-- Reality bites – especially in a war
Disinformation – what it is, who promotes it, and how to combat it.
Nord Stream terrorism, UN failure, and “Official Secrets”
Secret “war-crime” warrants by International Criminal Court is mischief-making
Getting the full story about Ukraine
The west vs the rest – the world is changing
Ukraine commemorates Nazi collaborators
Do New Zealanders no longer support Ukraine?
The subtlety of neo-Nazi influence in Ukraine – ignored by our media
Where are Ukrainian refugees going? – an update
Is New Zealand covertly supporting the glorification of neo-Nazism?
Following the war in Ukraine – an update
Russian anti-war protester goes to see for herself
You can’t understand Ukraine without acknowledging its deep divisions
Once again, those Russian neo-Nazis – the Wagner group
A heartwarming story about a Ukrainian prisoner of war
Over 50 POWs killed. A military accident or a cynical war crime?
Ukraine/Russia war, an intelligence operation or a sting, Ukrainian and UK spies, and Bellingcat
Mainstream media defends poor journalism by smearing good journalism
Ukraine war – a shocking failure of our mainstream media
How is the war going?
Why should Ukraine listen to lame duck Boris Johnson?
Ukraine war – a failure of honest diplomacy and reason
British volunteer soldier in Ukraine speaks up
What about those Russian neo-Nazis?
Neo-Nazis in Ukraine – stages of denial
Confusion about neo-Nazis in Ukraine-Russia war
Neo-Nazis in Ukraine. Comedians are often more truthful than politicians.
Ukraine – a beginner’s guide
Why the silence on censorship?
Everything You Know About Ukraine Is WRONG
Some sense on the Russia-Ukraine war
British volunteer soldier in Ukraine tells his story
Virtue signaling over Ukraine
Fluoridation and child IQ – the problem of counting chickens before they hatch
August ’21 – NZ blogs sitemeter ranking
July ’21 – NZ blogs sitemeter ranking
June ’21 – NZ blogs sitemeter ranking
Anti-fluoridation group tells porkies about NZ fluoridation review
Opponents of fluoridation all at sea with new legislation
Update of NZ fluoridation review timely and useful
May ’21 – NZ blogs sitemeter ranking
Fluoridation contribution to heavy metals in drinking water is too low to measure
April ’21 – NZ blogs sitemeter ranking
Hip fractures in the elderly and fluoride – contradictory evidence
March ’21 – NZ blogs sitemeter ranking
An open letter to Paul Connet and the anti-fluoride movement
February ’21 – NZ blogs sitemeter ranking
Data dredging, p-hacking and motivated discussion in anti-fluoride paper
Censorship: Thinking you are right – even if you’re wrong
Embarrassing knock-back of second draft review of possible cognitive health effects of fluoride
The promotion of weak statistical relationships in science
Can we trust science?
January ’21 – NZ blogs sitemeter ranking
I don’t “believe” in science – and neither should you
December ’20 – NZ blogs sitemeter ranking
Science is often wrong – be critical
November ’20 – NZ blogs sitemeter ranking
Hyping it up over fluoridation
September ’20 – NZ blogs sitemeter ranking
August ’20 – NZ blogs sitemeter ranking
July ’20 – NZ blogs sitemeter ranking
Even studies from endemic fluorosis areas show fluoride is not harmful at levels used in fluoridation
Canadian studies confirm findings of Broadbent et al (2015) – fluoridation has no effect on child IQ
Child IQ in countries with endemic fluorosis imply fluoridation is safe.
Anti-fluoride 65 brain-fluoride studies not evidence against fluoridation
June ’20 – NZ blogs sitemeter ranking delayed
Another study used by anti-fluoride activists actually shows community water fluoridation OK
May ’20 – NZ blogs sitemeter ranking
When scientists get political: Lead fluoride-IQ researcher launches emotional attack on her scientific critics
New study touted by anti-fluoridation campaigners actually indicates fluoridation is safe
No relationship of bone cancer to fluoridation – another new study the anti-fluoride brigade will attempt to ignore
New review finds fluoride is not a developmental neurotoxicant at exposure levels relevant to fluoridation
April ’20 – NZ blogs sitemeter ranking
Anti-fluoride campaigners still rely on irrelevant studies
Author confirms anti-fluoridation activist misrepresentation of her work
Anti-fluoridation propaganda now relies on only four studies. 6: Incestuous relationship of these studies
Anti-fluoridation propaganda now relies on only four studies. 5: Don’t censor yourself
Anti-fluoridation propaganda now relies on only four studies. 4: Till et al (2020)
Anti-fluoridation propaganda now relies on only four studies. 3: Riddell et al (2019)
Anti-fluoridation propaganda now relies on only four studies. 2: Green et al (2019)
Anti-fluoridation propaganda now relies on only four studies. 1: Bashash et al (2018)
March ’20 – NZ blogs sitemeter ranking
No; a new study from Ethiopia does not indicate fluoridation is bad for your bones
Anti-fluoridationists put faith in new “strong” studies to provide evidence missing in draft NTP review
Industry-funded translation can introduce bias in selection of studies for scientific review
Another embarrassment for anti-fluoride campaigners as neurotoxic claim found not to be justified
February ’20 – NZ blogs sitemeter ranking
Beware of scientific paper abstracts – read the full text to avoid being fooled
January ’20 – NZ blogs sitemeter ranking
Fluoridation and sex steroid hormones – or the mouse that roared
What are the recent fluoride-IQ studies really saying about community water fluoridation?
December ’19 – NZ blogs sitemeter ranking
Fluoridation science and political advocacy – who is fooling who?
Scientific integrity & fluoridation – Dr Ghali responds
Sleep disorders and fluoride: dredging data to confirm a bias
Some fluoride-IQ researchers seem to be taking in each other’s laundry
Statistical manipulation to get publishable results
Scientific integrity requires critical investigation – not blind acceptance
November ’19 – NZ blogs sitemeter ranking
Anti-fluoride propagandists appear not to read the articles they promote
The anti-fluoride brigade won’t be erecting billboards about this study
October ’19 – NZ blogs sitemeter ranking
ADHD and fluoride – wishful thinking supported by statistical manipulation?
Experts complain to funding body about quality of fluoride-IQ research
What do these mother-child studies really say about fluoridation?
September ’19 – NZ blogs sitemeter ranking
Biostatistical problems with the Canadian fluoride/IQ study
Fluoridation – A new fight against scientific misinformation
An evidence-based discussion of the Canadian fluoride/IQ study
More expert comments on the Canadian fluoride-IQ paper
Politics of science – making a silk purse out of a sow’s ear
August ’19 – NZ blogs sitemeter ranking
Bye, bye to the collusion lie
If at first you don’t succeed . . . statistical manipulation might help
Anti-fluoride activists misrepresent a new kidney/liver study
July ’19 – NZ blogs sitemeter ranking
MH17 tragedy- 5 years on
June ’19 – NZ blogs sitemeter ranking
Chemical watchdog confirms suppressed report but justifies the suppression
May ’19 – NZ blogs sitemeter ranking
Does international chemical watchdog cherry-pick evidence to confirm a bias?
Psychology of Russiagate – an adult discussion for a change
April ’19 – NZ blogs sitemeter ranking
Russiagate – Some insights into its origins and results
Russiagate: Lessons for the media. But will they listen?
March ’19 – NZ blogs sitemeter ranking
Aftermath of the Mueller report – the media starts looking at itself
Mueller report to be released mid April – but it will be redacted
Collapse of the “Russiagate ” myth exposes how corporate media has failed
Getting out alive – why we should always demand evidence
Terrorism in Christchurch – some thoughts
“Disinformation” and the mainstream media
February ’19 – NZ blogs sitemeter ranking
January ’19 – NZ blogs sitemeter ranking
Preempting the annual misrepresentation of NZ dental health data by anti-fluoride activists
December ’18 – NZ blogs sitemeter ranking
Fluoridation: Another study shows stopping fluoridation bad for child tooth decay
November ’18 – NZ blogs sitemeter ranking
Media manipulation – the tail wags the dog
Protection of teeth by fluoride confirmed – yet again
And you thought Russiagate could not get sillier.
Trump and the media – codependents wallowing in the mud
Julian Assange’s mother appeals for her son’s freedom
October ’18 – NZ blogs sitemeter ranking
Nuclear dangers if INF treaty abandoned could be worse than in the 1980s
Fluoridation and ADHD: A new round of statistical straw clutching
September ’18 – NZ blogs sitemeter ranking
September ’18 NZ blog ranking – delayed
Flight MH17 tragedy in Ukraine – new evidence
Novichock detection and the Salisbury tourists
A more convincing take on prenatal maternal dietary effects on child IQ
Fluoridation: “debating” the science?
Opportunities and problems for grassroots activism offered by the internet
August ’18 – NZ blogs sitemeter ranking
Who is weaponising the vaccination debate?
Another BUK accident in Ukraine
Policing social media – who is coming next and who is behind it?
Political interference prevents investigators from considering the “bleeding obvious”
July ’18 – NZ blogs sitemeter ranking
Mainstream media “mob violence” over Helsinki summit
Blatant misreporting of latest OPCW report on chemical weapons in Syria
Time for a serious auditing of Porton Down’s nerve agent stocks?
June ’18 – NZ blogs sitemeter ranking
Anti-fluoride campaigners exhaust their legal channels with another loss
Magical World Cup Gala Concert
May ’18 – NZ blogs sitemeter ranking
Anti-fluoridation activists buy scientific credibility using a predatory publisher
Another shonky OPCW chemical incident report on Syria
Not just another rat study
Russian sports doping scandal looking like an illusion?
April ’18 – NZ blogs sitemeter ranking
Mainstream media-political alliance gets vindictive
Novichock – a marketing ploy?
The “heart of the Syrian chemical weapons programme” destroyed?
OPCW on Salisbury poisoning – one step forward, two back?
Anti-fluoridationist Paul Connett misrepresents NZ data
Anti-fluoridationists rejection of IQ studies in fluoridated area.
March ’18 – NZ blogs sitemeter ranking
A conference paper on the maternal prenatal urinary fluoride/child IQ study has problems
The 52 IQ studies used by anti-fluoride campaigners
The real lessons from Vladimir Putin’s re-election
Why is it so difficult to get an open discussion on fluoridation?
Mary Byrne’s criticism is misplaced and avoids the real issues
Anti-fluoride group coordinator responds to my article
Where could you get a nerve agent in Salisbury?
The first casualty . .
Paul Connett’s misrepresentation of maternal F exposure study debunked
February ’18 – NZ blogs sitemeter ranking
Anti-fluoride activist commits “Death by PowerPoint”
Paul Connett “updates” NZ MPs about fluoride?
Anti-fluoride activists misrepresent another thyroid study
Fake news from the White Helmets returns
RT election subversion – yet again?
January ’18 – NZ blogs sitemeter ranking
Yet another fluoride-IQ study
So you are saying . . . . . !
Jordan Peterson demonstrates the importance of free speech
Select your conspiracy theory and connect the dots
Whose who in the Russiagate affair – an infographic
A week of good news in New Zealand
Is “Russiagate” another deception like Iraqi WMDs?
“Fire and Fury” exposes the fundamental problems of the anti-Trump movement
Confirmation bias – we all suffer from it but how can we reduce its effect?
December ’17 – NZ blogs sitemeter ranking
Yet another way Russia is undermining our society
Anti-fluoridationists misrepresent New Zealand dental data – an annual event
Fluoridation means money in the pocket
Anti-fluoridation campaigners often use statistical significance to confirm bias
November ’17 – NZ blogs sitemeter ranking
The problem with scepticism
Chemical weapons use in Syria UN report flawed by political bias
Anti-fluoride “expert” finds the real reason oral health has improved – and it’s not fluoride
Meat substitutes – prospects and new ethical questions
October ’17 – NZ blogs sitemeter ranking
New fluoride debate falters
Political maturity in New Zealand – at least compared to the US
Flaw and porkie in anti-fluoride report claiming a flaw in Canadian study
Do we need a new fluoride debate?
September ’17 – NZ blogs sitemeter ranking
Endemic fluorosis and its health effects
Maternal urinary fluoride/IQ study – an update
Fluoride, pregnancy and the IQ of offspring
Facts about fluorosis – not a worry in New Zealand
We need more post-publication peer review
Cassini plunges into Saturn tonight – a grand finale
What’s with the anti-fluoridationist promotion of dental health programmes?
Non-violence in the defence of free speech
August ’17 – NZ blogs sitemeter ranking
Fluoridation not associated with ADHD – a myth put to rest
From Charlottesville to Boston – a lesson
Hypocrisy, irrationality and wise words from Monty Python
Are we all anti-fascist now?
Are fluoride researchers sacked for their findings?
Fluoridation and cancer
Local anti-fluoride activists tell porkies yet again
July ’17 – NZ blogs sitemeter ranking
The main stream media is out of touch
Don’t rely on sources – follow the evidence
Stovepiping to produce fake news
June ’17 – NZ blogs sitemeter ranking
Darwin, sexual selection and Putin
Fluoridation: Open letter to Democrats for Social Credit
Fluoridation: What’s happening with the New Zealand legislation?
May ’17 – NZ blogs sitemeter ranking
The “information war” and social media, or how to tell if you are a Kremlin troll
Anti-fluoridationists commonly misrepresent Ministry of Health data
ChildSmile – a complement, not an alternative, to fluoridation
Fluoridation helps protect adult teeth as well as children’s
Fluoridation: the truth about heavy metal contamination
Visualising the numbers – The Fallen of World War II
Bottle fed infants: fluoridated water not a problem
April ’17 – NZ blogs sitemeter ranking
Citing scientific studies and the arrogance of ignorance
No, fluoridation is not associated with leading causes of death
Anti-fluoridationists exploit infant deaths by fiddling statistics
Here we go again
The Putin Derangement Syndrome
Bottle fed infants: fluoridated water not a problem.
March ’17 – NZ blogs sitemeter ranking
Another anti-fluoridation whopper
2018 Global Atheist Convention
Fluoridation: Making sense of the Ministry of Health data
Fluoride, coffee and activist confusion
Trump didn’t invent the problems – and his opponents didn’t invent protest
Anti-fluoride authors indulge in data manipulation and statistical porkies
Be careful what you wish for
An Oscar for Al Qaeda?
February ’17 – NZ blogs sitemeter ranking
EPA comprehensively debunks anti-fluoride claims of a fluoride-IQ effect
Anti-fluoridationists go to Supreme Court – who is paying for this?
Debunking a “classic” fluoride-IQ paper by leading anti-fluoride propagandists
Islamophobia or mental illness?
Tha Amnesty report – and a response from Syria
Non-fluoridated Christchurch does not have better teeth than fluoridated Auckland
January ’17 – NZ blogs sitemeter ranking
Debunking anti-fluoridationist’s remaining 12 reasons for opposing fluoridation
Madonna teaches us a lesson in critical thinking
New research confirms adults benefit from community water fluoridation as well as children
Premature births a factor in cognitive deficits observed in areas of endemic fluorosis?
Sources our mainstream media uses to promote their narrative about Syria
More nails in the coffin of the anti-fluoridation myths around IQ and hypothyroidism
Water fluoridation – what to expect in the near future
Fluoridation: New scientific review of fluoride and oral health
Critical thinking, not censorship, is the solution to fake news
Anti-fluoride IQ claims are false
December ’16 – NZ blogs sitemeter ranking
Large Swedish study finds no effect of fluoride on IQ
Fake news and the new fact-free reporting paradigm
Fluoridation: New research confirms it is cost effective – yet again
Fluoridation: members of parliament call from submissions from scientific and health experts
Fake news, human suffering and the fight against terrorism
November ’16 – NZ blogs sitemeter ranking
Sometimes I think the world has gone mad
Leader of flawed fluoridation study gets money for another go
White Helmets confirm authenticity of acted “rescue” video
Manufacturing news, and opinion, about Syria
Why should we subsidise religious leaders and their silly statements?
Warriors, scouts, Trump’s election and your news media
US elections – who should you be angry with?
Trump’s victory – why the surprise, why the anger?
Anti-fluoride claims often not relevant to New Zealand
October ’16 – NZ blogs sitemeter ranking
White Helmets dupes New Zealand government?
Voluntary media censorship is ethically wrong
Fluoridation not associated with hip fracture, heart attacks of osteosarcoma – new study
Anti-fluoridation activist Paul Connett has a senior moment about our debate
“Humanitarian” intervention and war crimes
Crocodile tears over Syria at UN security council
Anti-Syrian propaganda and the White Helmets
Shyness of anti-fluoride election candidates
Syria & the fog of war
September ’16 – NZ blogs sitemeter ranking
But will it stand up in court?
