical conditions or residence in an area with excessively high natural levels of fluoride.

My take on water fluoridation, based on current scientific knowledge, is that the benefits outweigh the risks.

The many studies and meta-analyses are not exhaustive, but the size of any potentially harmful effects must be small or these would have been detectable and reproducible. (A meta-analysis takes all the studies ever done on fluoridation, keeps the good quality studies, drops the poor ones, and pools the statistics.)

The most readable and objective meta-analysis I found is available online from the British Medical Journal: Systematic review of water fluoridation.

Their conclusion is more nuanced than the paternalistic public statements from dental and governmental organizations, and it bears reprinting here.

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...

The evidence of a reduction in caries [cavities] 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.

To clarify:

  1. Fluoridation doesn't matter much in the big picture of pollution.
  2. There is a better way to resolve this argument.

I cannot stress point 1 enough. If you care about environmental toxins, fluoride is way, way down the list. So if you go out on a limb insisting that fluoride be banned from the earth, then to avoid being a total hypocrite you have to be more concerned about things like greenhouse gases, second hand smoke, endocrine disruptors, coal plants, diesel engines, single occupancy driving, woodstoves, two-stroke engines, and pesticides.

As for point 2, this matter needs work, including hefty doses of public input and discussion into future scientific studies. I have seen no better example of the need for dialogue to bridge the widening chasm between the lay public and the ivory towers of epidemiology. This approach is necessary to make science more respected and useful to the public interest.

The alternative is a further polarization and false association of science with politics, thereby making it a divisive target for political attacks. Everybody loses in that scenario. Real science has no political agenda: truth is not affected by your interpretation of it.

Further Reading

Ted Mitchell is a Hamilton resident, emergency physician and sometimes agitator who recently completed a BEng at McMaster University. He is fascinated by aspects of our culture that are harmful, but avoid serious public discussion.

45 Comments

View Comments: Nested | Flat

Read Comments

[ - ]

By gullchasedship (registered) - website | Posted November 27, 2008 at 05:50:55

Well said!

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Brian Jackson in the UK (anonymous) | Posted November 27, 2008 at 06:28:37

All the most recent research and that dating back 15 years, warns that fluoride is a very toxic and agressive substance linked with very many health problems. This is not a matter of opinon but one of fact. On the other hand, the pro-fluoride propaganda is so out of date as to be laughable. It contains no factual or scientific justification. I could understand this if fluoride actually had some value and protected teeth but the reverse is the case. Like it or not my friend, the days of fluoride are numbered. I urge you to read all the recent information and not to cherry pick that which fits your mind set, that is what science requires. If you could demonstrate that the toxic waste they use in water fluoridation worked and was safe (not just the sodium fluoride which does occur naturally but is also not safe) then i would not have to waste my time lecturing to those who will not see. 97% of all fluoride added to the water supply to raise it to 1 part per million, goes straight to the sewer and then to the river. Even at levels as low as 0.21 PPM fluoride was found to prevent fish from spawning. If you think this chemical is safe, i am glad i am not under your care.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By nyscof (anonymous) | Posted November 27, 2008 at 07:26:04

Before you waste your time wading through fluoride/ fluoridation studies, take the time to read the studies which launched fluoridation to see how scientific they are and to see if you would lend your name or that of your organization's to those.

For example, the Kingston Newburgh experiment was the first time that fluoride was added to public water supplies and then children were examined for health effects as well as for cavity rates.

No adults were examined. Children sick two weeks before examination were excluded, effectively removing the very children who may have been sickened by the fluoride.

And there's much more.

It's always good to read the literature to try to punch holes in that which is presented. But look at the whole picture. And start at the beginning.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Jason from MN (anonymous) | Posted November 27, 2008 at 09:53:29

Dr. Ted Mitchell lacks a very important credential in this argument.

He was not appointed as the person in charge of making a medical decision on behalf of...well...anyone.

To the best of my knowledge, I cannot think of a single person in the history of the world that was granted permission to choose individual forms of medicine on behalf of mankind.

He can certainly research and offer his opinion and even act on behalf of his family- if they wish to agree with his line of logic.

That is problem with fluoridation. No one has the right to medicate their neighbor. It is so easy and cheap to obtain fluoridated toothpaste (or fluoride tablets) for oneself. Why the fascination with acting on behalf of so many unwilling- or probably better described as 'disinterested'- constituents?

Take care of yourself. Stay out of your neighbor's medicine cabinet. If someone wants a fluoridated product, let them. Otherwise, stay out of their (my) business.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By BE (anonymous) | Posted November 27, 2008 at 09:54:39

And here come the crazies! Look Out!

Thank you for such a reasonable and science based look at the issue of fluoridation. Its a shame that the next 30 comments will hijack this conversation to a never ending stream of hysterical anti-scientific butchery.

The only groups better at misleading the public and misconstruing scientific studies are the anti-vaxination people and 9/11 "Truthers", anti fluoride groups run a close third.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Jim (anonymous) | Posted November 27, 2008 at 10:22:18

This person is so full of himself we can only be happy to not have to spend time with him. In speaking with the so called experts in the Health department and other government agencies I find very few even know of the current science. The ADA people also just spout the talking points with blind faith and most never mention even dental fluorosis or infants not having formula mixed with fluoridated water. Should we the ignorant masses even be allowed to comment in theis persons perfect world.
Until the FDA can review and approve should we not have some doubt. The fact that the product used for 91% of fluoridation has never had one chronic study with health and benefit data is a warning in itself.
Anyone who looks at the dental data for WHO showing as great and greater cavitity reduction from the much greater number of non fluoridated countries. You have to be devoid of logic to then claim fluoridation is essencial to cavity reduction. It seems to be a non issue except for the known risks at very low levels especially when low iodine or calcium magnesium.
Waterloowatch.com has two lead studies by Maas and Coplan that clearly show that H2SiF6 damages water quality makeing it more corrsosive thus leaching lead. The FSA product is know to be at leat 25 more toxic on the LD50 scale then natural calcium fluoride for killing rats. There was proven a linear association for calcium fluoride by DEAN in the 30"s thatdental fluorosis damage increased as fluoride levels increased. 1ppm would give kids 1mg per day which would result in 10% or less of mild dental fluorosis. We are now at 51% Pizzo 2007, or 48.43% CDC 2003-2004 so exposures must have skyrocketed with food and bererage contamination as well as dental products at 1000ppm and above with young kids better at swallowing then spitting.
The big picture should start with ingested fluorides have little if any provable benefit so say the researchers. Topical maybe. Go to Yoder K.M. at pub med and discover most dentists have no clue as to the current fluoride science but instead rely on what they learned and ADA policy. I expect my dentist to be smarter then a fifth grader on fluoride. Most are not.
fluoridealert.org and the 8 papers at the EPA union site nteu280.org are a must to come into the 21 st century.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Joy Warren in the UK (anonymous) | Posted November 27, 2008 at 10:31:44

It would be better to engage the public in this issue far more evenhandedly that is currently taking place, for example, in Southampton, England. South Central Strategic Health Authority has released in the last 3 months a deluge of poorly-referenced skewed or one-sided 'facts' about water fluoridation in order to persuade the majority of the 200,000 people due to be fluoridated into believing in the 'benefits' of fluoride. And, although only mentioning dental fluorosis in passing in their leaflets and posters, if asked face to face, they still insist that dental fluorosis is a cosmetic manifestation of over-exposure to fluoride. Those UK groups opposed to fluoridation - Hampshire Against Fluoridation, National Pure Water Association, United Kingdom Councils Against Fluoridation, the All Party Parliamentary Group Against Fluoridation and many other local groups (plus Fluoride Action Network and the 2000 health professionals who have signed a statement against fluoridation) - have had to counter SCSHA's 'consultation' by issuing information which is 100% against fluoridation and which, in the main, is well referenced. Since there are no caries-preventing benefits from water fluoridation, they could do nothing other than coming out 100% against the practice. Those opposed to fluoridation, however, acknowledge that fluoride delays caries in young children but only because fluoride delays the growth of the deciduous teeth. They also acknowledge that fluoridated toothpaste and twice-daily toothbrushing accompanied by adequate calcium in the young child’s diet and a reduction in sugar and carbohydrates are the main ways in which tooth decay can be prevented. Living in a hard water area is also beneficial. They are not uncaring about the pain caused by dental caries but do not believe that the health of the majority should suffer for the sake of a very small number of children. And they have enough research evidence to uphold their belief that if fluoride damages the teeth (dental fluorosis), then it also damages bones.

