Here’s an interesting graphic on fluoridation and the scientific evidence for it. It is from Ethan Seigel’s blog Starts with a Bang (see Weekend Diversion: Fluoridated Water: Science, Scams and Society). The article itself is a good description of the issues involved in the current debate.
It conveys some of the points I was making in Is fluoride an essential dietary mineral? More clearly, I think.
It also provides a useful template for placing research findings, and the claims being made about them, into context. Most claims about the harmful effects of fluoride are represented by the red line. They have been found at, and are important at, higher concentration of F. Whereas the beneficial effects are displayed at lower concentration.
The CDC recommended for fluoridated water in the diagram is similar to that for New Zealand (0.7 – 1.0 ppm) (The US has a larger range to accommodate for different intakes of water in different climates)
Remember – this is purely diagrammatic – it shows the principles, not real data.
But next time yet get told by an anti-fluoridation activists how horrible fluoridation is and they make claims based on research, or refer to a scientific paper – think of this template. Ask about the concentrations involved.
Is fluoride an essential dietary mineral?
Fluoridation – are we dumping toxic metals into our water supplies?
Tactics and common arguments of the anti-fluoridationists
Hamilton City Council reverses referendum fluoridation decision
Scientists, political activism and the scientific ethos