Flogging a dead horse – anti-fluoridationists lose in court again
Syria UN Ambassador makes sense of the war in Syria
The shaky Syrian ceasefire agreement staggers on – or does it?
Fluoridation & democracy: Open letter to DHB candidate Andrew Buckley
When will they ever learn?
Ceasefire in Syria is exposing real nature of “moderate” rebels
What do Syrians think of the new cessation of hostilities agreement?
Dissecting pseudoscientific and political propaganda
August ’16 – NZ blogs sitemeter ranking
An anti-fluoride trick: Impressing the naive with citations
Does community water fluoridation reduce diabetes prevalence?
“Filtering” out fluoride
Rio Olympics – what are those gold medals worth?
Fluoridation – freedom of choice
Is water fluoridation better than salt fluoridation?
Ethics and the doping scandal – a response to Guest Work
Being better informed – unexpected advice from The Guardian
July ’16 – NZ blogs sitemeter ranking
Quantifying the problem of international sports doping
Dental health – it’s not all about fluoride
The Putin diversion
The insult of low expectations
MH17 tragedy – 2 years on
Misrepresenting fluoride science – an open letter to Paul Connett
Are you really right?
June ’16 – NZ blogs sitemeter ranking
Why don’t feminists fight for Muslim women?
Permission to have that conversation
A cynical take on effective speakers
Richard Dawkins – speech to Reason Rally, 2016
Chemophobic scaremongering: Much ado about absolutely nothing
MH17 tragedy – new investigation launched
Fluoridation: News media should check press releases from anti-fluoridationists
Fluoridation debate: Responding to Tom O’Connor
May ’16 – NZ blogs sitemeter ranking
New review shows clear economic benefits from community water fluoridation
Debating fluoridation and tyranny – Tom O’Connor responds
Attempting a tyranny of the minority on fluoridation
Writing to please the reader’s ear
Fluoridation: One small step sideways?
New research confirms water fluoridation does not cause bone cancers
Public discussion of science can be toxic
Fluoridation cessation studies reviewed – overall increase in tooth decay noted
Mistakes were made – but by who?
Don’t be fooled by simple media “science”
“Do the math” – a bit like “Do the research!”
Victory Day celebration of defeat of terrorism in Palmyra
Will we be using contact lens cameras in future?
Barrel bombs, hell cannons, Aleppo and media bias
April ’16 – NZ blogs sitemeter ranking
Korean community water fluoridation supported by new evidence
Science and management – a clash of cultures
Anti-fluoride campaigners cherry-pick irrelevant overseas research but can’t find relevant New Zealand research
Cochrane fluoridation review described as “empty”
Anti-fluoridationists misrepresent new dental data for New Zealand children
A challenge to anti-fluoridationers to justify their misrepresentation of New Zealand research
Fluoridation decisions to be made by District Health Boards
Nadine gives a necessary message to her fellow Muslims
Anti-fluoridationists now scaremonger about silica in your drinking water
Reversed responsibility and the burden of proof
Anti-fluoridation cherry-pickers at it again
March ’16 – NZ blogs sitemeter ranking
Fluoridation: My podcast with with Howard Farran
Why is Donald Trump so successful – and will he win?
Why are our politicians so silent on Palmyra’s liberation from clutches of Daesh?
The US speaks in two tongues on terrorism
Chemistry is everywhere – even in those natural products
Life for women under Daesh (ISIS)
The toxicity of chemophobia
Anti-fluoridation campaigner, Stan Litras, misrepresents WHO
Hiding behind “experts”
The “interfaith” trap – particularly for atheists
A Chinese study the anti-fluoridation crowd won’t be citing
Misrepresentation, misogyny and misandry – these should concern sceptics
Searching articles on fluoride
February ’16 – NZ blogs sitemeter ranking
Big business funding of anti-science propaganda on health
Anti-fluoridationist’s flawed attacks on Calgary study
Media misleading on Syria
Stephen Fry on Twitter
Richard Dawkins and the Skeptics Conference controversy.
Is the media lying to you about Syria?
Fluoridation: Whakatane teaches us something we should already know
Chemistry – “to dupe, to cheat?”
What a pleasant surprise!
Censorship by demonisation
Once more on the IQ and fluoride myth – why ignore other factors?
January ’16 – NZ blogs sitemeter ranking
Fluoridation: Whakatane District Council makes the Hamilton mistake
New study finds community water fluoridation still cost effective
“Crusade Against Multiple Regression Analysis” – don’t throw baby out with bathwater
Fluoridation: Some simple chemistry
The danger of insisting on your own facts
Flight MH17 in Ukraine – what do intelligence services know?
Iron and fluoride in human milk
Hubris of the google researcher
The Harvard study and the Lancet paper
Cultural and ideological bias in scientific literature reviews
Facts, beliefs and delusions
Science – a method of investigation, not a belief system
Yet another misrepresentation of a dental health study
December ’15 – NZ blogs sitemeter ranking
Peer review – the “tyranny” of the third reviewer
Christmas – “White Wine In The Sun”
Community water fluoridation still cost-effective
Democracy and expert advice on scientific issues
Fluoride and IQ – another study coming up
The hardest thing in life . .
Climate deal signed – now for the hard bit: action
Traditions and social arrangements out of step with social diversity
“Natural News” on trial in The Hague for crimes against science
Rejection of scientific studies in online discussions
Another defeat for anti-fluoridation claims about arsenic
November ’15 – NZ blogs sitemeter ranking
The problem with reasoned discussion
John Pilger on Paris, ISIS and Media Propaganda
Science is never done – some scientific terms explained
Studies show – or do they?
Should we trust science? – Wellington talk
Can world leaders learn from the Paris terror attacks?
Anti-fluoride hypothyroidism paper slammed yet again
Cyberchondria and similar “illnesses”
Onehunga and the “fluoride-free” myth
Thames voters decisively support fluoridation
Why doesn’t Putin shirtfront someone?
October ’15 – NZ blogs sitemeter ranking
Scientific papers, civil disobedience and personal networks
The quackery of anti-fluoride internet trolls
Our beautiful planet: Astronaut art works
Christian co-option of karakia
Combatting anti-fluoride Gish gallopers
MH17: Final technical report
Responding to Tracey Brown on fluoridation
“The ugly truth” – Tracey Brown ticks me off
MH17 – another Boeing sacrificed for investigation.
The ugly truth about critics of “the ugly truth” in science
Many Syrians see Russians as saviours
Door knockers should pay to interrupt us
September ’15 – NZ blogs sitemeter ranking
Fluoride: More scaremongering using drug warnings
Putin’s UN address: “Do you realise what you’ve done?”
Obama’s United Nations address: “We Must Stamp Out ‘Apocalyptic Cult’ ISIS”
European and Māori major non-believers in NZ
Cochrane responds to misrepresentation of their fluoridation review
ChildSmile dental health – its pros and cons
Should all scientists really be militant atheists?
The Alternative Medicine Racket
The chemical party
A job with a view – but not for the clumsy
Fluoridation: Freedom of choice – and responsibility
My talk to the Reason & Science Society – an invite
Why the internet annoys chemists
Freedom of religion and belief – not a license to interfere with others
Humanitarian intervention – but when & how?
Discussing science on social media
August ’15 – NZ blogs sitemeter ranking
Australian census religion question – progress
In the end, it came down to the science in Denver
Subverting democratic consultation on the fluoride issue
Religious instruction scrapped from school curriculum in Victoria
Alternative reality of anti-fluoride “science”
What is life?
Anti-fluoride propagandists get creative with statistics
Fluoridation: Connett’s criticism of New Zealand research debunked
Fluoridation: Connett’s naive use of WHO data debunked
Time to give up on Sitemeter
70th anniversary of first use of atomic weapon against civilians
Connett misrepresents the fluoride and IQ data yet again
Fluoridation: Newsweek science journalism bottoms out
July ’15 – NZ blogs sitemeter ranking
The bureaucratic solution to a problem
Fluoridation: “Sciencey” sounding claims ruled unacceptable
Comparing the Cochrane and NZ Fluoridation Reviews
Rapid change in attitudes to marriage equality
Scaremongering and chemophobia
MH17 tragedy: 1 year on
Talk of “mini ice age” bunkum
Progress in removing religious instruction from public schools?
Fluoridation: Beliefs about safety and benefits
Climate change: Our time really is running out
Cochrane fluoridation review. III: Misleading section on dental fluorosis
June ’15 – NZ blogs sitemeter ranking
Cochrane fluoridation review. II: “Biased” and poor quality research?
Cochrane fluoridation review. I: Most research ignored
What is causing warming of the earth?
New science bloggers wanted for Sciblogs 2.0
Gagging of scientists – a common problem?
I wish more people were aware of this
Misrepresentation of the new Cochrane fluoridation review
News media – telling us how to think
Misrepresenting the York fluoride review
Fluoridation: Misrepresenting the “saliva theory”
Something to consider
Fluoridation and horses – another myth
Science and social media in new Zealand
Monday morning proverb
Fake weight-loss study example of wider problem
Calcium fluoride and the “soft” water anti-fluoridation myth
May ’15 – NZ blogs sitemeter ranking
Connett & Hirzy do a shonky risk assesment for fluoride
Making mountains out of scientific mole hills
Don’t expect to see chemical safety data sheets in restaurants
RSNZ Science Book Prize winner – Tangata Whenua
Don’t put all the blame on the Germans – a lesson from World War II
The problem of “Fact-Resistant Humans”
What a nice idea
Water fluoridation effective – new study
Follow the money?
The distrust of science – a task for science communication
We always seem to ignore the causes
April ’15 – NZ blogs sitemeter ranking
Wise words from Carl Sagan
Poor peer review – and its consequences
Connett fiddles the data on fluoride
ADHD link to fluoridation claim undermined again
Commercial and ideological support of anti-fluoride activity
Why is Vladimir Putin so popular in the USA?
Is comfirmation bias essential to anti-fluoride “research?”
The will to find out
IQ not influenced by water fluoridation
Making sense of scientific research
The frustrations of modern technology
March ’15 – NZ blogs sitemeter ranking
Poor peer-review – a case study
The arrogance of science?
New Zealand science book prize – 2015 Short list
ADHD linked to elevation not fluoridation
Anonymous comments on social media
More poor-quality research promoted by anti-fluoride activists
Free download – “Severe dental fluorosis and cognitive deficits”
Are submissions on fluoridation worth it?
Social media and science – the problems and the challenge
A couple of “oldies” inject some sense into international politics
Open letter to Lisa Hansen on NZ Fluoridation Review
February ’15 – NZ blogs sitemeter ranking
Paper claiming water fluoridation linked to hypothyroidism slammed by experts
Dirty tactics by anti-fluoride activists in Taupo
NZ Fluoridation review – Response to Micklen
NZ Fluoridation review – HS Micklen responds to critique
Did business interests interfere with Hamilton’s fluoride tribunal process?
A perspective of distances in space
Download report analysing anti-fluoride attacks on NZ Fluoridation Review
Social health policies, freedom of choice and responsibility
Reality of war for civilians
Stephen Fry not pulling any punches
January ’15 – NZ blogs sitemeter ranking
US meddling in Ukraine behind coup
Sunday reading – Richard Dawkins reads some of his “fan mail”
Is debating with anti-science activists worth the effort?
Six months on – concerns about MH17 investigation
Severe dental fluorosis and cognitive deficits – now peer reviewed
Those evil chemicals
“Internet and social media misinform thousands daily”
“I just know”
The victims of terror
Fluoride Free NZ report disingenuous – conclusion
Spotting Bad Science
October ’14 – NZ blogs sitemeter ranking
December ’14 – NZ blogs sitemeter ranking
The MH17 blame game
Science never claimed to know everything
Special pleading by Philippe Grandjean on fluoride
The inverted ethics of doxxing?
Fascinating and painless chemistry lessons
Did the Royal Society get it wrong about fluoridation?
“Do your own research!”
Dirty politics over MH17?
Cherry-picking and misinformation in Stan Litras’s anti-fluoride article
Today’s fantasy, tomorrow’s possibility
The farce of a “sciency” anti-fluoride report
November ’14 – NZ blogs sitemeter ranking
Creationist ‘audits’ science museum
“Real” experts’ on climate change? Really?
Water fluoridation and dental fluorosis – debunking some myths
Proving anecdotes are reliable
Declan Waugh pushes another anti-fluoride myth
Severe dental fluorosis the real cause of IQ deficits?
Catch 22 in Ukraine
Let’s rely on anecdotes instead!
Standing up to junk science in New Zealand
Declan Waugh claims it’s “clear as day”
Unusual photo of Moon and Earth.
Criminal investigation of MH17 tragedy – where is it at?
There is something about those climate records that keep getting broken
Putting politicans in their place on climate change
Malaysia Airlines Flight MH17 – what really happened?
Fluoridation – a racist conspiracy?
Curiosity’s historic comet photo
When science deniers turn to science
Fluoride debate: Second response to Rita Barnett-Rose – Daniel Ryan
Fluoride debate: Response to Daniel Ryan’s critique – Rita Bartlett-Rose
Fluoride debate: A response to Rita Barnett-Rose – Daniel Ryan
Fluoride debate: The scientific evidence against fluoridation – Rita F. Barnett
Another legal defeat for NZ anti-fluoridation activists
Anti-fluoridation propagandists promoting shonky “review”
How to change your Mind – and why it is good for you
The science and politics of climate change
Science and belief
September ’14 – NZ blogs sitemeter ranking
Peer review of an anti-fluoride “peer review”
The information war – The NZ Listener takes up arms
MOM “a thousand times better than cricket”
Activist’s anti-science adverts found misleading – again
Don’t you get tired of this?
It’s time we did something about sugar
Crude dredging of the scientific literature
Anti-fluoride activists define kangaroo court as “independent”
MH17 – Preliminary report leaves most conspiracy theories intact
Do you prefer dental fluorosis or tooth decay?
Emotion Drives Decision
Ingested fluoride, dental health and old age
August ’14 – NZ blogs sitemeter ranking
Sad news – Victor Stenger has died
Making money out of fanatics
Dirty politics on the Royal Society fluoride review
Review finds community water fluoridation safe and effective
Anti-fluoride activists unhappy about scientific research
The Mind of the Science Denier
Open letter to Jane Nielson – a “fluoridation convert.”
Accidental Renaissance – or intuition?
Tactics for science denial
Natural News comes out with a load of heavy metal rubbish on fluoride
July ’14 – NZ blogs sitemeter ranking
Declan Waugh continues his distortion of Finnish fluoride research
Another fluoridation whopper from Declan Waugh
I am still waiting for my cheque
An answer to the anti-fluoride critics – in one image
Some answers to the confusion about the #MH17 crash site
Informed parents know water fluoridation is good for their children
Making political capital out of the deaths of innocents
Elected officials must ignore activists and listen to own voters
The irony of some peer-review and citation complaints
Ken Ring pontificates on climate change
Anti-science US Congressman on House science Committee!
“Creative” reporting of fluoridation science
What happens when fluoridation is stopped?
June ’14 – NZ blogs sitemeter ranking
Controversial IQ study hammered in The Lancet
New group challenging the anti-science brigade
Fluoridation: what about reports it is ineffective?
Approaching scientific literature sensibly
Declan Waugh’s misinformation on fluorosilicic acid
A healthy attitude towards quantum mechanics
An open letter to Declan Waugh – new mechanism for fluoride toxicity?
Toxicity is in the dose or concentration of fluoride
Councils and scientists targeted by anti-fluoride activists
Lugansk – a modern Guernica?
Inna Kukuruza – “her eyes spoke to the whole world”
Connett’s hypocrisy on fluoride & IQ
May ’14 – NZ blogs sitemeter ranking
Confirmation blindness on the fluoride-IQ issue
Where do teeth come from? The stork theory
There is research and there is “research”
Fluoridating water does not lower IQ – New Zealand research
Fluoride and IQ – once more
Another anti-fluoride myth in the making
A balanced debate
It’s all the fashion in Ukraine
Fluoridation: What a difference a year makes?
Wishart misrepresents fluoride science to advance his extreme ideology
Fluoridation: emotionally misrepresenting contamination
April ’14 – NZ blogs sitemeter ranking
Peer review, shonky journals and misrepresenting fluoride science
Ingested fluoride is beneficial to dental health.
Anti-fluoridation advertising deceptive
Fluoridation: putting chemical contamination in context
The first victim!