Not all who are against fluoridation belong to "a mishmash of opponents, from rogue scientists and dentists to right wing nuts, some environmental groups, and a loud, ignorant public who couldn't think themselves out of a wet paper bag." Shame on you Ted Mitchell: if a man or woman stands up to be counted, it does not mean that he or she is a rogue scientist or a right wing nut. You'll be saying next that the Suffragettes, the Greenham Common ladies, the little black lady who sat in the front seat of a bus in the US, Gandhi and the US President Elect were or are all nutters. We should all be proud of, and support, those people who oppose the status quo. We should be proud of those who oppose this incredibly unwise ill-health medical intervention which removes choice and which, in the case of England, forces compulsory medication on to millions of people who are not in the target group.

Furthermore, those millions of people (the unwitting 'ignorant' public) would be less ‘ignorant’ if people like Ted Mitchell took the time to explain both sides of the issue to them. Armed with this knowledge, millions of people could then make an informed decision and be made to feel proud that they have taken their part in deciding the outcome. If no-one puts both sides of the issue to them, they will continue in ignorance. Before people vote in a general election, they are exposed to both sides of the political argument. In the same vein, we should not allow ourselves to be fluoridated without first being acquainted with all the facts. But this is precisely what is happening with the current Southampton consultation which would be entirely one-sided if it were not for the opposition of the people who care.

Ted Mitchell may have made up his mind. He should encourage the silent majority the courtesy of acquiring all the facts and deciding for themselves, and not allow himself the patriarchal luxury of deciding for them.


Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Full of YOURself (anonymous) | Posted November 27, 2008 at 10:34:49

"This person is so full of himself we can only be happy to not have to spend time with him."

Do you even know the writer to attack him like this? I do and he's a very humble and down to earth guy. Maybe you need to attack him personally because its harder to attack the FACTS.

Then you attack people in the health department, instead of facts you insult them on whether they "even know of the current science" and "just spout the talking points".

Oh, wait, you do have some facts, "The fact that the product used for 91% of fluoridation has never had one chronic study with health and benefit data is a warning in itself."

Oops this is a made up "fact", it's been studied extensively and small amounts of fluoride are not harmful but reduce caries among vulnerable populations.

Pah I can't even bother wasting any more time debating with the "crazies" who see a conspiracy behind every door and inside every faucet. So sad that this site is about to be overrun with them. Maybe the moderator can shut off the comments for this story before their server gets overloaded and shuts down.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Jim (anonymous) | Posted November 27, 2008 at 11:31:32

Did this doctor say fluoride is way down the list of environment toxins? Research before making public statements please.
As a air pollutant in the US between 1957 to 1968 air born fluoride had more lawuits and settlements then the next to pollutants combined. The EPA in the early 70's smokestack scrubbers were required of the phosphate industry who had paths of destruction downwind with animals crippled and crop destruction. Lucks for us the EPA allowed this scrubber waste to be used by water departments to improve our teeth instead of destroying cattle teeth. There is a excellent video showing damage to horses who can drink 10 gallons a day and have been damaged and put down at 1ppm city water. Fluoridealert.org.
The H2SiF6 standard can be gotten from your water department and is AWWA b703-06. Don't be shocked to discover a full page of never mentioned to the public contaminates most radioactive-but the worst may be arsenic. phosphate has natural uranium and up to 75% of the US yellowcake was produced at the same plants we recovered the uranium from. The price fell and the recovery stopp at all but maybe one of the 78 plants in florida.The had been sort of black operations for the AEC for nuke production and Florida admitted the had no building permits or records of one plants existance. When torn down the very radioactive materials with lots of radium scale were just buried in the huge ponds at the top of waste piles that scar west central florida moonscape like. This is not regulated as it is considered natural radiation even when concentrated and very deadly. Of course it has make it into the ground water and one entire pile even was lost into a sinkhole in 2004 right into our limestone aquafer.
It was not until 1996 that it was admitted the H2SiF6 is a radioactive brew but never to the public. See if you can even get a B703-06 from your water department. Mine refused and said they did not have one but it is the standard for the product --how could they not. NSF must test one batch a year from each plant but the product varies constantly as the rock changes so that one test means almost nothing and it is not shared with the public.
The EPA unions 11 in 2005 asked congress for a goal of ZERO as fluoride is a cumulative toxin just like arsenic and lead. 4000ppb is the MCL and goal also which makes no sense as ZERO is the goal for arsenic and lead with Max level of 10ppb arsenic and 15ppb lead but they put 1000ppb fluoride into the water when it is more toxic then lead. Fluoride is allowed to violate policy and the SDWA says the most susceptable must be protected with a extra margin of safety. People can have adverse health effects at lower then even 1ppm said the 2006 NRC and much science especially when low on iodine ,Calcium,magnesium,vit C, heart patient,kidney patient, senior over 50 and so on said the 1993 TOX profile but the promised follow ups have not been started yet.
Police state powers for medication with never tested toxic waste is foolish. The Fluoride Deception by Bryson is half government documents and transcripts showing clearly once secret papers clearly showing this policy was to protect industry and military contractors with the AEC. The evidence is over welming. The proof of value does not exist in current science. The proof of risk and harm at levels placed in our water does and at levels slightly above destroys millions in countries like India. They clim it increases cavities above 0.6ppm and Japan at 0.4ppm and above..Especially when low calcium as most are in the US. 9 of ten girls said WIC and 7 boys were low calcium intake. Kids need good nutrition and dentists who care. Most dentists refuse to treat poor kids on medicaid and fluoridation is their default treatment. See Burt 2007 for the Detroit study that shows this clearly in 5 decade fluoridated Detroit. Fluoridated innercities are where the big cavity increases. Massive dental fluorisis especially with blacks tells us they are fluoride toxic already. The CDC has a ethics charge on this topic.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By flora (anonymous) | Posted November 27, 2008 at 12:02:41

funny how in the old cold war days the paranoid body purists were all anti communists and right wing anti government libertarians worried about their 'precious bodily fluids' but nowadays that space has been taken over by anti corporate left wing libertarians and homeopathic magical thinkers who ignore meta studies and cherry pick quasi scientific sounding reports regardless of their quality.....

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Jim (anonymous) | Posted November 27, 2008 at 12:09:14

Please understand the H2SiF6 is a very different chemical and complex blend of radioactive contaminates. It was admitted again in congressional investigations 2000 Calvert by Charles Fox EPA that not a single study for chronic use have ever been done for health and benefit. This produce is b703-06 AWWA standard but No government agency actually tests it but NSF a non government does. The products tested for the thousands of studies are very purified sodium fluoride in double distilled deionized water. Far from real life because all water differ and often greatly in calcium ,magnesium and a long list of potential contaminates which fluoride is under law.
The FDA sort of grandfathered in under claims of being used prior to 1938 but under questing did admit no human uses could be found but did admit effective rat killer. FDA reply to Sally Stride. John Kelly congressman NJ waited 2 years for the FDA to admit they misinformed him and that fluoride was a new unapproved for ingestion with no review or approval ever.
There is a excuse for ignorance but please try to get at least one fact right next time. Dr Mitchell might be a nice guy but he is ignores the massive amount of data showing proof of fluoride damage at levels close to those many recieve in fluoridated cities. Most doctors think it wise to control dose and make it dependant upon personal health and situation. Most cities unfluoridated in the US have more then 10% with dental fluorosis which the theory was would not exceed 10% at 1ppm which would give a child 1mg per day. One brushing with big glob of fluoridated toothpaste can easly exceed that for most young kids as the youngest swallow half even when they do not try to. Many try to because of very tasty blends. 1000ppm toothpaste in a small pea sized dab is 1/4mg or the same as 1 cup 8 oz water at 1ppm. Most young kids get more fluoride then a professional could prescribe many times over. Is this logical or control. See Featherstone 2000 who with other researchers can not find any ingested benefit of fluoride or relationship of fluoride in enamel to cavity reduction or acid resistance. That was a theory that took on a life of its own with out proof of a mechanism of action. Lots of poorly controlled studies. If you get to pick the teams and the refs you control the results in any game. The foundation of fluoridation is junk science from short bias design studies that did not look beyond delayed eruption benefits and no control of examiner variability which is often bigger then the claimed result. Thus meaningless unless controlled.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Sally (registered) | Posted November 27, 2008 at 12:10:31

For a truly balanced perspective, I think it's important to read the responses that refute the BMJ journal article Dr. Mitchell cites. they are here: www.bmj.com/cgi/eletters/321/7265/855#10209

Besides that "meta-analysis" is way out of date. The most current review of fluoride/fluoridation research was published in 2006 by the U.S. National Research Council. Dr. Mitchell as an MD should have no problem plowing through this extensive research book www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=11571 which took a panel of experts thre and a half years to produce after careful objective study of all fluoride/fluoridation research. They didn't just rely on abstracts or summaries. There's a lot of information in the body of scientific reports.

I would like Dr. Mitchell to review the NRC report in its entirety and then tell us fluoridation is safe for everyone and why. But pretty please, do not rely on the summary or abstract

As a result of the NRC report, the American Dental Association and the Centers for Disease Control now advise that infant formula should not be mixed with fluoridated water. The Academy of General Dentistry warned Americans about that way before the ADA and the CDC and the AGD didn't beat around the bush.

As a result of the NRC report, the National Kikney Foundation withdrew it's support of water fluoridation because a malfunctioning kidney cannot properly filter fluoride from the body which will allow fluoride to build up in kidney patients' bodies to reach toxic levels. An added problem is that most kidney patients don't know they have kidney disease and no one's telling them to avoid fluoride.

After 60 years of water fluoridation, the NRC was the first to report in one place all the studies linking fluoride to endocrine dysfunction. This was never studied in the first human experiments and it's almost impossible to get funding in the US to study fluoride's adverse effectgs.

Fluoride is neither a nutrient nor essential for healthy teeth. Fluoride ingestion confers no benefits but does put people at risk.

Fluoridation just doesn't make any sense anymore to anyone who isn't politically married to the idea for one reason or another.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By jim (anonymous) | Posted November 27, 2008 at 12:32:18

There were 7 uranium recovery plants in Florida and 6 reproted closed by 1993. had a typo showint 78--sorry . Most cities were never even told it existed next door and workers in the nuclear industy during the war years were not told either to keep the plants secret and thus never used masks etc . Most die young of cancers and lung and heart disease never geting a dime in compensation for disabilities. The Fluoride Deception shows how this coverup was important to profitability on comp cases and environmental controls are expensive and especially during the 40's and the nuke programs it was ok to take off worker lives for the greater good. Read the documents and the AEC was even allowed to change fluoride studies to publish in the Journals of Medical and Dentistry. It became a benefit instead of tooth destroyer--but only on paper. New Zeland is having payouts for fluoride damage to crops but most are secret sworn to silence to keep us stupid and other damaged people from collecting also. This happened in Europe over a century ago in industrial areas. China has a huge problem now but now is shipping their smokestack waste for us in the US and over half of our dry product now comes from there for water treatment.. Cheaper . Uranium levels in cental florida are three times higher then north Florida phosphate but do not know about levels from China. Why would we ban toys with lead then put a lead leaching agent in our water. Washington DC from 2001-2004 had off the charts lead levels when the added chloramine instead of chlorine as it make the water much more corrosive for lead. They did a full court cover up warning only the small part of the city with lead supply lines but the whole city had the problem. Free water bottles and filters and warnings for only part of the city. They fired the corrosion expert when he would not assist in a cover up. Would you trust Washing to be honest about anything? Not wise. Trust less -verify with data.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By gullchasedship (registered) - website | Posted November 27, 2008 at 15:08:03

It looks like you got the crazies riled up in full force.

Maybe that's why half of council voted against fluoride. They're afraid of the crazies.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Ted Mitchell (registered) | Posted November 27, 2008 at 17:05:12

It seems nobody has been brave enough to concede the point about hypocrisy. Let's put fluoride in perspective.

As of now, the US has suffered over 307,000 traffic deaths since 9/11. That's 103 Sept 11ths and counting (from FARS average mortality 2001-7 data). 9/11 still weighs heavily on our minds. Traffic deaths do not. This is an example of the emotional hindbrain dominating rational thinking, facts be damned.

That's a bit off topic, but it illustrates the irrationality behind fluoride opposition.

Compare fluoride with PM air pollution. http://www.clinsci.org/cs/115/cs1150175.... Their estimate is for 800,000 worldwide annual deaths. Where's the emotional outrage there, it's certainly justifiable. Does fluoride kill 800,000 annually? Do you think?

Thanks to Sally's post. The BMJ responses are basically crap e-comments. However, there is a section of edited comments on this meta-analysis that is worth reading. http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/322/...

In medical studies, claiming the year 2000 is "Way out of date" is imho, "way out of line"

But the 2006 NRC report is worth reading, it is a fairly balanced approach to potential adverse effects. But in my quick reading of it they don't seem to indict fluoridation at low levels. Some of the studies reviewed do leave some unanswered questions such as the effect on the IQ of Chinese children in a couple of small studies. http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record... (the full book is available online)

I take the risks of fluoride seriously, it's just that when you look at things in perspective and try to be as objective as possible, the story of fluoride causing harm is a bit of a snooze.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Jim (anonymous) | Posted November 27, 2008 at 17:18:30

1 the claim that there is a weak association of fluoridation for dental fluorosis. !945 Deans chart showed 1ppm would yield no more then 10% of the very mildest damage. A very linear direct effect. Now Augusta Ga 1990 80% dental fluorosis with 14% moderate and severe at 1ppm. Pizzo 51%, Ireland admits about 53-54% and CDC 43.43% 2003-2004, Your review 2000 48% but only 15% in unfluoridated areas which is still 50% above what 1ppm should yield unless the current many other sources is the real problem. Much of this damage is noticable across the room. Cdc Science watch 24 at fluoridealert.org had CDC studies which show double the ugly moderate and severe for blacks. Is this acceptable to deceide who will be damaged without their knowledge of any risk. Safe for all and everyone benefits are the two most common claims of health department.
Dr. Hardy Limeback researcher claims the cost of these very expensive repairs exceeds even the claimed savings. Is anyone claiming no cause and effect with water fluoridation. It seems likely the backround exposure of all sources exceeds the original safe goal before the first drop of water is sipped. Should the risk be mentioned to the public. Is it a conflict of interest for the dentists to strongly promote fluoridation and rarely mention any possible negative effect. Cosmetic repairs have grown to a huge profit center for dentists. The JADA in 1972 said dental incomes were 17% greater in fluoridated cities. In 1976 CBC almanac showed 121 /100000 dentists in the first fluoridated cities, 76/ other fluoridated and 59/100,000 in non fluoridated. Surely dentists did not flock to cities with already perfect teeth. The ADA is a trade association with a goal of increasing income and they have shot dentists in the last 20 years to near double of doctors from about 2/3 income before. Wall Street Journal article. Why do I keep hearing the claim that dentists are putting themselves out of a job with fluoridation. The numbers say the opposite is more likely.
The real problem is poor kids get little care as most (80)% will not accept medicaid kids ever. My county has only 8 of over 200 signed up for the program but many only treat poor one day a week. Thats 4% with almost 50,000 kids and the health department claims 45,000 underserved with many never treated until its in the emergency room for big bucks and bad outcome for all. Fluoridation is a weak attempt to claims poor kids are cared for. The CDC data shows blacks damaged the most severly by fluoride and poor inner cities like Detroit long fluoridated 5 decades with out of control cavity increases and toxic fluoride damaged teeth. See Burt 2007 and understand nutrition, parential concern on brushing and a dentist who will treat. Parents often put babies down to nap or whole day with sugar rich bottles. Same for sippy cups. Ignorance destroys kids teeth with baby bottle tooth and fluoride makes no difference. Nutrition is always the foundation. Weston A price showed this clearly in 1939 with his book on dental health and nutrition which is still a standard. westonaprice.org Lets talk science not beliefs. waterloowatch.com fluoridealert.org sw4sc.org nteu280.org lots of one click videos with researchers many EPA scientists and researchers.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Jim (anonymous) | Posted November 27, 2008 at 17:50:18