An outdated tax anomaly – charitable status of relgion
Declan Waugh scaremongers over fluoride – again
Arrogance of ignorance?
Pandering to anti-fluoridation campaigners
International cooperation in space serving humanity
Is anyone listening?
March ’14 – NZ blogs sitemeter ranking
Scientific cooperation despite political posturing
Fluoridation returns to Hamilton City.
European border changes over 5000 years
Dental fluorosis: badly misrepresented by FANNZ
What makes something right or wrong?
How do we know what is true?
Cherry-picking and ring-fencing the scientific literature
Fluoride and heart disease – another myth
Graphic information in science
Corporate backers of anti-fluoride movement lose in NZ High Court.
Terry Pratchett making sense
Fluoride and the 5 easy steps of a conspiracy theory
February ’14 – NZ blogs sitemeter ranking
Pseudoscience in your supermarket
Another god debate
Repeating bad science on fluoride
Truth about those science fairs
Quality and selection counts in fluoride research
The precautionary principle
How can scientists use social media?
Curiosity sees a familiar “evening star.”
The fluoride debate – what do the experts say?
January ’14 – NZ blogs sitemeter ranking
Entertainment is brain exercise
Download The Fluoride Debate
Determining scientific knowledge by petition
Fluoride debate: Final article – Ken Perrott
Fluoride debate: Paul Connett’s Closing statement
The good(?) old days of scientific writing
Most of us missed this one
False balance and straw clutching on fluoridation
Who is funding anti-fluoridation High Court action?
Astro-turfing for scientific credibility
Losing trust in religious leaders
Conspiracy theorists misuse analytical evidence
All things bright and beautiful
December ’13 – NZ blogs sitemeter ranking
Fluoride debate: Ken Perrott’s closing response to Paul Connett?
Putting vaccination risks into context
Fluoride debate: Arguments Against Fluoridation Thread. Part 8. Paul
Alan Turing receives royal pardon
The true meaning of Christmas
Where is the heat going?
Fluoride debate: Response to Paul’s 5th article
Back to the moon!
Fluoride debate: Arguments Against Fluoridation Thread. Part 5. Paul
Census 2013 – religious diversity
Fluoride debate: Response to Paul’s 6th article.
Testing the God theory
Fluoridation debate: Against Fluoridation Thread. Part 6.
November ’13 – NZ blogs sitemeter ranking
‘The particle at the end of the universe’ wins Winton Prize
Fluoridation debate: Why I support fluoridation – 2nd reply to Connett
Psychics have it easy these days
Fluoride Debate: Why I support fluoridation – 2nd response from Connett
From dental neglect to child abuse?
Fluoride Debate: Why I support fluoridation – response to Connett
Fluoride debate: Why I support fluoridation – Response from Connett
Word of wisdom, and otherwise
Have local climate pseudosceptics come to the end of the road?
Fluoride debate: Why I support fluoridation
Sin is relative
Fluoride debate – I get email
Fluoride debate Part 1a – response to Connet’s response: Perrott
Fluoride debate – some housekeeping
Fluoride debate Part 1a – response: Connett
October ’13 – NZ blogs sitemeter ranking
Fluoride debate Part 1: Perrott
Fluoride debate Part 1: Connett
The fluoride debate – introduction
The origins of ethics and violence
What’s really true?
Anti-fluoridation porkies – Mullinex’s rats
Science and faith
NZ climate change “sceptics” abandon appeal
Christianity has hijacked human values
Fluoridation: Hangout with the University of Waikato
The universe – it is bigger than you think
Our Far South – time we learned about it
Christian ethics and Peter Singer
Fluoride – friend or foe: a lecture
Cyber bullying of science
Fluoridation: the hip fracture deception
September ’13 – NZ blogs sitemeter ranking
Tim Minchin – an inspirational speech to graduates
Jon Stewart interviews Richard Dawkins
Anatomy of an anti-fluoridation myth
NZ experts deplore anti-fluoridation misrepresentation of science
Helping kids to wonder
Fluoridation – the IQ myth
When politicians and bureaucrats decide the science
Welcome counter to scientific and health misinformation
New “evidence” for global cooling?
Phobos eclipses the sun – as seen by Curiosity
Dentists you can trust?
Activists peddle chemical misinformation for fluoridation referenda
August ’13 – NZ blogs sitemeter ranking
Cherry picking fluoridation data
Anti-fluoridationist astro-turfing and media manipulation
Anti-fluoride activists attempt to silence science
Crazy ideas and “supernatural” phenomena
Experts speak out on fluoridation
Fluoride sensitivity – all in the mind?
Earthquakes and twitter
Cyber-bullying – what’s with sunscreen?
Anti-fluoridation study flawed – petition rejected
News media influences public trust in science
The “consensus message” in communicating science
Hamilton – the water is the problem, not the fluoride!
Topical confusion persists
Celebrate your curiosity – one year on
July ’13 – NZ blogs sitemeter ranking
Is this the way to reorganise science?
The limits of science and a world record
Water treatment chemicals – why pick on fluoride?
Are you qualified to discuss God, Heaven and Hell?
The Galileo fallacy and denigration of scientific consensus
A new Cosmos
Michael Mann’s defamation lawsuit on track
Is fluoridated water a medicine?
Debunking anti-fluoridation myths
Source of moral authority has shifted
Fluoridation – an organised campaign to misinform.
Hamilton gets its fluoridation referendum
Not your usual rocket launch
Fluoridation – topical confusion
Communicating climate science – Michael Mann comments
Fluoridation and conspiracy theories
Richard Dawkins learns about the Bible
Fluoridation – the violation of rights argument.
June ’13 – NZ blogs sitemeter ranking
The victim mentality of conspiracy theorists
Poisoning the well with a caricature of science
Fluoridation petition – for Hamilton citizens
The importance of books for kids
Fluoridation – it does reduce tooth decay
Stop feeling guilty
Getting a grip on the science behind claims about fluoridation
Is fluoride an essential dietary mineral?
Will Hamiltonians finally get a voice on fluoridation?
Scientists, political activism and the scientific ethos
Fluoridation – are we dumping toxic metals into our water supplies?
When science is under attack
Tactics and common arguments of the anti-fluoridationists
Hamilton City Council reverses referendum fluoridation decision
Global warning in science fiction
May ’13 – NZ blogs sitemeter ranking
Peter Singer on effective charity
The science of consciousness
Collapse of Arctic sea ice
An eReader breakthrough?
Singing about the periodic table
Black cat in a dark room – and the role of science
A New Zealand climate change pseudosceptic apologises!
Pseudosceptics are at it again – misrepresenting and attacking climate scientists
Chris Hadfield’s 5-month Space Mission in 90 Seconds
Confusion and distortion – has global warming stopped?
“Incontrovertible” is it, Rodney?
Video coverage of astronauts’ return to earth next Tuesday morning
A beggar’s market?
The limits of philosophy
April ’13 – NZ blogs sitemeter ranking
‘The Unbelievers’ and science
A global warming hoax meme is born – in New Zealand too!
Friday follies – what happened to the “official AGW hypothesis?”
Fiddling with census figures for religion in New Zealand
The beginning (of the universe) for beginners
Terrorism and the West’s obsession with oil
Marriage equality, retribution and moral progress
A sombre night in Boston
Moving into the mainstream – on the coat tails of the “New Atheists”
Thatcher, Monckton and Pinochet
Potty Peer in Waikato
New Zealand Blog ranking Montage
What is global temperature?
I was wrong about Lord Monckton
New “Hockey Stick” but same tired old denial
March ’13 – NZ blogs sitemeter ranking
April Fools and Agenda 21
Christchurch from space
A war between religion and science?
Climate contrarians/deniers are cherry picking again
Dishonesty of intelligent design “research”
Something for all those lapsed catholics
Dawkins’ new book
Our world from the International Space Station
Creationists prefer numerology to real scientific research
Talking sense about morality
Extreme confirmation bias in action
Greedy Lying Bastards
Those arguments against marriage equality
Census 2013: That religion question
Climate change is not simple
February ’13 – NZ blogs sitemeter ranking
A sensible Christian perspective on Peter Singer
No immutable truths, no eternal dogmas
Global climate – and your grandchildren
Entertaining – and the science is good
The truth about the hockey stick
Origins of religious ethics and violence
Sean Faircloth, Director of Richard Dawkins Foundation, visiting NZ
The Russian meteor – what we know
Should we be prepared?
Does religion blur understanding of evolution?
The “dynamic duo” of science?
A day for cheap shots
Science as the best, possibly only, way to truth
The reality of cancer
Education should never validate ignorance
“Divine commands” and personal conscience
January ’13 – NZ blogs sitemeter ranking
Is your region warming?
No cause for alarm – if you cherry pick
The political alarmism behind climate change denial
Can philosophers, or anyone, tell us what is “right” and “wrong”?
History of science – for Kiwis
What a shock!
Who is guilty of misusing science?
Deconstructing climate change, and its deniers
Amazing photos of Shuttle Endeavour flight deck
Australia’s “New Normal?”
Going beyond the evidence
A time for hypocrisy
Historians and sociologists just as human as scientists
December ’12 – NZ blogs sitemeter ranking
A problem with logic
Historians and sociologists lecture scientists – about science
Wonders of Life coming – we hope
A dose of reality
Pulling the wool over the eyes of the faithful
Scientists and philosophers discuss morality and meaning
Christmas present from NASA
At last – Moving Naturalism Forward videos
Getting the Book Invented
Sense on evolutionary psychology.
Does science have a cognitive privilege?
Sceptical humility and peer review in science
Cancer – an emotional rollercoaster
Sceptical arrogance and evolutionary psychology
And now for a bit of drama
Agreement polar ice sheets are melting
November ’12 – NZ blogs sitemeter ranking
Regarding women as animals
Christmas present for nerds – what about science books?
Time for philosophical honesty about Darwin
Religion in schools – a sensible approach
Climate change deniers don’t understand expertise
The arrogance of supernatural privilege
Morality and non-human animals
More damage from megastorm Sandy
Capturing kid’s minds with emotions
That particle again
Who were Stalin’s victims?
Reports from the Moving Naturalism Forward workshop
The elephant in the US elections
October ’12 – NZ blogs sitemeter ranking
Sex, Death And The Meaning Of Life. Episode 3: Meaning
Who are these “credible experts”?
The mini-iPad and original sin
Death – part 2 of a series
Beer, anxiety and depression – their origins
Why (some) Christians support discrimination
Sex, Death And The Meaning Of Life – Sin
Moving Naturalism Forward
A concise summary of climate change – science and politics
From evolution to belief
Are you offended yet?
This has to stop
Sneaking in the magic man
Naturalism and science are incompatible
None so blind
A Kiwi makes it to Mars!
September ’12 – NZ blogs sitemeter ranking
The most important place you didn’t know about
A useful map of the human body
The paradoxes of theological gullibility
The internet – Yeah, right!
US air traffic on a typical day and on September 11, 2001
Finish the sentence . . .
People saying stupid things on the Internet
Another anti-science attack on Mann fails – but the lies continue
Secularism – its internal problems
Politics and economics of Arctic ice loss
Internet silos become ideological ghettos
Climate change denier’s false “deep distress” fools no-one
Changing that light bulb while in denial
High Court ruled on integrity – not science
New Zealand climate change denial defeated
I don’t know!
Making giant flowers out of fireworks
Moral evolution in today’s society
August ’12 – NZ blogs sitemeter ranking
Drifting moral values
Subjective morality – not what it seems?
Objective or subjective laws and lawgivers
Neil Armstrong by Buz Aldrin
The science philosophy “conflict”
Making sense of religion, science, and morality
Kiwi science fiction with a message
Science – the greatest story ever told
A sundial on Curiosity?
Scientific shift work
Cynical evangelisation of children
Curiosity requires patience
Going for gold – on Mars
A load of science
July ’12 – NZ blogs sitemeter ranking
NZ Blog Rankings FAQ
So scientism = non-theism?
Saying it with flowers
What really happens in religious instruction classes?
What Is Life? From Schrödinger to Watson to Venter
Their mission – values or advancement of religion?
The story behind the High Court action
Ethical enquiry or moral instruction?
Scepticism, denial and the high court
William Lane Craig’s philosophy – the condensed version
So you think science has a problem?
Peter Singer on the misrepresentation of Peter Singer
Human values are secular
End of life decisions
Why the Higgsteria?
Cost of scientific research – and political naivity
The creationism controversy – a summary
Is there room for religion in science?
June ’12 – NZ blogs sitemeter ranking
Scientific knowledge should trump “belief”
Seven Minutes of Terror
Australian census confirms healthy trend
Science is messy – for girls too!
Print-on-demand books – what’s the hold-up?
How to write a best-seller!
Sharp increase in “nones”
A disciplined discussion
What did Galileo ever do to you?
Gnu bashing once again
The prejudiced journalist
Do atheists need religion?
Mixing values and Jesus in secular education
The Scamtific Method
May ’12 – NZ blogs sitemeter ranking
Scientific knowledge – reliable but not certain
Weather extremes and climate change
“Web monkeys” and science presentation
Dementia – There’s an app for that!
Give them enough rope . . .
Why won’t Inland Revenue subsidise my life expenses?
Human morality is evolving
So you’re considering switching to eBooks?
Welcome to the Anthropocene
Naturalism in science
“Lose” your faith, gain your life?
What’s in store for eBook readers
Heartland ignorant of public relations – let alone science
Belief and morality
What has science ever done for us?
April ’12 – NZ blogs sitemeter ranking
The problem with philosophy
Puddles and “fine-tuning”
Great science talks in Auckland
Science denial is a diversion from the real problems
When the “best explanation” is the worst explanation
Toss out the moderator for a better discussion
Jesus heals – but not cancer!
Emotional time for Shuttle fans
Catholic popes victims of sexual abuse!
Who is committing fraud here?
Morality and the “worship” of reason
The silliness of a self-proclaimed “investigative journalist”
Moral behavior in animals
Conservatives, liberals and purity
The trouble with physics?
Is God incredible – or what?
Science and the folly of faith
March ’12 – NZ blogs sitemeter ranking
Another lousy photo of the sun?
The Sand Creatures
A fuzzy photo of the sun
The “public square” myth
Yes, please try this at home!
Whanganui District Council comes to senses
“Good faith” science – and its enemies
Climate change controversy in context
Shy climate denier in “science team” reveals himself.
The chickens are hatching
February ’12 – NZ blogs sitemeter ranking
The size of things
Theological pretzel twisting
A universe in an eBook (or app)
Souvenirs for scientists
Heartland Insitute gets mail
Heartland’s climategate – and Mann’s book
Bioluminescence in space!
Defeat for imposed prayer
ID research and publications
Theological mental gymnastics over evolution
“What, me worry?” – distorting climate change data
Free will – problems of definition
January ’12 – NZ blogs sitemeter ranking
The scientific method – what about the philosophical method?
In the front lines of the “climate wars”
Who is funding the climate change denial groups?
Our fingerprints are all over it!
The [in]compatibility of science and religion
Comprehending reality – Should we give up so easily?
Nothing is something
Who drives the science/religion conflict?
Choosing your religion
Open letter across the barricade
New book formats
The argument from authority (or lack thereof)
December ’11 – NZ blogs sitemeter ranking
Peter Jackson – Satan’s Little Helper”
“Other ways of knowing” and their result.
Slaughtering some sacred seasonal cows
Reacting to a death with respect and hatred
Christmas present ideas: This Hell would be useful!
Higgs and homeopathy
Christmas gift ideas: Aussie wisdom
Christmas gift ideas: The human mind – a history
Christmas gift ideas: Evolution of gods, morals and violence
Christmas gift ideas: Working on Mars
Christmas gift ideas: One for the kids
Christmas gift ideas: Why we deny climate change
Christmas gift ideas: Thinking of our grandchildren
Christmas gift ideas: How We Know What’s Really True
Christmas gift ideas: Kids – it’s OK to be different!
A debunking handbook provides lessons in science communication
November ’11 – NZ blogs sitemeter ranking
Finding out about the astronomers who found the universe
Climategate 2.0 and “toecurling” journalism
It’s crowded up there
Creative science writing
Royal Society’s science book of year Winton Prize winner.
Reclaiming ‘intelligent design’
A lesson in human logic
Is Keith Ward really that naive about science?
Demolishing Craig on morality
Cultural effect of The Big Bang Theory
Answer simple question – win an iPad
New Zealand in good company. Pity about the USA
October ’11 – NZ blogs sitemeter ranking
What’s your number?