so unless we have more then 307,000 proven deaths from fluoride we must debate auto safety. Point taken on the relative numbers and amount of consern. I am a very high water user and my sever joint pain problems drasticly decreased after not drinking the city water. I hope I am allowed to be concerned. Unless I can see some researcher that shows ingested fluoride has a measurable ability to reduce cavities it does seem even more foolish to even have to discuss . Where is this motherload of science that shows topical at 1ppm down your throat as the ingested preeruptive theory is now known invalid. See Yoder K.M. at pub med 2997 Indiana had only 17% of dental professionals that understood the new theory of posteruptive topical effect. Blind faith in ingested preeruptive is mentioned as outdated theory. fluoridealert.org has ingested fluoride article with over 20 researchers claiming topical not ingested in measurable effect. CDC in 1999 and 2001 MMWR mentions predominate effect topical. Brits in august claimed less then 1000ppm toothpaste is too weak to have much benefit for young kids. If 1000ppm is too weak how does 1ppm work?
Why must anyone have to pay to have a choice to not receive a medical treatment. They clearly state the disease of dental caries is treated by fluoridation. Even the FDA in 1979 removed fluoride from a nutrient or probable nutrient list after 3 lawsuits lost. The ADA also stated no claim of benefit can be made for fluoride bottled water for kids under 12 months. Sort of like the ADA and CDC infant formula caution from 2006 but others did this far earlier. Should we go the next step after the 1993 NTP unusually susceptable warnings. Most everyone but no promised follow up yet. Lets see how Osmunson does in Washington if fluorides are poisons or legend drugs with proper control of dose and patients needs.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By arienc (registered) | Posted November 27, 2008 at 19:53:19

I think despite the studies which to date seem to indicate that little harm is caused by fluoridation, the issue boils down to one of choice.

If fluoride is not added to public water, those who believe in its benefits do have the option to add fluoridation at source.

However if fluoride is added to public water, those who wish to choose not to consume fluoride in any quantity have no option whether or not they consume it. In addition, water which is used for other purposes than consumption also have flouride added, which accumlates in the wastewater and affects the ecosystem in unknown ways.

I believe that individuals should have the right not to be forced to ingest a drug or any other substance if they do not wish to.

I also guarantee that removing fluoride from the public water system will result in a huge reduction in bottled water consumption, which would provide further benefits to the environment.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By arienc (registered) | Posted November 27, 2008 at 21:09:22

I think despite the studies which to date seem to indicate that little harm is caused by fluoridation, the issue boils down to one of choice.

If fluoride is not added to public water, those who believe in its benefits do have the option to add fluoridation at source.

However if fluoride is added to public water, those who wish to choose not to consume fluoride in any quantity have no option whether or not they consume it. In addition, water which is used for other purposes than consumption also have flouride added, which accumlates in the wastewater and affects the ecosystem in unknown ways.

I believe that individuals should have the right not to be forced to ingest a drug or any other substance if they do not wish to.

I also guarantee that removing fluoride from the public water system will result in a huge reduction in bottled water consumption, which would provide further benefits to the environment.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Sally (registered) | Posted November 27, 2008 at 21:48:12

Dr. Ted, you are so off-base. There are many environmental concerns that we also work towards fixing, as individuals.

The truth is that about 3% of the population are activists about anything.

And the environmental and health problems caused by the fluoride chemicals (silicofluorides) added to public water supplies is easily fixed by turning off the flow of fluoride into our homes and bodies at the source - the water department.

Some people can eat peanuts, some people get a rash. Yet peanuts have killed highly allergic people.

From 1 to 5% of the population are allergic to or intolerant of fluoride; but their doctors are not trained to diagnose it. Could you?

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By adrian (registered) | Posted November 28, 2008 at 09:42:21

This debate reminds me of the "debate" over whether or not vaccines cause autism. In spite of their being no credible evidence that vaccinations are responsible for autism, even though many large scale studies have been conducted to address the issue, many people still won't vaccinate their children and urge others not to do so either.

This in spite of the fact that the benefit from vaccinations, in terms of sickness and death, hugely outweigh even the bad reactions that sometimes take place when children are vaccinated.

At the same time, these parents are (in my experience) much quicker to dose their children with a large variety of questionable medicines, from homeopathic quack remedies to herbs that have no scientifically proven medical efficacy.

It's the same situation with fluoride. The Spectator reported today that Hamilton is the most polluted of the Great Lakes' poorest cities (http://thespec.com/News/Local/article/473705), producing "2,240,453 kg of toxic air pollutants, such as lead and mercury, in 2005". And yet we're supposed to be worried about fluoride? It's nonsense.

As far as the choice argument goes that arienc and others have presented: you can also choose your public services. You don't have to drink the water.

People who attend public swimming pools swim in chlorinated water. Chlorine is a poisonous substance that is undoubtedly a far more harmful substance than fluoride, however, it serves a useful purpose, just like fluoride does. Don't like chlorine in water? Then don't swim in public pools. Don't like fluoride in water? Don't drink it.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Jim (anonymous) | Posted November 28, 2008 at 10:32:04

Dr Ted Adding HFSA damages the water drastly. Those that wish to remove the fluoride must also remove the very healty needed minerals like calcium and magnesium which are the foundation of healthy strong enamel and bone. 85% of people are said to use tap water to make infant formula. mothers milk has as little as .004ppm fluoride in non fluoridated areas and only slightly higher in fluoridated areas. Nature has seen fit to remove fluoride to protect the infant developing brain and other systems from fluoride. Normal adults kidneys filter out half of all fluoride intake from blood but young infants only about 14% so it is even more important to not tax their systems until the kidneys develope better function. Nature planned they only have breast milk at 250 times less fluoride content. 1ppm is not a small dose compared with breast milk.
The soy formulas when they first came out sometimes were even above 7ppm fluoride and devistated infants with fluoride damages. This was eventually lowered but it is still higher then regular formula. With the warnings for infant formula by government agency CDC and ADA and others little has been done to mention this to the public. I know as I talk to new parents when I see them and most have never heard of the issue. The ADA only did a press release in one state and the health departments in only 3 states accept the concept of no fluoride for infant warning. Wic healthy start and most health departments suggest strongly fluoride is needed for healthy teeth in infants. No mention of the other side so a parent can make a informed consent. In the black community many more have truely ugly enamel damage just like the CDC data has shown for decades. Yet the CDC does ZIP to inform those that very likely will be damaged for life by their policy. Is thisa the best we can do instead of a logical dental policy. Like I said before only 4% of the dentists in my county will even treat poor kids with medicaid dental. Any comment on that TED. Fluoridation is proven to damage the enamel of about 50% of the kids and it was claimed to only affect 10% at the beginning. Other sources of fluoride that is ingested has rendered this policy redundant and to boot the entire theory that ingested preeruptive benefit is now proven to be false.
There is no doubt arsenic and lead are not good for ingestion but the HfSA increases both in our water. When the MCLG for arsenic dropped to 10ppb from 50ppb many had tried for 5ppb and even 3ppb. at 3ppb many batches of HFSA would have to be rejected as having above MAL after added to water with is 10% of MCL. HFSA can put lead leaching off the meter if PH goes acid slightly or chloramine is use or if expensive orthophosphate is not used to reduce corrosion. No water plant is perfect and if the design of injection ports or valves are not flow proportional things can get ugly very fast. I know this can happen because this happened in my city and the state had to levy fines and threaten to take over before they corrected the problems which they have yet to admit to the public but were in the state report. This went on for several years. Arsenic is the worst contaminate in the FSHA But the leaching is shown by Dartmouth Masters and Coplan, Maas 2007, Coplan 2008 with the last two full studies at waterloowatch.com top of page. I have seen entire condo complexes that had to have every piece of copper pipe removed because of faulty water plant control of corrosion and the pipes looked like swiss cheese. Our bodies who knows.
FDA studies when done by the company owning the drug only have a negative finding 10% of the time but when done by a third part 50% of the time. Money buys favorable results often in faulty science. Funding is control by agencies that have a dogma of benefit and safety and have been know to strip funding when not the desired results. Abstracts often go very light on negative fluoride effect or risk funding being ended. Research is channeled by what they will pay for and results determine future funding. This is not a arms length deal. Promoters can not be expected to fund the destruction of their honor and flagship policy. Where is the objectivity. Read some of the transcripts and see many decisions did not include much science and behind closed doors rewritten without the knowledge of the experts. The EPA Headquarters union got in the middle of the 1986 EPA increase from 2.4ppm to 4.0ppm against the 7-2 vote that they had no science to even show 2.4 safe and sever dental fluorosis was a medical effect. Some how that finding was altered and the 2006 NRC again shows 4.0 not protective but no action yet. Read the transcripts and it sure sounds like fraud. Same for the 4th annual dental convention where deception was planned to promote fluoridation based on PR. Frank Bulls statenments show true arrogance.--Things have not changed much..
Michael Easley DDs Florida Oral health stated 'Nobody drags anyone to a water faucet and makes them drink. Dig a well. Move out of the country' This was a state employees statement for anyone who did not like fluoridation. The state has not fired this sad excuse for a public servent yet. He should be the first cut. I mentioned to the state that actually kids have no choice especially babies. Is dental fluorosis a desirable thing to inflict on unknowing people. Safe for all. and everyone benefits are both lies for any medical treatment. Peanuts are a good example as many grade schools have become peanut free to protect one child. Am I allowed to make a difference for one person? Fluoridation violates the SDWA in the 1986 Amicus curiae brief 28 pages of reasons never looked at by the courts when the EPA scientists tried to protect the public as the law requires.



Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By WallOfText!? (anonymous) | Posted November 28, 2008 at 11:16:22

^ tl;dr

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By bulldog (anonymous) | Posted November 28, 2008 at 20:40:17

Judge Flaherty, later to become a member of Pennsylvania's Supreme Court, sat through weeks of testimony on the issue of fluoridation's dangers. He ruled that fluoridation at 1ppm was in fact dangerous to human health and also added that the proponents seem to do little but denigrate the anti-fluoridationists. His ruling was overturned on a technicality of jurisdiction but not on the merits of the case, which was never questioned.

A telling statistic comes from New Zealand which, since the 1930's, has offered free dental care to its children to age 13 with a resulting and revealing data base. A graph of the decades of NZ's declining tooth decay (of over 95% of the nation's children) shows a slope that is unaffected when fluoridation and fluoridated toothpaste were introduced in the 1950's. Fluoride had no effect. Maybe NZ children's teeth are different??

The Grand Rapids/Muskegon study, the first fluoridation study in the US, found tooth decay decreased somewhat more in the fluoridated areas HOWEVER...they don't mention that in the fluoridated city, the method was changed and many schools were dropped ONLY in the fluoridated city. That the study was bogus is proven because in the fluoridated city the incidence of missing, filled and decayed teeth among one class of students was better than the rate the same children had the year before. In other words their teeth repaired themselves! Even proponents don't make that claim for fluoridation! Obviously, the schools with the worse tooth decay records were eliminated but only in the fluoridated city! This is a classic example of biased researchers who worked to make the study fit their preconceived ideas. This shows, as the Nobel Laureate, Dr. Linus Paulig, PhD always admonished his people, "Don't just read the abstracts! READ THE STUDY!!!"

The China studies mentioned by the doctor as being a "couple" have now grown to 23. All of them show that children in China (whose exposure is primarily from air-blown coal-burning pollution) who have dental fluorosis (the outward sign of fluoride poisoning) had a 5 to 11 point deficit in IQ! Dental fluorosis now affects over 40% of American children in fluoridated areas. We look for the dumbing-down of our children everywhere but in the most obvious place. Add the published rat study showing that when rats are given aluminum and fluoride together it produces brain lesions identical to those in Alzheimers victims. Aluminum alone didn't do it. Fluoride is an enhancing transmitter from the gut to the blood and from the blood into the brain. An aluminum-fluoride pesticide is the most used chemical by vegetable and fruit producers. It can not be rinsed off in cold water, only warm water and soap removes it. Fluoride is in virtually all canned drinks, wine, food cooked in fluoridated water and is easily absorbed through the skin in bathing. The old accepted medical remedy for too much thyroid hormones was to soak in fluoridated water! Fluoride lowers thyroid and hypothyroidism is at near epidemic levels among humans and their pets. Everyone is getting fatter as fluoride lowers body temperature (undetected hypothyroidism) so we don't burn up calories.

Dr. Elise Basen, DDS, PhD compared the incidence of osteosarcoma (a rare but often fatal bone cancer) in fluoridated and non-fluoridated counties and found from a 5 to 8 times increase in fluoridated areas. This corroborates the NJ Health Dept. comparison of their fluoridated and non-fluoridated counties showing almost an identical finding in osteosarcoma among their children. It also corroborates a government rat study showing this cancer has a direct correlation with the amount of fluoride given the rats. Osteoarcoma seems to be caused by radiation and fluoridated water is radioactive and ingestion is particularly dangerous during the fast bone growth periods of children (5 to 8).

This study was Dr. Bassen's Harvard PhD thesis and was published in a peer-review Harvard journal. Her faculty advisor buried her findings and didn't mention them in his report to the NAS study group . He works for Colgate-Palmolive company: the guys who started the whole toothpaste with fluoride thing.


Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Doug Leutsome (anonymous) | Posted November 28, 2008 at 21:04:02

Responding to:
Don't like chlorine in water? Then don't swim in public pools. Don't like fluoride in water? Don't drink it.

I don't swim in public pools. Problem solved.

I don't drink fluoridated tap water. What about showers? Dishes? Washing Clothes?

If you are willing to promote the expense of fluoridation, then perhaps you are willing to take on the expense of installing whole-house reverse osmosis systems to unwilling fluoridated homes.

It only seems fair.

Why are you so bend on choosing my forms of medicine? I don't force you to get a flu shot or pop a couple of aspirin pills.

How about you take care of your own matters and leave mine alone.

Want fluoride? Go buy some. Why must the onus be on those that do not want it to remove/avoid as well as pay for it?

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By seancb (registered) - website | Posted November 29, 2008 at 15:23:25

"Don't like chlorine in water? Then don't swim in public pools. Don't like fluoride in water? Don't drink it."

Is this a joke? Water is the second most important substance to our life, behind air, and above food.

Swimming in a public pool is a necessity for no one. Drinking water is a necessity for all.

This argument holds less water, fluoridated or no, than a bucket built of holes.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Grassroots are the way forward (registered) | Posted November 29, 2008 at 17:33:56

Adrian: What about those who struggle in poverty, do they have a choice? What about thsoe the working poor, do they have a choice?

Nice that you live in your unreal, reality, you must be one of the "lucky ones". Gee I wonder do you enjoy a living wage, benefits and so on on the backs of the proor who fought for what you enjoy now?

You make to much money bud, join those who live poverty, those the working poor. Get you head out of the sand.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By proof (anonymous) | Posted November 30, 2008 at 02:26:27

Over 90% of European cities have no fluoridation in their water supply and yet have experienced the same decrease in tooth decay that we have experienced over the past 40 years. Simple fact.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By adrian (registered) | Posted November 30, 2008 at 21:23:27

seancb, you're taking my comments out of context, either deliberately, or because you didn't read what I wrote particularly carefully. It should be clear that I was referring to tap water, and the choice people have of whether or not to consume it.

Grassroots, it's precisely people in poverty and the working poor who benefit the most from fluoridated water, since they are much less likely to have access to dental care. Try explaining to people living in poverty that they can take fluoride pills if they want to prevent tooth decay, or that they can go see a dentist, instead of getting this great benefit for free in their water, and tell me how that goes.

Those of you opposed to fluoride in tap water: why are you not also opposed to chlorine in tap water? Don't all of the same arguments about choice, mass medication, etc., apply to chlorine? According to the myhamilton website (http://www.myhamilton.ca/myhamilton/CityandGovernment/CityDepartments/PublicWorks/WaterAndWasteWaterDev/Drinking+Water/TreatmentDistribution.htm) the process at the Woodward plant is as follows:

=========

The water treatment process consists of pre-chlorination, screening, clarification by means of coagulation with polyhydroxyaluminum chloride, floccuation by mechanical mixing, followed by sedimentation. The filtration process has been upgraded by the addition of granulated activated carbon (GAC) in the filters to remove taste and odour. This condition is usually present in the water in the late summer, when algae are abundant. Chlorine and ammonia are added to the filtered water to bring the combined chlorine residual to approximately 1.3 mg/L. Hydrofluosilicic acid (fluoride) is added to the drinking water to promote dental health.

What if I don't want pre-chlorination? What if I am morally opposed to coagulation with polyhydroxyaluminum chloride? What if I believe that ammonia is caustic (it is) and I don't want it in my water?

Why don't I have the right to get totally unadulterated water? Can't they just pump water directly out of Lake Ontario and into my house?

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By seancb (registered) - website | Posted November 30, 2008 at 22:44:39

No, I didn't take them out of context. I think you do not understand the complete lunacy of your comparison.

First of all, swimming and drinking water are so utterly not comparable when it comes to "necessity for living" that further clarification is not really required.

However consider this - you equate choosing "not to swim in a public pool" (an option which costs less than the alternative - swimming in a pubic pool) with choosing not to drink tap water, i.e. choosing TO drink bottled water (an option which costs more than the alternative).

Putting aside the absurdity of the idea of keeping fluoride, and instead drinking bottled water - an environmentally, socially, logically ridiculous concept - your suggestion represents clear discrimination based on income.

Aside from all of the studies of benefit or harm, I think the key wrongdoing here is forced medication. Why don't we load the city water with vitamins? How about adding vitamin C and calcium? Because it should be up to each individual to decide what supplements, if any, they want to take.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By A Smith (anonymous) | Posted November 30, 2008 at 23:15:56

Seancb, government forces people to do all kinds of things they don't want to do, so how is this any different? Government bans people from paying directly for life saving medical care, forces them to pay taxes for services they don't use, bans them for working for less than what they deem is an acceptable wage, bans them from accessing experimental drugs, so please control your selective outrage over fluoride.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Grassroots are the way forward (registered) | Posted December 01, 2008 at 06:34:13

Adrian: Flouride in the water does nothing to prevent dental issues, the poor and working poor need access to dental care, not a chemical in the water.

But then the agenda is to dumb down the masses. which chemical company do you work for or is it a government body?

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Jack D. Ripper (anonymous) | Posted December 01, 2008 at 08:30:27

Grassroots wrote "But then the agenda is to dumb down the masses."

Based on some of these comments it looks to me like Mission Accomplished on the dumbing down part.

If you think the fact that fluoride is harmful in large quantities means it must be harmful (or at least not helpful) in small quantities I recommend that you look up the dreaded scourge of "dihydrogen monoxide" (can't post the link b/c it trips spam filter) and especially the sheer number of people this deadly chemical kills every year.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By seancb (registered) - website | Posted December 01, 2008 at 12:33:40

Jack, if you register an account you can post links no problem.

Smith, I am not outraged, I just find the comparison of drinking water and swimming in it to be outrageous.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Ted Mitchell (registered) | Posted December 01, 2008 at 17:26:09

Wow, this has gotten out of hand!

I see recurring themes of 1. fluoride doesn't work, and 2. fluoride causes all sorts of harms.

As for 1, I can only look at the published science and interpret it. There are concepts like publication bias that could account for published data not being representative of actual data, but this is nearly impossible to determine, for fluoride or for anything else.

From the meta-analysis above, here are a couple of diagrams, please check them out! http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/article... http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/article...

Compared to the amount of benefit from your typical prescribed drug that has undergone meta-analysis, this is pretty solid data. Physicians care about this statistical concept that underlies much of the basis of modern medicine and it is the best tool that tells us what is safe and effective. More: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cochrane_Co...

So if have a level of skepticism that says, "that isn't true", for consistency you have to apply the same rule to everything else. This would take thousands of drugs off the shelf, and we'd only be left with some vaccines and maybe aspirin as prescribing options!

POint 2 is way more difficult to disprove. Again, if you use the gold standard that proves safety, i.e. large RCT's, many substances that would be unethical to administer in a blinded study would have to come off the market, e.g. all pesticides. So we're stuck with observational studies, which are known to be inferior to RCTs.

We're also beyond the point of being able to study fluoridation cleanly, because of globalized food distribution. This has the effect of blunting the difference between fluoridated / non-fluoridated areas.

Because of this, I absolutely support a change in studying fluoride that looks not only at source levels but body levels - but that's going to be expensive and difficult to test thousands of people.

One final wish, please are there any epidemiologists / toxicologists out there, known to be objective Mr. Spock types, who would care to comment?

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Name (anonymous) | Posted December 01, 2008 at 17:56:28


Hi all,

could Ted please respond to the comment made by "proof":

"Over 90% of European cities have no fluoridation in their water supply and yet have experienced the same decrease in tooth decay that we have experienced over the past 40 years. Simple fact."

Also, I think we should keep in mind that it took a great deal of effort to have lead banned from gasoline. It also took a great deal of effort to "prove" that cigarettes cause cancer.

It is always difficult to prove that toxic substances being consumed by the public are harmful. What the gasoline and cigarette experiences should teach us is that: WE SHOULD ERR ON THE SIDE OF CAUTION. When substances are widely suspected to be harmful to human health or the ecosystem, they should not be widely distributed or produced, if at all possible.

Is that crazy??

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Jim (anonymous) | Posted December 01, 2008 at 22:19:19

We have thousands of scientists and professionals at 19 EPA unions as of 29 FEB 2008 who want moratorium and goal of ZERO just like arsenic and lead. Read the history of the opposition at nteu280.org with 8 position papers and listen to experts ask congress to halt fluoridation 2000. The WHO data and CDC data clearly show decreasing cavities with ZERO relationship to ingested fluorides by fluoridation. The halo effect means uncontrolled doses to all almost impossible to control as nothing is labeled. Dental fluorosis is a biomarker for toxic overdose to about age 8 and was to never exceed 10% with 1ppm water. We now are at 50% and above and have moderate and severe damage in all areas not jus the 200,000 with over 2ppm natural who are warned to not give to kids anyway. Multiple sources means no control and if a unfluoridated area has 10% dental fluorosis then it is logical they are by other sources already getting too much ingested fluoride.
The early fluoridated toothopaste warned to no use in fluoridated areas or for kids under 6 yr until 1957. Double ,triple and more dosing is now ok.
I am still shocked at just how fluoride ignorant of current science most of the promoters are. They are clueless of the actual product and ZERO FDA approval. H2SiF6 is only co
llected to stop killing catle and crops by smokestacks but then put in our water. Not one chronic health and benefit study ever on theis toxic radioactive blend. The EPA refused to admit it had radioactive contaminates until George Glasser in 1996 got them to admit it came from a uranium mine producing 75% of the yellow cake for US until 1993. Deception is the only way these clowns do business. I read a transcript of the health department goons in Florida admitting at the plants everone called the recovery units pollution scrubbers. Maybe because they are. Regulation does not make untested toxic waste a product.
Government data showed from 1957-1968 airborne fluorides had more litagation and settlements then all other top 20 combined. It was king Kong but that stuff is what we add to our water now --Hfsa or AWWA b703-06 - Several agencies admitted never one Chronic benefit safety study yet. Poughkeepsie NY asked 3 pages of questions to 33 suppliers ---Not one answer about safe for humans or benefit. Six pages of questions for health department after refused to answer oral questions. stopped 50 years of fluoridation after waiting one year for answers. They know how to state policy and list endorsers and then hide like cowards. True con men and women as they do not read the studies. Acouple have but it is rare-very rare. Yoder K.M. 2007 at pubmed show dental professions unfit to advise as very science ignorant. !4% in Illinois and 17% Indiana understood posteruptive topical benefit. Most are in La La land with the tooth fairly with religion type belief in ingested fluoride. It is shameful. Kids need dentists to treat them and most refuse to treat the poor. Michael Easley thought it was not about the money as when he got them bigger payments and streamlined paperwork no additional dentists signed on. He thought they did not want to treat poor kids as they were tougher to deal with mostly and poor at keeping appointments. The new Levy study shows we already get too much ingested fluoride. You can generate proof of almost anything is you control the entire process and funding. Promoters can not be arms length objective.
Pit and fisure is 85% of cavities and fluoridation was never claimed to reduce this type so the huge decreases were stastically impossible if this was true. Delayed erruption and bias non controlled examiners with pressure to get good results is the formula for deception. Decreased cavities did happen for certain but also the far greater number of non fluoridated countries decreased as much or more. That is the biggest item of denial that makes the fluoridation benefit look very foolish.
Should I get a choice or should others vote medication for me? Pizzo 2007 shows no decrease in class inequities and no increase in cavuities when fluoridation ends. Tennessee has had 31 water districts stop fluoridation in the last 3 years and nebraska had 49 of 61 vote to reject fluoridation in November. Police Power of the state does not always win. Science can but only if you read it. Most dentists and doctors are on auto pilot and get the science wrong. I expect better. I expect disclosure and full transparancey not organized deception hiding known risks and 50% of kids fluoride toxic enamel damage.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Jim (anonymous) | Posted December 02, 2008 at 13:51:07