Concern over William Lane Craig’s justification of biblical genocide
Outsourcing moral decisions to justify genocide
New Zealand happy – some preachers upset!
The never ending battle
Having it both ways
Ranking human conflicts and tyrannies
Dawkins responds to a stalker – Craig gets his debate
Avoiding possible catastrophe – even if you are confused
You CAN be good with God!
Big money behind local climate change deniers?
Historians of science sometimes miss the wood for the trees
Approaching morality scientifically
Ethicists have problems with ethics!
The climate change denial machine
How do you know that?
How We Know What’s Really True
Problems with pdf eBooks – metadata issues
September’11 – NZ blogs sitemeter ranking
Compulsory payments for advancement of religion – let’s get rid of that.
Some recent recommended science books
Art in science
Where have we been?
Rings around Uranus
William Lane Craig’s “logic”
Science and the “supernatural”
Empathy for colleagues
Approaching a Middle East peace
Atheists aren’t shrill – just disgusting?
What’s this about cosmic rays and global warming?
Making life from the primordial soup
A fight-back – or simply spite?
Evolution and education – advice for teachers
That’s what I like to see in a young woman!
A reminder of reality’s magic
August ’11 – NZ blogs sitemeter ranking
Religious theology of secularism
Martydom of the priveliged
Another book for the kids
Secular democracy and its critics
2012 Global Atheist Convention – Melbourne
Hitler objects to atheist charge
440 FOI requests in one day! From one person!
There is something about Wellington
Some things for the kids
The blinkered view of politics?
I get email
NZ blog rankings update
Is Monckton good value?
The reality of scientific research
Monckton messes own nest
July ’11 – NZ blogs sitemeter ranking
Videos on morality
Pat Churchland on the science of morality
Breivik’s terrorism and science
Terror in Norway
Atlantis returns home – viewed from ISS
Background Briefing for Mockton’s NZ visit
Science has the real debate
Bias in the history of science
Seven years of discovery
Your chance for a free book
That hacking scandal
Are scientists hostile to religion?
Galileo’s modern critics
Debates in the philosophy of science
Does science lead to secularism?
June ’11 – NZ blogs sitemeter ranking
Personal attacks on climate scientists
A silver lining to Expelled?
Galileo’s revolutionary contribution
Science, religion and respect for meaning
Protecting yourself against bullshit
Clarifying some myths in the history of science
Early history of science
Converting beliefs to “truths”
Ideology and violence
Painless science writing
May ’11 – NZ blogs sitemeter ranking
Waking from a coma!
American Imams supporting evolutionary science
A secular bible
Daniel Dennett on conflict between religion and science
Visible signs of the rapture
The Magic of Reality for young people
Don’t drink the punch!
Working on Mars
A non-theist feast down under!
The chances of Royal Weddings arising randomly…
Designer spin II
What’s special about religious “knowledge?”
Climate change lectures in Auckland
April ’11 – NZ blogs sitemeter ranking
Exposing the pretense of Christian unity
Is there a role for science in morality?
Philosophical justifications for morality
Answering questions on morality
Problems with philosophers and theologians
More on the science of morality
Selling the family silver!
Craig brings some clarity to morality?
Foundations of human morality.
Church rejects power of prayer!
Limits of logic
Something to celebrate
Advocating or explaining secular moral values?
March ’11 – NZ blogs sitemeter ranking
What is Life? Another Great Debate
The Galileo myths
Beauty, mystery and science
Christianity gave birth to science – a myth?
The implausibility of reality
Is atheism bad for science?
Myths within a myth
Thank goodness for eBook Readers
Theistic science? No such thing
The ethics of exploitation
Blogging for New Zealand
Science Under Attack?
Acceptance of science – dangerous for some
Making sense of Ring gate?
February ’11 – NZ blogs sitemeter ranking
From “Grand Design” to “On Being”
A human response to Christchurch quake
Alan Turing documentary
Taking the census seriously
The future of books – and Santa?
On being philosophical about science
The secular Egyptian protest a good start for a successful revolution
Shonky climate-change denial “science”
Reinterpretation “research” on climate change
A hymn for Darwin Day
Celebrating Alan Turing’s life and achievements
The scientific study of religion
January ’11 – NZ blogs sitemeter ranking
Converging evidence on climate change
eBook “singles” – and the problems
Marie Curie Lecture Series – 2011
Comparing blog visit statistics
Shoddy reporting on “god genes”
The god gene – or is it a meme?
Certainty is useless – a scientific concept
The nature of the science-religion conflict?
“Other ways of knowing” – some sense at last
Culture and the scientific renaissance
Sharing a chemical moment
The moon and the ISS
Secular News Daily – useful source
New views of eclipses
Deriving “ought from is” scientifically?
December ’10 – NZ blogs sitemeter ranking
Science and morality – a panel discussion
A physicist comments on science and morality
A philosopher comments on science and morality
Telling right from wrong – unreligiously
Another local climate change denial meme
Wine and the Watchtower
It’s that time of the year
A handy app for your iPhone, iPod touch or iPad
A philosopher’s Christmas present
Painted into a corner?
Real science – warts and all
WikiLeaks and climategate
2011 – International Year of Chemistry
The “You Can’t Trust Science!” agenda
NASA and old lace
November ’10 – NZ blogs sitemeter ranking
Cutting off your nose for Christmas?
“Other ways of knowing” purpose?
What is the problem?
A victory for secular ethics
The Hitchens – Dembski debate
The joys of eBook readers – the Sony PRS-650 Touch
Secularism is important
Dawkins answers questions
Telling right from wrong?
Can science shape human values?
Some book ideas
The ISS – a decade of growth
October ’10 – NZ blogs sitemeter ranking
The human mind – a history
Check out those climate change claims on the internet
Waking up to morality
Four signs of a stroke
Can the “supernatural” be of any use?
Are ebooks taking off?
Some pesky delusions
Strident, militant atheists?
Why we deny climate change
Attitudes will change. Life will get better
Your computer is the enemy!
Death by stoning for adultery!
Scientific misconduct and skepticgate
Breaking away – an interesting case study
Sam Harris on The Daily Show
Move over – old fellow!
Hawking’s grand design – lessons for apologists?
Arrested moral development.
September ’10 – NZ blogs sitemeter ranking
Treating statistics sensibly
Not about Einstein
Bus adverts a human rights issue
Check out your ancestors
Trust the experts – if they say what we want
The Bible – a book review
A scientific consensus on human morality
Pope Benny’s speech – graphically
Putting the Pope in his place
Popes cunning straw mannery?
Human Evolution and the Organ of Mind
Mind change – a moral choice?
Putting the IPCC in its place?
Mapping modern science
An unnecessary being?
What is matter? What is materialism?
New science blogs in New Zealand
The Grand Design – neither God nor 42
Earth and Moon from Mercury
The Challenge of the Human Brain
August ’10 – NZ blogs sitemeter ranking
Fallout from Hauser affair spreads
A lesson for NZ critics of climate science?
Nicholas Stern to present Robb Lectures
So you want a conversation?
The myth of the noble scientist
The heart of PZ Myers
After NIWA, God?
Marc Hauser replies – acknowledges mistakes
Hauser misconduct investigation – Full text of Dean’s statement
Fallacy of Fine Tuning
A desperate plea to be noticed?
A stormy future?
A sympathetic take on Marc Hauser and the “scientific misconduct” issue
A paper by Marc Hauser retracted – Harvard Magazine
Climate change is complex
A nice little tool for printing blog posts
“God of the surprises”
Recognising good science bloggers and Big Blog Theory winners
It’s politics, not science
July ’10 – NZ blogs sitemeter ranking
Suzan does a mini- Monckton
Evolution of gods, morals and violence
Is and ought
The new science of morality
Science, faith and limits of knowledge
Liability of scientific denialism to political conservativism
Evolution and the Holocaust
Life on the building site
Theological critiques of billboards required
Support John Abraham against Monckton’s bullying
Ways of not knowing
The changing face of science communication
A regular climate science podcast
Climategate – Journalist withdraws and apologises
Making room for faith in science?
Getting straight on marriage
“Climategate” smears found false – Mann cleared
NZ Atheists Swap Buses For Billboards
June ’10 – NZ blogs sitemeter ranking
Religion in public life – two approaches
Ridiculing ridiculous science commentary
Truth getting it’s boots on!
A question of expertise and credibility
Climate scientist’s’ register?
Kids – it’s OK to be different!
Twinning with Venus
Avoiding grown-up discussion
A competition for Aussie science blogs
Apologies would be nice
Historic shuttle launch photos
Australians concerned about tax exemption for cults
Pseudoscience and anti-science nonsense
Science on New Zealand TV
Hot science blogs
May ’10 – NZ blogs sitemeter ranking
Journalists create world’s first artificial news story!
Don’t trust Monckton!
This is scary!
Theological intrusions into science
God, stop ‘playing science’
Why Don’t We Go To Church?
The heart of opposition to climate science
Last chance – almost!
What’s that about global cooling?
Are you threatened by clarity?
Supporting good science communication
We don’t know!
Monckton and Shimkus get silly together
The Dawkins Delusions
Climate change and the integrity of science
Secularism in Australia and New Zealand
Natural selection or domestication?
April ‘10 – NZ blogs sitemeter ranking
Thinking of our grandchildren
Science, values and ethics
Avoiding tax – supernaturally
Climate scientist sues newspaper for false reporting
Climategate, Lord Monckton and Monty Python
Climate change deniers wallets threatened
Climategate summed up
Superstition – inevitable?
Libel Reform campaign continues
RIP Antony Flew
Officially a fake scandal from science perspective
Dangerous science denial
You have to laugh!
A more transparent approach
Orbital debris, the ISS, moon and sun
A space nerd’s Easter
Getting to the truth – gradually
March ‘10 – NZ blogs sitemeter ranking
Climate scientist Phil Jones exonerated
The origins of science?
The rickety bandwagon of climate change denial
Are religious scientists worried about their brethren?
The climate change denial industry
Can science answer moral questions?
Periodic Table of of science blogs
Creationism, climate change and scientific denialism
Open Letter from U.S. Scientists on the IPCC
From Melbourne to Copenhagen
Are science and religion compatible?
Chris Mooney interviews Michael Mann on “climategate”
Science bloggers talk teaching
Great photo of the Solar Corona
Clear science communication
Institute of Physics in hot seat
Climate science for you and me
February ’10 – NZ blogs sitemeter ranking
Richard Dawkins – wrong again!
Freedom of information and responsibility
This game looks familiar
Anti-science lies being exposed – slowly
Deniers distort Phil Jones
New Zealand has bigots too
Belief and social identity
Etiquette for the office global warming denier
NZ blogs sitemeter ranking – February ‘10
Climate change confusion – a conspiracy of sorts
WARNING! People might find us out!
One for the kids
Get your climate change science on the run
Can science solve all problems?
Spinning exoneration of Dr. Michael Mann Into “Whitewash”
Self-exposure – a journalist out of depth
A photographer’s dream
Get in line – who is the odd one out?
I want one of these!
The ISSS used for teaching
Overdosing on water
Car pool, string theory and human genetic history
CO2 emissions, birth & death rates by country, simulated real-time
I thought the award for mistakes was mine!
Atheists provoke a reaction
Climate change deniers’ tawdry manipulation of “hockey sticks”
Journeys to the Ice – New SciBlogsNZ blogger
Martin Luther King’s dream
NZ blogs sitemeter ranking – January ‘10
Monckton requires religious certification for scientists?
No gods required
Lynch mob mentality
Understanding the “multiverse”
A good climate change book
Beware the retired scientist?
Philosophers aren’t so bad!
NZ blog ranking – RSS subscriptions 2009
The dogma of paradigm shifts
Overcoming dogmatism in science
The “supernatural” and dogmatism in science
Scientific method and the “supernatural”
Belief, knowledge and science
The Unconsidered Life
“A plot to rule the world”
George Monbiot on ClimateGate & the climate denial industry
Testimony of non-believers
Becoming an atheist
The global warming debate summarised
Justifying child abuse
Sack all those scientists? yeah, right!
NZ Atheist Bus Campaign reaches fund raising target in under a week
NZ blogs sitemeter ranking – December ‘09
Bus adverts and the 2011 NZ census
Are they sceptics or deniers?
New Zealand’s denier-gate
Environmental movement needs pragmatism
The global warming conspiracy?
New Zealand’s climate change deniers’ distortions exposed.
Remove support for child abuse
Deniers in denial over climate information
Richard Dawkins in Auckland – update
Being good – no gods required
Peer review – an emotional roller coaster
Climate change deniers live in glass buildings
Richard Dawkins in Auckland next March
“Climategate” – the smoking gun?
Awesome pictures from the Enceladus flyby
Those “climategate” emails
An Introduction to Evolution
NZ blogs sitemeter ranking – November ‘09
Galileo and Hollywood
The rules of science
Twittering in space
Morality – from the heavens or nature?
This Hell would be useful!
Einstein on Galileo’s contribution
Why Evolution Is True
Richard Dawkins in Wellington next March
The clash of science and politics
RIP – Theo van Gogh
Judging the internet – and books
A Universe From Nothing
Defending science and reason
NZ blogs sitemeter ranking – October ‘09
The Galileo Lectures
Lamenting loss of funerals
Galileo, Darwin and the new enlightenment
New bird designed!
BCA libels Simon Singh?
A victory for Simon Singh
The Earth and Moon – from Mars
Why We Are Atheists
Books in prisons
It’s all in the brain
Battle of the bus ads
Stars, earth and water
Humanity’s most important image
NZ’s largest science blog network goes live
Sustainability and ethics
NZ blogs sitemeter ranking – September ’09
The naked emperor
From the keyboards of scientists…
Depressed? Anxious? Aren’t we all?
Saving the planet with condoms
Get in the sack!
Charles Darwin – Art & science
Evolution of human morality
Science communication in New Zealand
“We’re sorry: you deserved so much better”
New Hubble images
Chemistry for kids
The philosophy wars
Bright future for books
Brian Greene’s big idea
Global warming is real – climatologists
Behe’s “objectionable” interview reinstated
NZ blog ranks – August ’09
Carl Sagan’s challenge ignored
Behe’s “objectionable” interview
Religion in the public square
NZ scientists twittering
Biocentrism or eccentrism?
Dawkins bashing season upon us?
That ‘no’ vote
NZ blogs sitemeter ranking – August ’09
The Big Bang Theory and sexism?
NZ science bloggers – new opportunity
Evidence, not lawyers
Social networking for scientists
From stones to atoms
Theistic mental gymnastics
“Smacking not an offence”
NZ blog ranks – July ’09
“Knowledge” from ignorance
Beware the Spinal Trap
The Atheist Camel Chronicles
Atrocious Science Clichés
Killing off Darwin?
Bible a favourite for atheists!
Science-religion conflicts. Who’s responsible?
NZ blog sitemeter ranking – June ‘09
Different ways of knowing?
This much I know
The facts of evolution – and jealousy
NZ blog ranks – June ’09
The entropy fib
Don’t encourage them!
Wave goodbye to email?
Do you believe in a god?
NZ Evolution Survey
The purpose of purpose
Kiwi Science Blogging
A NZ blog ranking tool
Charity and linked data
The Bain illusion
Morality and politics
NZ blog sitemeter ranking – May ’09
That’s telling them
Beyond the shouting
NZ entries in science blog awards
NZ Blog ranks – May ‘09
Subscription & email updates
Hand of God
Science blogging prize
Scientific laptop fashion?
Public hearing for Salinger case
Poles Apart – wrong process, right conclusion?
The greatest show
Religious moral relativism – another example
Richard Dawkins in Auckland
Human Morality V: The secular conscience
Ranking NZ blogs with sitemeter data
Human Morality IV: Role of religion
Good luck Jim
Human Morality III: Moral intuition
Human Morality II: Objective morality
Defining natural and supernatural
Human Morality I: Religious confusion
Whether we like it or not
Answering the big questions
Do whatever it takes…
Another chance to ignore our true religious diversity
The necessity of science
Why is science important?
Clamping down on science communication
NZ Blog ranks – April ’09
NZ Bloggers Badge
Middle east conflict in the NZ blogosphere?
PZ needs an iPod
Where is Galileo?
Belief not the same as truth
With God, anything can be permitted?
Where did we come from?
Hitchens in the lions’ den
How bacteria communicate
Scientific laws and theories
Blaming the victim
For Christian readers
Moral leadership on stem cells?
Dawkins on the Big Screen
Different ways of understanding?
Blog traffic to aim for?
Police ignore non-religious
NZ blog ranks – March ’09
Ranking methods for NZ blogs
Saturn opposes Uranus
New Zealand popular science books
Babies and bathwater
Ayaan Hirsi Ali on the Viability of Hope
Out of touch with reality
Stalinist behaviour at creationist blogs
“Scientific” debate on the internet
Intelligent design science publication policy?
Scientific investigation of morality
Creationism’s tactical blunders
Hidden religious agendas
Rating NZ blogs
Meditating on one’s own beliefs
How we all subsidise creationists
Theme testing – feedback welcome
Beware of science!
Only 25% of Americans oppose evolution
Pinker on morality
Cosmological cranes – not skyhooks
Darwin Is The 1000th Steve!
Human genetic history
Darwin, art and entanglement
The Lotto “miracle”
Psychological abuse of children
Mass atrocities require idealism
78% of Britons support Darwin?
Dawkins to appear at Auckland Writers & Readers Festival lineup
Bad science, bad theology
The Antony Flew controversy
Science and democracy
Darwin Week discussion topic?
We are “fine-tuned”
International Year of Astronomy
Science & Islam – doubt
My favourite podcasts
Neurons and free will
Science & Islam
Fiddling with “fine-tuning”
The ghetto of apologetics “science”
Missing fossils? From water to land
Carl Sagan’s search for God
A rational universe?
“Scientism” in the eyes of the beholder
The dogma of “paradigms”
Dogmatism of the “supernatural”
The wedge undermines Christianity
Fine tuning of the universe?
Dissent from science
No God? No Worries -Yeah right
Ex-Muslims speak out
Comment policy in flux
Universal Declaration of Human Rights
What is your purpose in life?
The immorality of conspiracy theories
Thoughts after watching “Expelled”
Denial not acceptable
Atheists not allowed to criticise Hitler!
Thanking those who deserve thanks
Society’s fear of science
Lysenko and the creationists
Being good for goodness’ sake
Global warming misrepresentations
The alternative to science?
A tale of two elections
Climate change: the science – public disconnect
Climbing into Dawkins’ boots
A naturalistic approach to human morality
Candles in the dark
“Probably” no God – probably acceptable
Belief – a curse?
Introducing humanism into politics
The materialist label
Weaving a web of lies
Defining oneself negatively
What a view!
The Archbishop’s straw man
Demolishing the icons of intelligent design
Science in popular culture
The Bible’s place in politics?
Lying to children
Is New Zealand ripe for science blogging?
Dawkins’ prayer for his daughter
The atheist label
Let’s count teeth
Our secular heritage presentations
New Zealand Skeptics conference
Attacks on freedom of expression go international
Secularism is good for religion
Where do our morals come from?
Redefining science by inference
A critique of the ‘Theory of Childhood’
Does religion threaten human rights?
A new science-bashing campaign?
Reading in retirement
“It’s a miracle!”
What is the Large Hadron Collider?
What is theistic evolution?
Embarrased by Darwin
Religious belief and age
Design – it’s everywhere
Reminder – Secular NZ and Australia
Darwin lectures in New Zealand
Is New Zealand a Christian nation?
An optimistic future for energy storage?
Fueling a new cold war
Why the “new atheism”?
Evidence should trump “legal muscle”
Being politically correct about Mars
Top 100 Cutting-Edge Science Blogs
Science blogging in New Zealand
Darwin’s theory – or “Finding Nemo”
Our secular heritage & its future
Climate change optimism
Spreading doubt on climate change
Help from your enemies?
Allan Wilson: Evolutionary
“Biblically correct” child abuse?
Interfaith dialogue and human rights
Does intelligent design make testable predictions?
Climate change and New Zealand
Is ID getting anywhere?
Intelligent design as a scientific idea.
Are ceremonies important to religions?
Send this DVD to our schools
Prayer refusal leads to discipline
I didn’t come from a monkey!
Most Americans do accept evolution
Culture wars come to New Zealand
Dogmatic falsification of science
Paradigms and dogma in science
Isn’t God convenient?
Dogmatism around science – the “supernatural.”
Scientific knowledge – not “just a belief!”
Evolution of New Zealand
Remarriage not an option
“Coming out” for evolution
Climate change controversy
Appealing to spirits
Dembski, peer review and supernova
Teaching science in faith schools
Let’s ban cluster bombs
Improving performance of your brain
Phoenix has landed!
Do you believe in God?
Exploiting the vulnerable
Good luck Phoenix!
Driving the wedge into Christianity
Dissent from Darwinism list – further analysis
Evolution – a theory or a fact?
Lets say the sun is pulled around the earth by horse-drawn chariots
Helpful applications for blogging
Darwinism and that dreaded E-word
Judgement & compassion
Is “Expelled” successful?
Psychological and religious abuse of children
Non religious in Australia and New Zealand
Lawrence Krauss – Richard Dawkins discussion
Exercising your brain – physically
Humanist and anti-human trends in modern religion
The Pope visits New York
Expelled for supporting evolutionary science
The Darwinian behaviour of creationists
Richard Dawkins in Inverness
Expelled – no integrity exhibited
Freedom of expression and human rights
Losing one’s faith
Interfaith dialogue to fight against human rights
The real climate change swindle?
Religious education should include secular humanism
So what does Dawkins think of “Expelled”?
Should Dawkins have been Expelled?
Arthur C. Clarke dies
Intelligent design/creationism and climate change
Exercising your brain
Expelled – the movies
Freedom of expression and offence – religious or otherwise
Einstein’s “Cosmic Religion”
Fine tuning argument
Facing up to child abuse
Ayaan Hirsi Ali to get EU protection
The future of religion
Putting the Bible in its place
Intelligent design and depression
Beyond Tolerance – Toward Understanding and Respect
Replacing public prayers
Obama on religion
Scientific dissent from . . . science?
A respectable man with a dangerous theory
Life: a gene-centric view
From faith to hatred
Arguments against atheist morality
New atheists or new anti-dogmatists?
Secular alternatives to religious communities
New Secular Philosophy blog
Religion and the “New Atheists”
Gaza: Stop Blockade and War
Who are the “dissenters from Darwinism”?
Changing your mind
Dissenters from Darwinism in context
Heresy, or common sense?
Religious opposition to “intelligent design”
Intelligent design and the threat to Christianity
Intelligent design and scientific method
Religious diversity and human rights
Dealing with Dawkins
Can religion answer the questions science can’t?
My own miracle?
Religious attitudes to knowledge
Christian problems with morality
How to lower taxes
Atheism and religious diversity IV: Values, morality and spirituality
Atheism and religious diversity III: Conflict between science and religion
Atheism and religious diversity II: A personal perspective
Atheism and religious diversity I: Diversity in New Zealand
Bringing the supernatural into science
Hoping for justice
Does science involve faith?
Losing faith, gaining humility
For the glory of God
Faith – against all evidence
Intelligent design – a war on science
Dawkins responds to his critics
Moons of Saturn
Now I’m to blame for Stalin!
Human rights for the non-religious
A value in religious mysticism
From superstition to religion
Darwin descendent at AAI Convention
From faith to reason
Delusions about Dawkins
God’s not as popular as we thought
Using your brain
Neuron bombs in Pakistan
New Zealand supports evolution
Why do we believe?
Lies and misinformation
Thank God or Thank Goodness?
Sources of evil?
Problems with atheism?
Intelligent design at the shopping mall
Society’s ” Christian values”
The Atheist Blogroll
Stand with Burma petition
Most ideas in science are wrong!
Morals, values and the limits of science
Coming under the influence
Intelligent design attacks on Christianity
Discrimination at school
The “New Christians”
My senior moment!
Isaac Newton and intelligent design
Agnostics – what do they stand for?
Religion and violence
Is religion the source of morality?
Theology of the Emperor’s New Clothes
Family planning and the inhumanity of religion
Art and the limits of science
Atheism and religious diversity
Evolution’s threat to religion?
The atheist wars?
The Enemies of Reason
Science and the supernatural
Religion and Schools
Limits of science, limits of religion
Humility of science and the arrogance of religion
Richard Dawkins and the enemies of reason
What do we teach our children?
The Trouble with Islam
Crimes of Communism and Christianity
Intelligent design/creationism: Postscript
Intelligent design/creationism IV: The religion – science conflict
Intelligent design/creationism III: The religious agenda
Intelligent design/creationism II: Is it scientific?
Intelligent design/creationism I: What is scientific knowledge?
Religion and children
Religion and morality
Questions science cannot answer?
Do religious leaders believe their religion?
Debating science and religion
Do you believe your religion?
“Let There Be Brights”
What is religion?
Solution to climate change?
Faith and terrorism
“Let us pray . . . “
♦ Would we recognise the second coming?
♦ “I’m an atheist, but ……”
♦ Returning to the “dark ages”?
♦ Putting Dawkins in his place
♦ Overcoming religious problems
♦ A national anthem recognising diversity?
♦ International Atheist Convention
♦ Dalai Lama visit
♦ Limits of science or religious “fog”?
♦ Limits to respect and toleration
♦ Special rights for religion?
♦ Common values, common action?
♦ Atheist book sales overtake Christian books
♦ Can science enrich faith?
♦ Miracles and the supernatural?
♦ Christian prayer problems
♦ Atheist Blogroll
♦ Teaching religion
¶ Helen Clark’s diplomacy
¶ Blogs discussing religious diversity
¶ Destiny of Christian privilege?
¶ Trends in religious belief in New Zealand
¶ Religious diversity includes “non-believers”
¶ Science, art & pumpkins
¶ Religious Diversity Statement
¶ Should we teach creationism?
Sauerheber is the “Scientific Advisor” for antifluoridationist attorney, James Deal. Deal, who has close ties with the “Fluoride Action Network” maintains a website he calls “fluoride class action” for the apparent sole purpose of stirring up class action lawsuits against fluoridation. Obviously he has had no success in this venture, but that fact does not absolve Sauerheber’s blatant conflict of interest.
Sauerheber discredits himself in the first paragraph of his “paper” when he states “The fluoride compounds, sodium fluoride NaF and fluorosilicic acid H2SiF6, added into municipal water for human ingestion purposes are synthesized artificially by industrial reaction and have been used as rodenticides, insecticides, and pediculicides, with acute oral lethal doses in experimental animals comparable to arsenic and lead (LD50 ~ 125 mg/kg) (The Merck Index ) due to the fluoride at ~60–90 mg/kg.”
First of all, the fluoridation compounds are not added for human ingestion purposes. They do not reach the tap and are thus, not ingested. They are added to increase the level of existing fluoride ions in water systems up to the optimal level. Even if one argues that the substances are added for the purpose of indirect human ingestion, his language clearly indicates his desire to imply that the fluoridation compounds, themselves, are ingested, when he knows better.
Second, his reference to “rodenticides, insectisides, and pediculicides” is nothing but fear-mongering. Warfarin is the active ingredient in many current rat poisons. Warfarin, under the brand name “Coumadin” is prescribed by doctors to tens of millions of patients with cardio-vascular disease.
In regard to Sauerheber’s attempts to differentiate fluoride ions released from CaF from those released from fluorosilicates, Ken stated it very eloquently……..hogwash. All other considerations aside, there are not enough fluoride ions involved in 0.7 ppm concentration of drinking water for any “neutralizing” effect of calcium to have a significant impact of any kind. . Sauerheber’s argument for HF reformation in the gut falls flat by his inability to provide any valid evidence that this occurs at the minuscule optimal level, or even if it does, that there are any adverse effects caused by it.
If Erin Brokovich is hinging her claims on Sauerheber and his theories, she is in for a very short court appearance. He will be ripped to shreds in short order.
Steven D. Slott, DDS
Any idea why Gosford would control pH with sodium carbonate as opposed to Wyong’s calcium carbonate?
Hi.This is the author of the 19 year study, Dr. Sauerheber. I hate to burst your bubble, but you have committed errors in this analysis, I never published that calcium fluoride consumption is safe! Lifelong consumption of calcium fluoride rich water in Turkey and in India have produced endemic skeletal fluorosis of various stages. Instead, the article points out that water with calcium fluoride is safer than water with industrial fluoride, for any fluoride concentration they share. It is the ratio of calcium ion to fluoride ion in the water that determines the % of ingested fluoride that is assimilated. The fluoride ion is of course exactly the same in structure in both chemicals, but the toxicity of fluoride depends on its surroundings, namely how hard or soft the water is. Calcium rich water causes lower blood fluoride levels to exist when the water is consumed, at any fluoride concentration the water contains, compared to softer water with less calcium. I see that NZ water typically is low in calcium. This is most unfortunate for those consuming industrial fluoridated water, since blood fluoride levels will be higher than blood levels for those consuming fluoridated hard water. Thank you for providing that information.
As far as the difference between natural calcium fluoride and industrial fluoride compounds, notice that acute lethal poisoning does not exist for the natural compound, but occurs at only 65 mg/kg fluoride single oral dose for the industrial compounds (Merck Index, Rahway, NJ). Differences in fluoride behavior also occur for chronic low level consumption of natural vs. industrial fluorides. Far more bone fluoride accumulates from soft water industrial fluoridated consumers than for those consuming hard water with fluoride at the same level (NRC,2006). As far as the idea that the chemistry of fluoride does not form hydrofluoric acid at acidic pH, as argued by Slott in the comments section, is absurd. It is the formation of HF in the acidic stomach that provides the mechanism by which ingested fluoride gains entry into the bloodstream.
Yes coumadin is a drug. But it is approved by the FDA for use by prescription only and only when regular tests are made to assess for side effects of internal bleeding. All drugs have side effects, including fluoride. But fluoride is not approved by the FDA for ingestion in the U.S., its side effects are numerous, and mass treatment of people through water supplies for this non-nutrient to attempt to treat dental decay, as though ti were an oral ingestible dental prophylactic, bypasses the subscription and monitoring process that coumadin use is required to follow.
I answer questions for James Deal and Deal follows my work. That is not a conflict of interest on my part.
LikeLiked by 2 people
1. You continue to confuse compounds with ions. Fluoride is the anion of the element fluorine. An anion is a negatively charged atom. The fluoride existing in water is this fluoride ion. It is not calcium fluoride. As groundwater flows over rocks, it picks up fluoride ions which have been leached from CaF and fluorosilicates in those rocks. In areas high in igneous rock, these ions come predominately from the fluorosilicates in those rocks. These fluoride ions are to what is commonly referred as being “naturally occurring” fluoride. It is not the compound calcium fluoride.
When hydrofluorosilic acid (HFA) is introduced into drinking water, due to the pH of that water, the HFA is immediately and completely hydrolyzed. The products of this hydrolysis are fluoride ions, identical to those “naturally occurring” fluoride ions, and trace contaminants in barely detectable amounts which fall far below EPA mandated maximum levels of safety. After that point, HFA no longer exists in that water. Your continual effort to claim fluoride ions released from CaF as being “natural” while those released from HFA as being “industrial” is ridiculous. A fluoride ion is a fluoride ion, regardless the source compound.
2. In regard to HF reformation in the gut, I did not say that it could not occur at that low pH, I said that you have no valid evidence that it does at the minuscule optimal level of fluoride, and that even if it does reform, there is no valid evidence of adverse effects from it at this low concentration. If you have such valid evidence, then present it, properly cited. Bear in mind that your own study for which you were charged $800 to have published in an open access journal, does not qualify as valid evidence of anything.
3. FDA approval of Coumadin has nothing to do with the use of this as an example to expose the complete irrelevance of the fact that fluoride was used as a rat poison. Warfarin is used as a rat poison as well, yet it is safely ingested at its proper use level, for the treatment of cardiovascular disease…..just as fluoride is safely ingested at its proper use level. It is truly remarkable that someone with your level of education does not seem to understand the difference between concentration levels of all substances we ingest.
In regard to FDA approval:
“The FDA is just one of several regulatory agencies that ensure public safety. The FDA’s authority is limited to products sold to the public and fluoride has been approved for use in toothpastes, mouth rinses and even bottled water. The FDA has no role in approving drinking water additives pursuant to their agreement with the EPA in the early 1980’s. Additives are covered by state regulation’s. It should be noted that the FDA does not have the authority to approve many of the products we use every day. For more information on what the FDA does, and does not regulate, visit: http://www.fda.gov/fdac/features/095_quiz.html. ”
“The Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) of 1974 confers the authority for ensuring the safety of public drinking water to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The EPA is responsible for setting drinking water standards and has the authority to regulate the addition of fluoride to the public drinking water. ”
4. There are no “side effects” of optimal level fluoride, as evidenced by your inability to cite valid evidence of any “side effects”.