adrian seens to be Dr TEDS less able alter ego. Feel free to get a dose of reality and read the 10 pages of pre release Warren and Levy on fluoride intake and effects Iowa study.
Anyone who can read this and still find fluoridation meaningful is lost in space. Caries free status has relatively little to do with fluoride intake. fluorosis is clearly more dependant on fluoride intake. The term optimal or target intake is relatively moot as little relationship to cavities and never had science to support fact anyway and that only made sense when ingested fluorides were believed to have a beneficial effect pre eruptive for kids. Science now shows that theory invalid as topical is the mechanism.
To read the study and support fluoridation requires a disfunction in processing data. The CDC data showed this years ago as did the WHO comparing different fluoridating and non fluoridating countries. No Difference in caries declines.
The New Zeland data clearly shows decline slope was never altered in slightest by fluoridation or fluoride toothpaste as did not for release to public overall data showing ZERO overall differences in cavities by fluoridation. Income yes and thus you could design study to prove anything if you have total control of process. The Fluoride promoter was fired when he spilled the truth it was all a fraud.
Your superficial study of some abstracts impresses none that have read the studies or the transcrips of how the deception went on behind closed doors.
The Nteu280.org talked about a grievance over the 2 plus 2 =7 issue. EPA management had directed that it is the scientists job provide data to support management with data to prove 2+2=7 if asked. That is why outside contractors are hired to reevaluate(alter)negative reports to support policy of fluoridation. I agree with the EPA scientists that fraud is going on at the EPA by design. Ditto for CDC and FDA even more so with drug approvals by panels with conflicts of interests and ready for big pharma jobs as rewards for approvals. This is not arms length -The design is flawed to fail the public.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By nyscof (anonymous) | Posted December 03, 2008 at 07:23:28

Dr. Ted - You said " I absolutely support a change in studying fluoride that looks not only at source levels but body levels - but that's going to be expensive and difficult to test thousands of people."

That's actually being done with the Iowa Fluoride Study. Stephen Levy, the principal investigator, and his colleagues have been following a group of Iowa children for 16 years. He has published many research articles on this ongoing study. Many of them show that children are over-fluoridated with little, if any, benefit to teeth. But he's afraid to condemn fluoridation as it would certainly put him out of business.

He writes in his latest article in the Journal of Public Health Dentistry (online Nov 24, 2008)

"These findings suggest that achieving a caries-free status may have relatively little to do with fluoride intake, while fluorosis is clearly more dependent on fluoride intake."

He's an epidemiologist, a university professor, a dentist, and someone who has said in the past that fluoridation is a good thing. So I believe you can't get an any more objective statement than the above one by Levy .

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Jim (anonymous) | Posted December 03, 2008 at 10:04:54

Nyscof--- I read the Warren and Levy study and truely anyone that can read the 10 pages and still have a belief in fluoridation as a benefit is just not able to accept the bitter pill. The fluoridated water is just one part of the picture and the levels of total fluoride intake were very much varied and a poor predictor of decreases in caries but excellent to predict dental fluorosis. I crunched the numbers and thety show 41% of the kids haveing dental fluorosis.
They admit there is no such thing as a optimal dose and never any valid science behind the idea just theory based upon a false belief of ingested preeruptive benefit of fluoride. This false assumption from the 30-50's is still the foundation of what most dentists claim is science.
Even worse is that they also mention many of the lower income people dropped out of the study because of all the paperwook and visits so as bad as the results are we can be assured they were most likely worse in those that dropped out. In every state plus DC higher incomes predict less cavities but fluoridation does not in CDC data.
This study is sugar coated somewhat but the ugly truth stand out that fluoridation is excellent to deliver dental fluorosis enamel damage but unlikely to have any provable cavity reduction related to fluoride intake. Almost it is nearly impossible to expect anyone to even be able to know fluoride intake as almost nothing is labeled and can vary so much from each different source. But then ingested fluoride has little value so why exposure all to cumulative toxins with ZERO proof of benefit. Dr TED or mini TED Adrian do you think the Warren Levy data shows proof of benefit---Do you think dental fluorosis a good thing. I know it has been used as a excellent predictor of future bone fracture. Is that a positive?

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By adrian (registered) | Posted December 03, 2008 at 12:29:26

Name, Proof: re. "Over 90% of European cities have no fluoridation in their water supply and yet have experienced the same decrease in tooth decay that we have experienced over the past 40 years." Can you show me the data? Links to references, please.

Specifically, data that says over 90% of European cities have no fluoridation in their water supply (and that accounts for the many European cities where fluoridated salt is common), that they have the "same" decrease in tooth decay as Canadians, and that accounts for any existing differences between their countries and ours, such as fluoride rinses in schools, natural levels of fluoride in their water, etc.?

Jim: can you show me data that shows Hamiltonians have an unusually high level of dental fluorosis compared to communities without fluoridation? Can you show me data that shows that in communities with the same level of water fluoridation as Hamilton, and the same naturally occuring fluoride levels as here, there is a high degree of dental or skeletal fluorosis? Links to references please, not just a bunch of paragraphs that have no citations.

Ted showed data indicating the benefits of fluoridated water. Specifically, he linked to:

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=27492&rendertype=figure&id=F1 http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/article...

Both of those charts show data collected from multiple studies that clearly demonstrate the benefits of fluoridated water.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Jim (anonymous) | Posted December 03, 2008 at 16:57:18

Adrian--I have read the studies and do citations for most but do not memorize the links just the data. Fluoridealert has links to all of the above and just search on thir site. You can see a list of all european countries and their position statements on FAN also. It lists who fluoridates with salt but most do not..
The 2000 York review is also at FAN and showed 15% dental fluorosis in non fluoridated areas...48 in fluoridated and 12.5% ugly enough to require cosmetic restoration. Triple damage plus.. They also stated not a single of the 3200 studies was high quality bias unlikely. On the basis of the poor studies carie decrease could have been as high as 15% or maybe zero.
98% of western europe does not fluoride now. Many have in past but the details are listed at FAN also. I think a spanish city still does.
You will not find specific data for many cities on fluorosis. It is avoided with a passion. The health department in Florida told me it is not a medical effect and Florida keeps no records so could not give me data.
The 1945 Newburg kingston study claimed huge benefits but in 1998 Kumar with NY health dept discover slightly more cavities in fluoridated newburgh in never fluoridated Kingston with almost double the dental fluorosis in Newburg.
Where did all the benefits go?
The Warren Levy 24 Nov 2008 pre release clearly shows a huge range of exposures but no corralation to caries decrease. A very robust dental flurosis increase that is linear. But that was all documented by H.T. Dean which is the basis of fluoridation. It was proven on fluorosis but theory on cavity reduction. His 21 city study were just the cities that he found favorable data. The great majority of data showed the opposite. Calcium and magnesium were high in the cities cited which protects from fluoride damage and makes the teeth healthy. I just try to get peoples atention with the data but am not looking at the studies. In a effort to prove me wrong some actually look at the data.. Everything I talked about is at fluoridealert.org or waterloowatch.com but maybe you should start at ntew280.org which started opposition in 1985 when as the headquarters union they discovered fraud and altered documents and 90% of the unfavorable studies ignored... You can listen to a short video at FAN by Dr Hirzy to congress in 2000 and he makes most of the points. the 8 position papers are on the site under fluoride but they are not current. 29 Feb 2008 19 unions asked for moratorium and goal of ZERO.
Look at the waterloowatch.com and at the top of home page a study by coplan 2008 should wake anyone up how Hfsa makes water more corrsoive.
There are huge numbers of pages of very unfavorable government studies all over the place but it is much easier to have it in one place. Often then I go read the study in full. It is easy to create deceptive data as there are huge differences by income just look at the CDC data also on FAN by Osmunson DDS MHP .. That holds true in every state. Chris Neruth also did the same data in a chart also. I will try to get to the sites and put some links on but an getting ready to go speak to a city commission as I did last night also. Close to home is more important to me then Hamilton..
You should read Hardy Limebacks DDS researcher positions and his paper when he changed sides. He was one of the 12 NRC reviewers from 2003-2006 and admitted he had no clue as a leading researcher where this product comes from. He know from his practice and others cosmetic restoration for fluorosis now costs more then even the claimed savings would be. The 1986-7 NIDR study on 39,207 kids 5-17 ,84 communities showed no benefit at first. They refused to release and then only reported on narrow segments like 5 year olds and looked at surfaces to exagerate the effects as it really show delayed eruption which can be reported as fewer cavities. There is a slight shift in the graph but it is a delay.
If you really want a eye opener get a copy of the Fluoride deception by Chris Bryson which is half once secret government studies and transcripts released in 1996. It is a goldmine of coverups. The AEC was even allowed to rewrite studies on fluoridation for national security to protect the NUKE program.
I will be happy to answer any questions later and get some links but I need to get 11 copies ready for the commission.Florida pays the head fluoridation lobbist in the world to insult the people. Nobody drags andyone to a water faucet and makes them drink. Dig a well. Move out of the country. He said that this year to the chronical in California. I goty to debate him in the lobby.. He is a aggresive jerk but he is far from stupid but most of the supporters I talk do never read any current studies--The just cite policy and endorsements. Any moron could do the job.
I do not try to put anything out of contex and tend to remember most of the points. Wack me if I get the facts wrong. I can take it. Jim Sometimes you have to anger people some to get a response..Nothing personal really. Sometimes we aggree on more then we disagree. I just wnat people to not be forced with a medication that has no benefit. The water is not really the big issue with drinking but where else it ends up and all the new pesticies as now over 200 food groups can be fumigated with fluorides with the foods in the processing facility. Allowed levels of residue are up to 70ppm for any processed food like cake mix,hamburger helper etc and a heart stopping 900ppm for dried eggs. For the troops you know. I thought it was a typo at first but the whole regulation is at FAN also as Ann does the pesticides research. Check that out.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Jim (anonymous) | Posted December 03, 2008 at 17:12:07

See fluoridealert.org and do search for europe for list of countries and statments. go to bottom and click on trends to get the charts and you can blow it up full page. If they were not labeled it is impossible to guess who is f or not. Most developed counties do not fluoridate and WHO data is clear. I think it is 14 who do not and 4 who do over 50%.. World wide I think 8 are over 50%. Canada is dropping fast as is dow to 44% from 50%... The US is increasing but more cities are dropping then adding but the one adding are huge sometimes. 31 in TENN in 3 years and 49 in Nebraska in the NOV election out of 61. Shocked me as the Newspapers an dentists and health department push the issue and get most of the print. So called experts... Go to pubmed and search Yoder K.M. 2007 amd discover very few dental professionals even have a clue on the current science said the ADA test. 14% in Illinois.. Shocking and no excuse. Protect yourself from clueless professionals. You must do your own research. The look at a ADA site and sse it is all fluff and deception. Hope this helps Adrian.. Got to run.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Scourge! (anonymous) | Posted December 05, 2008 at 09:50:46

Hey there, fluoride fanatics, where is your outrage against the "forced medication" of iodized salt?

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Jim (anonymous) | Posted December 08, 2008 at 09:46:04

Iodine is a nutrient as proven by fact that goiter is caused by lack of iodine. Low iodine intake is the number one preventable cause of preventable retardation mentally worldwide. Iodine treatment of teath actually has been show to bee much more effective at cavity reduction the fluoride with less risk.
fluoride,chlorine and iodine arre all halogenos but fluoride bering the most electronegative of all ions and able to beat out iodine of its needed location in the thyroid and many other organs.
Fluoride does lower iodine in the entire body which increases damage to many.
The greater the fluoride the lower the iodine.
Many agencies have tried to create a need for fluoride but none is proven say the FDA in 1979 when it was removed off the list of nutrient or probable nutrient. ADA and CDC and FDA still try to claim it is needed but data shows the opposite as nature removes fluoride from breast milk with excellent results. .004ppm is 250 tiomes lower then 1ppm. Canada has been lowering the allowed level from 1.2ppm typical decades ago but .7ppm as the suggested limit today in attempt to reduce the increasing dental fluorosis enamel damage..Most mild but still only caused by fluoride overdose and worse if low on calcium or magnesium or vitamin C..All real nutrients teeth and bones require.
The Nov 24 2008 Warren Levy prepublication release show total doses of fluoride increasing greatly from the halo effect of all beverages and foods contaminated as well in increasing pesticides as now fluoride are used for food processing and storage but allowed to leave levels which dwarf the amounts in water. 200 food groups almost everythi9ng in the store but it was passed after 3 year test of profume on 20 products but never mentioned this is just vikane which is termite and wood borer tenting poison which leaves very high fluoride residuals. 70ppm allowed in any processed food with grain base but higher allowed for most grain products. 900ppm for dried egges which I thought had to be a typo as that is close to toothpaste but it is not, They are used in most bakery products for ease. Not every batch as fumigation is not done more then every 6 months but if you get that batch it is toxic. Fluoridealert.org has the entire list and full regulation. Waterloowatch.com is closer home to you and a real gem for full studies not just opinion and short top notch experts that tell it like it is. Dr TED did his 100 plus abstrasts which he shows to underimpress all with less knowledge but respect for the term Doctor. He does a disservice to all who expect the title to mean a even balanced science based understanding. Policy is bought and paid for by big money lobbists and none are bigger then the ADA for dentists. At the top level this is about income not dental health. It is about the perception in the US that poor kids are cared for by fluoridation as most dentists refuse to treat poor kids. about 80% refuse and only 8 out of over 200 in my county. Thats 4% with many only 1 day a week as they do not want to blend poor with paying cash customers. We have 1 public health dentist now after years of none and the one before treated 6 children a day with a staff of 4. He only treated for 5 months but was paid for 2 years when the office was remodeled. The new one treats ave 31 a day as he is paid per person. Government can screw anything up and they often do. The poorest with poorer nutrition are damages worst by all data and Pizzo 2008 show fluoridation does not narrow this gap. CDC data for decades show no relationship of fluoridation to dental health in 50 states and DC but income does in every state. Optimal fluoride is a scam data shows. Warren and Levy shows little relationship if any to total fluoride intake and states optimal fluoridat term problamatic as did Burt and ECKlund In their Dental text when they said the term should not be used. Burt 2007 DEtroit shows its nutrition being fluoridated water soda and chips the real reason. When it is easier to but a cheap gun then fresh vegtables and fruit general health will be poor along with teeth. westonaprice.org show it is nutrition like the 1939 text proved dental health is a nutrition issue with peoples around the world had near perfect teeth and jaw structure with no processed foods and no dentists ever. It only takes one generation for total spiral down with processed foods lacking nutrition. Often 1/8 of their very different but healthy diets around the world. Refined carbs and sugars are not natural or healthy with some peoples eating almost all a=nimal products and some mostly plant based. Many primative groups would not eat lean meat as the fat was desired. You could starve eating not enough fat they thought as they needed fuel. That does not mean I want to eat handfuls of fat grubs but handfuls of donuts does the opposite. Nutrition not fluoride makes us healthy. Visit your dentist but protect yourself from their fluoride as ingested always. topical maybe but think it out as iodine is more important as is calcium ,magnesium phosphorus, vitamin c,D ...Fluoride treatments can put gums at risk as the tissue is damaged just like the bacterial that put teeth at risk. Lots of salava neutralizes acid environment as does bacteria which convert the arginine in your spit to make your mouth more base which helps enamel formation. Rinse your mouth after eating sugar or acid type drinks like soda or the even worse sports drinks which have a wider blend of acids and soffen and wear enamel even worse then soda. Never ever give them to young kids and even worse in a sleep time bottle or sippy cup. That destroys teethand is the bottle tooth that is so devistating in the poor today. Fluoride intake makes no difference--Education does. I want better health not a short cut to damaged health. This is not about teeth but cumulative toxic overload increasing diseases and aging in everyone. Thats why 19 EPA unions of scientists want immediate moratorium in the fraud of fluoridation...Read the nteu280.org for 8 position papers from 1985 to today in their fight against fluoridation that has grown from one union to almost every EPA union. This is a red flag. check it out.

Permalink | Context

View Comments: Nested | Flat

Post a Comment

You must be logged in to comment.

Events Calendar

Recent Articles

Article Archives

Blog Archives

Site Tools

Feeds