5. The addition to water of fluoride ions, identical to those which already exist in water and which humans have been ingesting in their water since the beginning of time, requires no prescription.
6. Being the “Scientific Advisor” for a personal injury attorney who maintains a website named “fluoride class action”, presumably for the purpose of stirring up lawsuits against fluoridation from which he would profit……with your opinions posted all over that website……is, indeed a conflict of interest when you publish supposedly “objective” papers on fluoridation.
Steven D. Slott, DDS
Richard, while we have your attention could you provide some information which seems lacking?
In the cited paper you give your affiliation as “Department of Chemistry, University of California” Yet I could not find any evidence that you are employed at that university. Also I note you are using a Hotmail email address and provide a web site affiliation which is an anti-fluoride activist group – sort of suggesting you are not affiliated with that university.
This raises the question of why you claimed such an affiliation.
Could you clarify this please.
This came as a personal email to me by mistake. It is from James Robert Deal:
“In our meeting with three pro-fluoride representatives in the Seattle City Hall, the water engineer said that the amount of SiF added to water only slightly lowered pH, not enough to require a significant increase in soda ash used. “
Thais for comments, Richard. I have already requested clarification about your affiliation but here are a few more questions/responses to your comment.
1: 19 year study? Really. Surely the data you presented could have been produced in an afternoon in a high school chemistry lab. It is essentially just a school project to confirm already known relationships between Ca, F and pH. What took you 19 years?
2: Glad you accept that the hydrated fluoride anion is just that, whatever its origin. Given that it is no different if derived from CaF2 than derived from fluorosilicic acid. Your argument about the role of Ca, if at all relevant, applies equally to F from either source. As I have shown at the minuscule concentrations of F used for CWF the Ca concentration in the water is the same whatever the F source because of the already existing Ca in the water.
3: My understanding is that F- cannot transfer across most, but not all, membranes, whereas HF can. Therefore at the molecular level the formation of HF molecules in the stomach because of low pH enables transfer of F ocross the membrane to the bloodstream. Any Ca present will have a minimal effect because the F- concentration is very low (existing mainly as HF). By the way, the Ca concentration in the stomach is only minimally influenced by the hardness of drinking water because of the greater amount coming from food.
4: I agree with Steven Slott’s comment that you are confusing compounds with ions. There is no such thing as calcium fluoride in solution – it exists only in the solid form. It breaks down to its constituent cations and anions on dissolution and the origin of the Ca2+ ion is completely irrelevant (far more comes from other sources than from the CaF2). This makes your attempt to define a “natural” fluoride (CaF2) and a “industrial” fluoride completely meaningless in this real world situation.
James deal, you need to actually comment in the comments section – reply to an automatic email does not work.
Could you please explain the relevance of your comment to the situation of calcium?
1. I’m not confused at all. Whether fluoride anion is naturally present in fresh water from calcium fluoride or from any other natural source, it is a contaminant of fresh water. The fluoride anions that dissolve from any source into water exhibit toxicity after ingestion, but the effect of the anion is determined by how hard the water is. The higher the calcium ion concentration, the lower is the amount assimilated form the GI tract after ingestion. Natural sources of fluoride anion in water are typically accompanied by plentiful calcium. This helps minimize fluoride assimilation. (Calcium is the antidote to oral poisoning by the fluoride anion from industrial fluoride sources). Artificial fluoride infusions with industrial compounds, made from reacting rock with sulfuric acid and trapping the toxic gases HF and SiF4 in a water solution of 23% fluosilicic acid H2SiF6, is not accompanied with appreciable calcium. This is why the (otherwise identical in structure) fluoride anion is more readily assimilated than it would have been in a water solution containing more calcium cation. Far less sodium fluoride is required to achieve any given, thousands of ppm, level of fluoride in bone after ingestion than is required for calcium fluoride, for the same amount of fluoride ingested from each.
Of course fluosilicic acid at alkaline pH is completely hydrolyzed in water. Who doesn’t know this? (as you have been told many times in previous discussions). As usual you write what you want me to say, rather than what is actually said.
As stated before, fluoride ion at identical concentrations in two containers, one calcium fluoride and the other fluosilicic acid fluoride or sodium fluoride, the first has a far lower entropy (chemical potential or activity) than the latter two (CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics). Thus it is no surprise that studies prove that ingesting the first produces significantly lower blood fluoride levels than the latter for an equal fluoride bolus. I can’t change the facts and neither can anyone else. Calcium ion buffers the assimilation of fluoride anion even at low concentrations where the effect does not depend on precipitation of the calcium fluoride salt. The industrial fluoride compounds used in “water fluoridation” do not precipitate even at massive concentrations. This is how sodium fluoridation during an overfeed killed the 42 year old Coast Guardsman in Hooper Bay, AK. If calcium fluoride would have been used, this death would not have been possible. This is the initial point made in the JEPH article.
2. Please don’t insult me. The second part of the JEPH peer reviewed published article were my data collected with low levels of fluoride from sodium fluoride (1 ppm) demonstrating that as the pH is lowered the anion concentration decreases because of protonation to hydrofluoric acid HF. At pH 2-3 of the stomach, 100% of the 1 ppm fluoride anion is protonated to HF, which is freely permeable across the cell membrane at this stomach pH. I didn’t pay the publication fee that is required for all open access journals. And the publication fee was not what you claimed either. We’ve covered this also several times before. Do you need a copy of the invoice? And some of the best data ever discovered in science are often times published in journals other than those considered “the best.” I stand by my data and in fact it is unchallengeable. Read the EPA brief report on fluosilicic acid and you will see that HF begins to form from fluoride anion (from industrial sodium fluoride, not calcium fluoride) around pH 4 and lower, consistent with my published more detailed findings. But the EPA didn’t think to continue to stomach pH of 2. Nor did they examine the inhibitory effect on the protonation reaction caused by the presence of calcium. Fluoride is an anion (as you state) which is why it is attracted to the divalent positive calcium cation.That’s their fault, not mine.
3. Yes industrial fluoride and warfarin were both used as rat poisons. So what? Warfarin has found clinical use in blood disease but is only given by prescription, and patients need to be closely monitored because of side effects. Industrial fluoride is given without a prescription and without monitoring the known side effects while it is ingested lifelong. A key side effect is its abnormal incorporation into bone, permanently, causing conversion of normal bone apatite to abnormal fluoroapatite, as well as formation of bone of poor quality (NRC, 2006). Breaks in fluoridated bone heal far more slowly than in normal bone. The accumulation reaches thousands of mg/kg fluoride in bone during chronic ingestion where it is a contaminant and causes abnormal simultaneous elevations in both calcitonin and parathyroid hormone. Yes someone with my education knows full well the pathologic difference between concentration and accumulated dose. Lifetime doses of fluoride cause bony ingrowths into marrow in mammals at fluoride levels of about 500 ppm. Human bone is not monitored by fluoridationists who treat the drinking water for a population for lifelong accumulation of fluoride. Yes, it’s not the water concentration (used to be 1.2, now it’s 0.7 ppm), but rather it’s the total accumulated dose that determines the degree of skeletal fluorosis present. And those with bone disorders such as osteoporosis or brittle bone disease, etc. are more adversely affected by lifelong fluoride accumulation than others are.
The comments about the FDA are laughable. The MOU between the FDA and EPA was dissolved by the EPA decades ago. The EPA Office of Water in writing many times confirms that water fluoridation is not under their control because they regulate pollutants, not diluted substances used to treat body parts. The EPA has no clinical staff to evaluate either safety or effectiveness of materials added into water to elevate its blood level in an attempt to mitigate a problem. That, according to the EPA OW, is the purview of only the FDA. And they are correct. The FDA ruled fluoride intentionally added into water is an uncontrolled use of an unapproved drug, ruled in 1975 it is unsafe to add to foods, and in 1966 banned the sale of any fluoride compound (natural or industrial) intended to be ingested by pregnant women in the U.S. (JEPH 439490).
The original Congressionally-approved statutes of the Safe Drinking Water Act apply to contaminants present in U.S. waters for which the EPA produces MCL’s. And it applies to water additives which are substances used to sanitize water. Fluoride anion is not a water additive added to sanitize water, like chlorine is. The purpose of adding fluoride, its only stated purpose, is to elevate the blood level of fluoride in an attempt to alter teeth. The EPA has no pharmaceutical, medical, or dental staff that have a Congressional mandate to regulate oral ingestible dental prophylactics added into drinking water to treat people. That is the sole purview of the FDA, who has already not given its approval for the ingestion of any fluoride compound, natural or industrial.
4. No side effects? Tell that to the kidney dialysis ward victims who were slaughtered before it was realized that fluoridated water at optimal levels cannot be used in kidney dialysis equipment. Tell that to the massive number of US citizens now afflicted with bone pain who have had to have knee, hip, and elbow replacement surgeries and whose extracted bone has thousands of ppm fluoride where it does not belong. Fluoride from industrial compounds is a toxic calcium chelator (calcium is the antidote to oral fluoride poisoning). Fluoride anion is not a normal component of the human bloodstream, but is a contaminant. Fluoride incorporation into bone is a side effect of the ingestion of water treated with industrial fluoride compounds (that of course freely dissociate into water at alkaline pH). Are you trying to tell the public that a stated purpose of eating fluoride is to fluoridate peoples’ skeleton? If fluoridated bone is not a side effect, then this appears to be the claim. Recall that the NIH proved in careful experiments that fluoridated bone is not strengthened bone, as was hoped early on by fluoridationists who have pre-defined assimilated fluoride as being “good”.
LikeLiked by 1 person
To Ken, I received my B.A.in Biology (1971) and Ph.D. in Chemistry (1976) from the University of CA, San Diego. Since that time I have been in the UCSD Alumni Association who constantly asks for updates from its graduates on professional work, research discoveries, etc. My first position in science was with UCSD’s Dr. Andrew Benson (discoverer of the carbon fixation reaction in plant photosynthesis and the Calvin-Benson cycle). He did his Ph.D. work on fluoridated thyroxine hormones and was appalled at the idea of intentionally consuming industrial fluoride compounds that are all toxic calcium chelators (as opposed to fluoride in the presence of calcium). After the 19 year JEPH study was completed, which set out to determine how the 302 victims of the Hooper Bay fluoridation overfeed were sickened, I was having extreme difficulty getting the materials published in those American journals I had contacted, who routinely stated that the work was not “appropriate” for their journal.
I pretty much gave up on publishing the work until I began to visit Dr. Benson, still at age 93, working in his lab at UCSD. He asked why I had not published anything on the fluoridation of San Diego water supplies. Quite embarrassed, I re-committed myself to finishing the task. I submitted the work to the American Chemical Society and although they did not want to print it, they insisted that the work needed to be published, perhaps in an environmental journal. I heard that JEPH was calling for papers on drinking water issues and sent it to them. Dr. Peckham was the senior editor and after several adjustments and additional materials that were asked for were included, the article was published.
The reason I included the UCSD Chemistry Dept. is not only because of being an Alumni, and working with Dr. Benson in the latter stages of the article, but also because of discussions with my former Chemistry Professor Dr Russell Doolittle. I asked if it would be allowed to list the affiliation with the Chemistry Dept. even though I receive no compensation from the Dept. He said I could of course list the affiliation with the UCSD Chemistry Department on articles I publish. And that was that.
Sadly, Dr. Benson passed away early this year at 96, but he was quite pleased with the JEPH article. He was appalled at the prospect of letting dentists control public drinking water supplies.
I use the hotmail address because I have found that firewalls at my institution (Palomar College) are quite restrictive and block incoming emails too severely. Also my UCSD alumni email I could use, but I most often use the hotmail account anyway, so I see no issue with that. In the words of Hillary Clinton, what difference does it make? The data are what they are. The fluoride action network contains a wide variety of published data. I see no problem when the sources used there are vetted.
Thanks for asking.
Richard, you are confused and your meandering explanation does not successfully hide that confusion.
1: Natural sources of F are indeed accompanied by Ca, but not necessarily “plentiful.” Solubility product considerations mean that the natural fluoride levels tend to be higher in waters low in Ca. Phosphate is also a consideration because of the solubility product of fluoroapatite which is far less soluble than CaF2.
Sometimes our source water in my city has close to the optimum F concentration of 0.7 ppm but it is often about 0.2 ppm. In the later situation fluorosilicic acid is added to top up to 0.7 ppm. Given you accept complete hydrolysis of the fluoridating chemical and the identity of the hydrated fluoride anion irrespective of its source, together with the fact that the Ca levels are about the same at these two times and are independent of F source, how can you say these fluoride anions behave differently?
The fact that the concentrated fluoridating agent contains low levels of Ca is irrelevant given the Ca already in the water.
But a few points to clarify your claims.
What table title are you referring to in the CRC manual for your claim that the “entropy” (no this is not the same as chemical potential or chemical activity) is different in a solution depending on source? I ask for table title because the page number is probably different in my edition. I wish to attempt to understand the point you are trying to make with this. And how one could make claims about assimilation of fluorosilicic acid when it is not possible to prepare a dilute solution is weird from my viewpoint.
How can Ca2+ “buffer” assimilation if fluoride anions when we have agreed that they are not transported across most membranes? The relevant species, you agree is HF. Again can you give a citation for the claim you are making here.
I also would like you to give citations for your claims of an effect of Ca on assimilation (that is a comparison of blood F as an indication of assimilation depending on source of F. Especially as the Ca concentration in the stomach probably has very little relationship to water hardness.
You claim that “industrial fluoride compounds do not precipitate even at massive concentrations. Are you really attempting to claim that the fluoride derived from fluorosilicic acid cannot be precipitated by Ca? Surely you are not that naive.
I also think your reference to the death via overfeed in Alaska is a naive point. It is impossible to get much of an overfeed with CaF2 as the maximum concentration one would have in the stock solution is about 7 ppm F. This is simply a matter of F concentration and has nothing to do with “natural” or “industrial” sources.
2: You say you “stand by your data and in fact it is unchallengeable.” Will, true, but isn’t it a bit childish to call it “your data.” After all it was hardly new – you were just demonstrating well known and understood chemical relationships in what was nothing more than a school project.
I still cannot for the life of me see why it took 19 yet as to do that simple project.
3: One of the things I found frustrating about your paper were the numerous assertion claimed by you won’t out any citation or data. You demonstrate that habit again in your comments. Vague comments to the CCC handbook or the NRC are not proper citations (but they do have the advantage for your that they can’t be checked). It is normal to be a lot more specific when one cites material.
You should, for example support claims like fluoride anions from whatever source exhibit toxicity after ingestion (most intelligent people realise that is only true above a certain concentration). Similarly you calm at “hard” water somehow mitigates the effect. I have already mentioned you claim about entropy.
4: Finally, could you please explain why you gave a university as your affiliation in the paper when you do not appear to be employed at this university.
Richard, this does not explain why you gave this university as your affiliation. It would be like me claiming affiliation to Victoria University of Wellngton despite the fact that I have not been employed there since 1970 when I finished my PhD research. I would think that is a very dishonest thing to do because it implies an affiliation which does not exist. You are the first person I have come across doing this.
Your story about the paper’s publication also raises questions. It appears that you could not get this paper published in any other journal but in the end had to use a shonky journal with a senior editor who is a well-known anti-fluoride known activist.
I can understand why no other journal would accept your paper – it is naive and rambling and does not contain any original work. As a reviewer I would have knocked it back for those reasons.
I didn’t pay the publication fee that is required for all open access journals. And the publication fee was not what you claimed either. We’ve covered this also several times before. Do you need a copy of the invoice?
But there was an invoice.
Who did paid for publication then? Maybe we should see the invoice.
Surely it is easier to just disclose the identity of whoever coughed up the fee when the question arises, rather than to beat about the bush leaving readers suspicious.
The 19 year statement is related to the fact that the need for the article was first recognized in 1994 after the Hooper Bay fluoridation overfeed disaster cost a life. The NEJM article stated that the mechanism by which the fluoride ion at 4 ppm killed the victim is not known. It could be either calcium fluoride precipitation, or it could be due to interference with magnesium or calcium metabolism, or it could be a different more direct effect of the anion. The authors didn’t know. So I investigated it.
And 19 years later the article was finally published in its final form. So what?
The Ksp calculations were simple, yes but who else has done them for the physiologic range of calcium in human blood?
And where are these studies you say were already known so there was no need to publish the data? If the data are so common as to be known to a high school student, then why are we bothering discussing it?
The data indicating that low level calcium inhibits the conversion of fluoride anion to HF is not in the article but I’ve done it. Your definition of it being insignificant is not my definition of it, because it indeed is significant.
The CRC Handbook I use is at work and I’m now at home. The reference is in the thermodynamics tables indicating the entropy of ionic solutions. Sodium fluoride and calcium fluoride have totally different entropies at the same ionic strength. This is due to the attraction that fluoride anion has for calcium cation that is far stronger than for the sodium cation. The increased entropy is related to the increased chemical potential of the anion in sodium fluoride because of this, where the activity coefficient for calcium fluoride in solution is far smaller than for sodium fluoride in solution.
In Southern CA the calcium level in the water is 60 ppm. Adding fluoride from industrial sources lacking calcium from 0.2 ppm to 1 ppm, a 5 fold increase, causes the calcium to fluoride ratio to be drastically lowered and causes far more fluoride assimilation into the blood after ingestion than would have been assimilated if the water were harder.
Perhaps you could re-read the article and get back with me. The Goodman and Gilman reference is accurate, that calcium fluoride ingestion leads to lower fluoride blood levels than the ingestion of sodium fluoride for any given total fluoride dose ingested. I don’t know how else to say it. If you don’t believe it, that’s not my fault.
You are the ones who are confused about calcium fluoride vs. fluosilicic acid fluoride, that both as molecules contain the exact same fluoride anion. A calcium fluoride solution, even if not saturated and only contains calcium ions and separate fluoride ions, is a solution of calcium fluoride. Calling it a solution of just fluoride is false. There is no such thing as a solution of fluoride. It can be calcium fluoride in solution, or sodium fluoride in solution, or arsenic fluoride in solution, or fluosilicic acid fluoride in solution, etc. These solutions do not have the same toxicity, even though the same fluoride free ion concentration is present. Of course it matters what type of fluoride solution you are drinking. Why are ionic strength effects on chemical potential and toxicity so difficult for you to grasp? And by the way, are you the author of this article that appears to be un-named and does not even list an affiliation? Who am I communicating with?
Me naïve? Hardly. Of course fluoride from fluosilicic acid can be precipitated with sufficient calcium ion. Who said otherwise? I’m referring to pure industrial fluorides that lack calcium.
You might want to read the articles in Fluoride that describe in detail the poisoning of all the prized horses in Pagosa Springs Colorado by fluoride ion from industrial fluosilicic acid (the identical fluoride anion found in calcium fluoride, but without calcium). The river water there is so soft that there is virtually no calcium in it. If the water had been harder, the horses would have survived longer.
I have no idea what you mean, that the Hooper Bay disaster has nothing to do with the difference between calcium fluoride and industrial fluoride from fluosilicic acid. Of courses it does, as your own words indicate. If calcium fluoride had have been used the people could not have been acutely poisoned because calcium fluoride is only soluble to about 7-8 ppm fluoride.
If you still do not understand, I suspect there’s not much I can do for you.
A “shonky” journal? That published nothing new? Again, if it’s “nothing new” then why don’t you still understand the difference in toxicity between calcium fluoride and fluoride from industrial sources? Many water supplies such as the Pacific Northwest are too soft to be adding industrial fluoride. Those water not only are calcium deficient but because of that they are also naturally zero fluoride. Waters containing fluoride also have significant natural calcium from salts other than calcium fluoride. The overall ratio of calcium to fluoride is what determines toxicity. Low calcium waters with an added 1 ppm fluoride level are more toxic than high calcium waters with added 1 ppm fluoride.
Of course it was difficult to publish this material (19 years). It has nothing to do with its truthfulness (that even a high school student could demonstrate). It has to do with the fact that water “fluoridation” is thought to be a Federal approved program that is a great public health achievement according to former Surgeons General and that reduces tooth decay by 20-40% (except for those who have no cavities?) and is necessary for teeth health and is harmlessly so low it can’t affect any function systemically but yet is so high that it can actually perturb the caries process in the hardest substance in the body, enamel.
If I owned a journal I would prefer not to publish the data either. But publishing it is all the more necessary when the truth hurts. And who are you to disagree with the editors of the Journal of the American Chemical Society who stated that this needs to be published?
To RIchard Christie, suspicious about what? Every open access journal in exlstence I know of has publication fees. What is your point? That this somehow makes the data wrong? What are you implying?
Ken. I explained the affiliation with UCSD, that still exists. I live within minutes of UCSD and within minutes from Palomar College. Dr. Benson permitted me to work with him until he passed away early this year.
To you also, what are you implying? Is this some sort of threat?
You made a point of stating you didn’t pay for publication, yet you say someone paid for it to be published.
Who was that ?
It is of relevance.
Ken, your statement that I am being dishonest is bizarre. (” I would think that is a very dishonest thing to do because it implies an affiliation which does not exist.”) Are you implying i can’t do voluntary work at UCSD anymore because if anything is published I can’t name the department?
I am giving credit where credit is due, to the institution that trained me and where I learned at the outset that industrial fluorides are listed toxic substances on poisons registries, while natural calcium fluoride is not a listed toxic. Both have differing chronic low level toxicity. And only the industrial fluorides are listed poisons because of acute fluoride toxic potential that calcium fluorlde does not have. In the lab we have a stainless steel table where live specimens are kept, in a room in which industrial fluoride compounds like sodium fluoride are forbidden to be present. Do you expect me to change the lab protocols for them because, as you claim there is no difference in the toxicity of the fluoride anion when the ion comes from fluosilicic acid, compared to when it comes from calcium fluoride, as long as it is dilute? Because (truthfully) the anion is exactly of the same structure from both compounds after dissolution? Not a chance, and that’s precisely why the JEPH article needed to be published. Ionic strength effects matter.
Richard C., In what way does it matter? When Slott accused me of “buying the journal space to publish whatever I wanted” I responded with the truth, that I didn’t pay the publishing fees. Whether UCSD, or Palomar, or friends, or someone else, I don’t have to state who paid for it until I know who I’m speaking with and why it is so important to you and why it “is relevant.”
Your reluctance is not a good look.
It suggests that you have something to hide.
So yes, please, may we see the invoice? Thank you for the offer.
If you scan and email it to Ken I’m sure he will be able to post it on line for us.
As to me, I’m a lay person, real name over my comments, interested in this debate.
It’s interesting how this site has introduced an ad hominem attack on Dr. Peckham referring to him as an anti fluoride activist. This appears to be a way to attempt to falsify his data, but using character assassination to attempt to discredit factual data is a logical fallacy. If you have proof that the Peckham study in the U.K. on diagnosed hypothyroidism cases correlating with artificial water fluoridation in the few cities that fluoridate there, then be specific as to why, or publish it in a peer reviewed scientific journal. I’m criticized for not supplying references, but this notion about Peckham goes without either explanation or reference?
And by the way, there is nothing wrong with being anti artificial fluoridation, when you understand that it is useless, harmful, and illegal. The attack here though implies that it is somehow “wrong” to be anti artificial fluoridation. Nonsense. This is a free country, and people are free to object to the ongoing whole body fluoride dosing of mass populations who have fluoride circulating in their entire system for no functional purpose whatsoever.
The HHS recommendation to lower the allowed fluoride water level to 0.7 ppm is an admission that 1 ppm has caused too much dental fluorosis abnormal enamel hypoplasia in U.S. innocent citizens. But instead of an apology, the idea is to simply use less of the toxic calcium chelator than what has been used thus far. And Peckham and millions of others are to be ridiculed and criticized for being opposed to this? They should be given medals, having to deal with fluoridationists who ridicule and criticize and continue to insist on altering natural water into a solution with more added fluoride than what was already present (or in cases of pristine clean fresh water had none of this contaminant at all).
It’s interesting how this site has introduced an ad hominem attack on Dr. Peckham referring to him as an anti fluoride activist.
The funny thing is, if you search the page, Richard Sauerheber is the only person to mention Dr Peckham by name.
Real scientists go to great lengths to avoid any hint of vested interest.
That’s because their work is stronger for it.
I repeat, Richard Sauerheber, this is the first time I have seen an author give their affiliation as the university where they studied for their degree but no longer worked for or are studying at. It is deceitful as it attempts to use institutional credibility to support their work (and implied current affiliations would not support,y credibility). I don’t know what you mean by “some sort of threat.” Of course, in my comments on your paper I will make your deceit clear. Anti-fluoride propagandists are continually attempting to imply credibility for their claims in this sort of manner and that always needs to be exposed for what it is.
Then again this sort of deceit is of interest to the institution involved. It would perhaps be appropriate for someone to bring attention to the University that you have done this and are attempting to ride in their credibility or even pass responsibility on to them for your shonky work.
Richard has asked who paid for the publication of your work. Clearly it was not the University of California, as your false attribution would give the impression, as employers would normally pay. But your refusal to say who did pay for it confirms suspicions that ideological motivated, and possibly big business financed, activist groups made the payment. As you say that does not disqualify the research but I think the “research” itself (which is no more than a high-school science project) in itself discredits the paper. The poor quality of the paper made it unacceptable to reputable journals and you therefore bought publication, whoever paid for it.
Richard Sauerheber, where have I attempted to falsify Peckham’s data by reference to his activism? In truth, nowhere. My critique of his work (seehttps://openparachute.wordpress.com/2015/02/25/paper-claiming-water-fluoridation-linked-to-hypothyroidism-slammed-by-experts/) has been based in its own inadequacies. In the case of his hypothyroidism paper I was not the only one who pointed out the problem of the lack of information on dietary iodine as an important confounding factor which should behave been included – a fundamental problem with the paper. Personally I would be interested in publishing that critique but that would require me hunting down the data that Peckham neglected to. Now why is it forbidden for me to refer to Peckham’s activism! He actually referred to it himself in his declaration of conflicts of interest.
I did refer to the way that Peckham, himself, used shonky journals to attempt to give credibility to his activism in my article here https://openparachute.wordpress.com/2014/10/08/anti-fluoridation-propagandists-promoting-shonky-review/
I also critiqued the similar paper on ADHD (Malin and Till, 2015) you people are promoting, which suffers from a similar inadequacy. I was seriously thinking of publishing my analysis showing that when other factors were considered the relationship with fluoridation disappeared (see https://openparachute.wordpress.com/2015/03/22/adhd-linked-to-elevation-not-fluoridation/) – but someone else has beaten me to it reporting the more important relations with elevation that I also found (see https://openparachute.wordpress.com/2015/04/21/adhd-link-to-fluoridation-claim-undermined-again/).
Peckham’s paper suffered the same problems that Malin & Till’s paper did – they are both of poor quality but that doesn’t stop anti-fluoride propagandists promoting them.
There is certainly nothing more that I can add in regard to your calcium theories. Ken has completely debunked that. Just a couple of things, however:
1. You are falsely attributing a quote to me which I did not make. I have never stated the you are “buying journal space to publish whatever I wanted”. Those are your words, not mine. Neither did I say that you paid a fee to have your work published. I stated the you were charged a fee. You have admitted to me in the past that others had paid the fee for you. I strongly suspect that it was paid by “FAN” or someone afiliated with them. If so, then there is yet another blatant conflict of interest. This bears further investigation.
2. It seems that Ken has exposed your “affiliation” with UCSD to be nothing more than being a member of its alumni association. If UCSD officials are unaware that you are using their name in such manner, they soon will be. Verification of your academic degrees also bears scrutiny.
Steven D. Slott, DDS
The JEPH journal policy is to list who the senior editor is for their published materials, and it is public knowledge who the editor of my article is because it is stated in the journal lissue. Did you actually read the article? Or do we have here the George Bernard Shaw description “the problem with communication is that you think it was accomplished.”
Calling any person an anti fluoridation activist (AFA) from the lips of one who opposes those who promote non-drugged drinking water is denigration. The term AFA implies that the person is insanely or nonsensically opposed to fluoride, which is absurd. Fluoride in the ocean where it belongs at 12 ppm is natural and harmless to fish due to the thousands of ppm calcium and magnesium in which it is present which buffer or block the assimilation of fluoride..
The term AFA is a denigration.
i read your critique of the iodine issue you brought up and it itself has flaws. Most papers have some flaws, and those that are pro fluoridation are the most flawed of all.
I read the anti clean water nonsense posted on the listed site about bottom feeding journals. Included in the list is Fluoride in New Zealand. Also included are references to the group called quackwatch. Quackwatch claims that Dr. John Yiamouyiannis’ work on fluoride are all false. Why? Because of an off the wall comment he had made about AIDS that was incorrect Quackwatch throws the baby out with the bathwater, being unable to filter out incorrect material from the truth it contains.
And I suppose you denigrated my racehorse breakdown article data because it was published in the journal Fluoride that you condemn?
That data summarizes nearly a quarter million horse racing starts and I also stand by that data and its interpretation.
Good day to you.
Steve, Ken has debunked nothing that is in the JEPH article in the slightest.
He merely makes the point that it doesn’t matter where the calcium comes from to neutralize fluoride assimilation, not that calcium is unable to mitigate fluoride assimilation. This debunks nothing that was said in the article.
It does not do you well to claim someone paid for the article from the Fluoride Action Network, when they most certainly did not. Where do you get this stuff? Before you have claimed I am a paid “science advisor” for James Deal. Show me. And if donors prefer to remain anonymous I can now see why, with the politics that go with this topic being threatening and oppressive.
Furthermore, don’t change your intent. Please read Ken’s article in WordPress that goes into length about “bottom feeding journals” who publish anything that “authors pays for.”
And now I see your true intention, that you are threatening me and even claiming I am not affiliated with UCSD through Dr. Benson who advised me with the JEPH article, or with Dr. Doolittle. My degrees from UCSD need scrutiny? Of course, because I am opposed to what you believe in, whole body fluoride dosing of everyone on earth, whether sick with kidney or bone disease or not, and whether having zero cavities or not, or even whether having teeth or not. Again, it’s a free country, and this scientist is free to state the truth about the nonsensical and illegal practice of “community water fluoridation.” Attack me ad nauseum. You can’t change the truth but you can certainly throw dirt on it.
And I am ready to submit three articles for publication done in collaboration with Dr.Heinz, Chemistry Dept. Palomar College. She retired 5 days ago and my salary now comes from a different department. So since the articles have not been published yet, am I supposed to drop the affiliation with the Chemistry Department?
The chief reason for publishing Calculus articles in the International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology with the Chemistry Dept affiliation was to ensure that my training in the Calculus was from UCSD. The IJMEST Journal asked about it and was fine with it. So in your estimation is IJMEST also a bottom feeding journal?
Bottom line, the Conclusion section of the WordPress article under discussion claim that “There is plenty of calcium even in “soft” drinking water” — as though somehow all water treated with industrial fluorides will automatically be safe to consume lifetime because of the calcium it will contain for protection against too much being assimilated. That is what the hogwash is. Try telling that hogwash to the Justus family who lost their expensive horses from industrial fluoridated water from the Pagosa River that contained less than 5 ppm protective calcium ion. Don’t make such false claims where the public can read it on WordPress, but rather investigate the whole truth first.
Dr. Richard Sauerheber, I took a quick glance at the Justus case but haven’t had a chance to read extensively. Could you please tell me if there was a lawsuit to compensate for the loss of their expensive horses?
Richard, your ridiculous rants are meaningless. Yes, your credentials and purported “affiliations” will be verified. Since you continue to fail to disclose whom paid your open access fee, it can only be assumed that you have something to hide with that, as well.
Steven D. Slott, DDS
Steve, Of course I’m hiding something. I’m protecting the donors from you.
What did you think I’m “hiding?
Ken, your description of “the reality” is not the whole truth. Waters that contain natural fluoride at 1 ppm typically contain plentiful calcium to go with it, from calcium salts other than calcium fluoride that are also present. On the contrary, water deemed to “need” added fluoride by fluoridation promoters are typically much lower in protective calcium, as one would expect. Adding fluoride drastically lowers the calcium to fluoride ratio to a lower level than present in the water that contained the natural 1 ppm fluoride. The artificially fluoridated water is more harmful than the natural.
This is not rocket science and is easily understood by all High Schoolers around here. Too bad the WordPress article hides it.
David, I can give you a quick answer but bear with me until I get more details for the entire story soon.
My understanding is that the losses were not recovered. But the good thing was the city of Pagosa Springs had citizens who know what they are talking about and ordered the local water district to stop the infusions. They are worthless since eating fluoride all day long won’t prevent and can’t prevent a single dental cavity, and the infusions are harmful causing bone in-growths within the marrow and eventual cancers that killed most of the horses who suffered for years with HF induced colic before fluoride poisoning was finally recognized, not being taught in veterinary school.
The Hooper Bay overfeed disaster litigation is STILL ongoing and may never be settled. The city blames the State of Alaska for making them “fluoridate” with industrial sodium fluoride (if calcium fluoride had been used, the maximum fluoride level in any accident could never have exceeded 7-8 ppm due to poor solubility). Meanwhile, the State blames the city for doing the fluoridating. So it’s an endless impasse. The soft Yukon River water treated with sodium fluoride corrosive and was too much for the fluoridation feed system which corroded and caused fluoride levels to reach an estimated 100 ppm which killed Dominic Smith and sickened 302 others who were life-flighted to the hospital. The fluoride promoters still want to begin “fluoridation” there again, but the Eskimo natives refuse to let them (thank God for Eskimos). But no, the lawsuit has not led to any collection for loss of life and other damages. it is difficult to deal with what many officials actually believe is some sort of National Fluoridation Policy, as dictated by the Surgeon General and the OHD within the CDC.
Gee, Richard, you don’t suppose the reason that antifluoridationist lawsuits have a zero success rate is because they have zero merit, do you?
Steven D. Slott, DDS
I see now that teriparatide is FDA approved since 2002 to induce 8% bone growth in one year of treatment and is being considered to be used in cases of skeletal fluorosis to attempt to remodel bone due to the presence of fluoroapatite. It of course would be better to avoid fluoride consumption in the first place. There is no purpose behind fluoridation of bone that always accompanies ingestion of 1 ppm fluoride water and accumulates during lifelong consumption to thousands of mg/kg in bone (NRC, 2006 p. 94). Higher concentrations in bone occur for industrlal sodium fluoride treatment than for calcium fluoride, where 50 grams total chronic intake of fluoride from sodium fluoride led to 10,000 mg/kg in bone but from natrual calcium fluoride reached 7,000 mg/kg (NRC, 2006 p. 97).
Wow, Richard! With hundreds of millions of citizens of the 74.6% fluoridated United States having chronically ingested optimally fluoridated water over the past 70 years, the US must be constantly overrun with skeletal fluorosis by now…….right??
“Several of the more recent reviews on the safety of fluoride intake have discussed skeletal fluorosis, which is extremely rare in the United States. Epidemiological studies in the U.S. of communities with naturally occurring fluoride in the water 3.3 to 8 times the amount in optimally adjusted water supplies found no evidence of skeletal fluorosis. Pages 45-47 of the 1991 Department of Health and Human Services document Review of Fluoride: Benefits and Risks discusses the topic of skeletal fluorosis topic in more detail and provides references. Only 5 cases of skeletal fluorosis have ever been reported in the U.S. In these cases, the total fluoride intake was 15 to 20 mg./fluoride per day for 20 years.”
Steven D. Slott, DDS
Dr. Richard Sauerheber, I’m confused. Please correct me if I am wrong, but it sounds like a very well off family in Sonoma, California lost some very expensive horses because of fluoride ingestion from a municipal water supply. The municipality was adding fluoride that killed the horses. The EPA allows up to 4 ppm of fluoride in drinking water. Is any of this incorrect so far? What I don’t understand is, with such a substantial loss, and with financial means at their disposal, why wouldn’t the family go after somebody for damages if all of this was proven beyond a shadow of a doubt? This sounds like an open and shut, slam dunk, no brainer to me. They could obviously afford a pretty good law firm. They could go after the EPA; they could go after the municipality. What am I missing here? This whole story raises some red flags for me.
Regarding the Alaska incident. Yes, overfeeds have occured. Today there are redundancies in water systems to prevent such occurances. In some cases a flow switch is used as a secondary verification of water flow. To say that water fluoridation is unsafe because of that incident would be like saying that ocean travel is unsafe because the Titanic only had half the necessary lifeboats in 1912.
My mistake, the family was from Colorado. Nevertheless, the questions remain.
Steve, These are old arguments you and I have already had numerous times. First you claim that I’m somehow unaware that fluoride ion in natural and industrial compounds after dissociation is the same structure from either compound. This proves that you have not even actually read the JEPH article that you love to criticize. The first two sentences in section 3.3 state the fact that the released anion from either compound are structurally identical (not for covalent compounds, but any ionic fluoride compound).
After numerous arguments you still proclaim my lack of understanding of this even in the current blog.
Now you still argue that skeletal fluorosis with fluoride in harder water being minimal in incidence, somehow “proves” that fluoride in softer water is also equally safe. This claim has so many egregious distortions that it would take a week to decipher them for you. 1) Diagnosed fluorosis in various stages is not an accurate science with wide variation in calcium content causing any and each stage with vast overlap as well. Everyone who consumes fluoridated water has some form of at least preclinical skeletal fluorosis because of the fact that at first insult with fluoride in bone, osteoblasts are abnormally stimulated to produce bone of poor quality to r respond to the insult, even in the absence of any feeling of pain yet that would cause one to visit a doctor to seek any diagnosis. You act as though everything is now magically known by the U.S. medical profession about pathologic fluoride incorporation into bone that now is endemic in U.S. citizens who consume fluoride water. Again, find someone in Grand Rapids who has indeed consumed the drugged water their entire life of say 60 years, and someone who only drank re-de-fluoridated water or regular water without fluoride. Apply a force just under that required to break normal bone, and see of the fluoridated skeletal bone withstands that force without a break or crack. These data would be of course be unethical to obtain but are needed before you can claim that artificially fluoridated people behave exactly the same as whether water is consumed that has either no fluoride, or artificially added fluoride, or natural fluoride from calcium rich rock dissolution. The “town without a toothache” farce in Hereford,TX contained 1 ppm natural fluoride and of course was accompanied with vast amounts of calcium and magnesium in the water, as expected. Of course bone fluoride accumulation there would be less than for an artificially fluoridated city at the same 1 ppm level in a city with much softer water than Hereford. Some cities in Texas areas are as high as 500 ppm calcium and water districts refer to that officially as “hard water.”
This is a stab at achieving some sort of communication on this with you that could help you, but this is not very likely. The theory that the vast cases of arthritis extant in this Nation have absolutely zero to do with mass fluoridation of the bony skeletons of our citizens is absurd, but from you it is absolute fact.
You as a fluoridation advocate/activist have your hopes and beliefs, and I have my understanding. Such is life.
And the issue of my “affiliation” with UCSD and degrees subject to “scrutiny”, there are many other ways I am affiliated with UCSD besides working with Dr.Benson on the JEPH article. I have donated a small amount to the campus many years ago. I have for 24 years now trained students who obtained scholarships and in even more cases paid work research laboratory internships at UCSD, mostly at the School of Medicine and at the Jacobs School of Engineering. I have written contributions for the UCSD Alumni magazine which by the way has announced all recent publications including the JEPH and Fluoride articles, among the others. To you my affiliation is somehow dubious, to me it’s quite productive.
Sorry Steve, but the Hooper Bay disaster is not a case with zero merit. You might want to present your opinions to the citizens who lived through it.
Sorry David, but the titanic event was a unique one. Fluoridation overfeeds have occurred in cities across the fluoridated U.S. numerous times. What you seem not to understand also is that community water fluoridation never had a functional purpose in the first place. Fluoride in saliva bathing teeth topically at 0.016 ppm (NRC 2006, p. 73) from 1 ppm fluoride water consumption is useless at affecting dental caries. Fluoridation advocates have attempted recently to change their mechanism of action that even this low level could incorporate into plaque where it could help toothpaste fluoride fight decay. But most dentists argue that plaque should be removed from teeth, not retained to incorporate fluoride to help fight caries. And even topical fluoride gels at 12,000 ppm don’t actually incorporate fluoride into the enamel matrix. Studies in Europe with Xray analysis prove that the enamel surface is merely coated with calcium fluoride globules that are quickly washed off upon eating and swallowed. Why would anyone, in the face of poisoning from an overfeed that took place, and increased morbidity in kidney dlalysis wards from water with target levels of fluoride that required an FDA ruling against it, and chronic fluoridation of bone when the U.S. has an endemic of arthritis, bone replacement surgeries and other bone/tendon related issues, continue “fluoridation” with a hazardous waste as source material for fluoride which can reach lethal concentrations in accidents, when it doesn’t even have a useful purpose? Decreased dental decay in Europe and the U.S. during the years the U.S., but not Europe, expanded artificial fluoridation is explainable to improved tooth brushing and increased sales of toothbrushes and tooth powders, but fluoride eating has absolutely nothing to do with it and never has.
Richard, I’m tired of dealing with your mostly irrelevant verbiage, false claims, misrepresentation of my statements, and utter nonsense. Your comments speak for themselves in regard to your misunderstanding of even the basic elements of fluoridation chemistry.
Steven D. Slott, DDS
Richard Sauerheber, you now seem to have veered away from somehow claiming that the only way to ensure adequate levels of Ca in water is to use CaF2 rather than fluorosilicates as a fluoridating agent. That is weird given that the fluoridating agent contributes extremely little to the Ca content of the water – which you acknowledge elsewhere.
As for Hooper Bay you seem to want to draw the lesson that such setups should use saturated CaF2 solution as the feed to avoid the problems of poisoning. Given that this would present mechanical problems the obvious conclusion is that the feed fluorosilicate or NaF solutions should have a restricted maximum concentration – say 7 or 8 ppm F. You happy with that?
Oh, and if you do suddenly remember the role of Ca in you pet theory then the obvious solution, if your idea has any credibility, is simply to add a soluble Ca salt to bring the concentration up to what you define as the optimum level for drinking water.
Now what is the optimum level of Ca for drinking water that your 19 year long high school project experiments enabled you to determine?
This suggestion of mine (continuing use of “industrial” fluoridating agents but defining a optimum Ca concentration using added soluble calcium salts) is far better than switching to “natural” CaF2 because such unprocessed material contains impermissible levels of contaminants. It would require a lot of processing – conversion to HF and reprecipitation of CaF2 to produce the regulated levels of purity which are already defined for the “industrial” fluoridating chemicals.
And wouldn’t that upset the ideologically motivated – your “natural” CaF2 would have become an “industrial” fluoride.
If you like analogies like the Titanic, then what about this one. Any persons who have lived their entire lives without a cavity, and plan to continue keeping their mouth clean to never have one, Intentionally ingest fluoride ion water treated for the purpose of whole body fluoride dosing is like tenting a house that doesn’t have termites while using the wrong chemical that doesn’t work anyway, or it’s like taking any chemical therapy when one doesn’t have the disease that it is advertised for. Fluoridation en masse without a prescription and with FDA approval compares to medical malpractice at best and in reality is irrational, unethical, and illegal.
And the TItanic argument is not worth much because ships at least serve a useful purpose, transportation. Whole body fluoridation has no effective purpose, never will and never has. Fluoride ion does not belong in any living organism.
Richard, anti-fluoride-activist is a perfectly valid term. Someone who is actively anti fluoridation. The only missing qualification are the words ‘community water’ in respect of fluoridation, which is perfectly obvious from context.
Ken, you have no idea what is even presented in the JEPH article. Nowhere does it state that use of calcium fluoride is an acceptable way to adjust fluoride concentrations in water supplies. Fluoride in water is a contaminant, not a desirable material. The anion does not belong in any living organism or tissue. it has no physiologic purpose and in mammals it accumulates abnormally in a biochemically irreversible, permanent manner, where it causes synthesis of bone of poor quality in response to the insult.
I do not suggest calcium fluoride should be used at all. The statement was to indicate that if it had been used, there would not have been the death. Adding 7-8 ppm fluoride from sodium fluoride into Yukon River very soft water would be insane. It is the ratio of calcium to fluoride ion that determines fluoride toxicity. You missed the point of the entire article. A level of about 300 to 1 is typical, for the Colorado and many U.S. rivers. But some rivers are devoid of fluoride and calcium. Adding industrial fluoride at 8 ppm without calcium,forming a ratio far lower than 300 to 1? Really Ken?
The first part of the article on natural calcium fluoride minerals vs industrial synthetic fluoride compounds, where one is not capable of acute lethal poisoning and the second one is, is an introduction to the Hooper Bay fluoridation overfeed disaster that gave the original impetus to the article in the first place and that produced lethal 4-5 ppm blood fluoride levels in the deceased victim.
The second section deals with fluoride toxicity at intermediate blood levels around 1 ppm as occurred in kidney dialysis victims using fluoridated water in the dialysis equipment.
The third section deals with chronic lower level fluoride toxicity, at blood levels around 0.2 ppm from typical persons consuming 1 ppm fluoride water chronically lifetime with the bone accumulation where it does not belong and serves no purpose.
The fourth section deals with the information requested by the journal editors regarding U.S. fluoridation policy. Foreign countries do not and never will understand dentist obsessions with whole body fluoride dosing through treated public drinking water, and the journal wanted to know what the rationale for this useless practice is.
This Steve is not “utter nonsense” or “misunderstanding.”
Richard, AFA is not an acceptable term unless its meaning is defined. And you did not define it in the beginning. Many argue the term refers to those who hate fluoride anywhere and everywhere, including advocating the removal of natural fluoride from rivers, lakes and even the ocean. That is absurd and is an insult to a biochemist. You now define it better, but it is acceptable and only non-insulting if you mean AFA refers to one who opposes community water fluoridation for the purpose of whole body fluoride dosing in an attempt to treat dental decay by elevating fluoride in the blood where it is a non-nutrient contaminant. If that is your definition of AFA, then you could refer to me as an AFA. if any part of that is removed from the meaning, then you have no right to call me by those letters which would be a misrepresentation. And opposing water fluoridation is not the only activity I do, so the label AFA still is not that good anyway, but does describe an activity in which I am involved.
Topical fluoride does not “remineralize” teeth enamel. Normal teeth enamel contains no fluoride, and fluoridated bone from systemic fluoride is abnormal bone. Useless, harmful, illegal, and an expensive waste of taxpayers’ and others’ money and time. Got the picture?
Many argue the term refers to those who hate fluoride anywhere and everywhere, including advocating the removal of natural fluoride from rivers, lakes and even the ocean
Many (in my opinion, fools) might argue that, but few or none advocate such removal (can you name any?). You cannot ignore common usage. Doing so exposes a very weak argument, one based on pedantry only. You risk looking stupid.
I repeat it is a perfectly valid term.
There is no need to define what the words mean, it is implicit in the meaning of the words.
Anti: prefix, against
Fluoridation: act of adding fluoride to something (note that this by definition excludes natural sources)
Activist: one who actively advocates
Richard, for anyone who misrepresents himself on published scientific literature, as “Chemistry Department, University of California-San Diego” when that affiliation amounts to nothing more than membership in an alumni association of that school, fails to disclose his affiliation with a personal injury attorney who maintains a website called “fluoride-class-action”, fails to disclose the funding source for his published paper, and who spews the utter nonsense that you do……..”antifluoridationist” is an entirely acceptable and appropriate description.
Steven D. Slott, DDS
Stupid? How? Yes I can name some but why would I expose their names to you, to be called names as you did here? I can correct their misunderstandings with rational discussion, unlike with the people who support and who wrote the WordPress attack article under consideration here. And please notice you’ve already changed the term in your own words. You first said it meant anti fluoride activist. Which of course is absurd. God Created fluoride compounds. Who can dispute God?
And now you say it instead means anti fluoridation activist, which is more acceptable, but only if you mean what I described above, not some other meaning for it. Fluoridation chemicals used vary from sodium fluoride to fluosilcic acid lilquid to solid sodium fluosilicate salt, as you know, where the first does not increase the dissolution of lead ion from lead salts on plumbing , but fluosilicic acid most certainly does, in spite of what you’ll I suspect hear soon from Slott. Released silicic acid at water pH remains the intact protonated acid. And why do you suggest I risk “looking stupid”? You’re the one who first stated what you meant.
One simple question Richard S. So as to avoid rambling diversions.
After 19 years of research what is the optimum concentration you have found which will counter what you see as the toxic effects of optimum fluoride concentration (0.75 ppm) in drinking water. Simple question simple answer.
I also know many misinformed people who are anti fluoridation activists who refuse to drink fluoridated water, and say they would do so even if they were in the desert without any other water source. Even temporary ingestion they oppose, to their own detriment. So AFA that refers to them does not refer to me. And it is usually those who are sensitive to fluoride who reject it totally so understand the origination of their position. And yes industrial fluoride from fluosilicic acid in soft water can cause hypersensitive reactions in a small percent of people. It can be dealt with, but it is an unnecessary life complication.
Richard S, I recognise another hobby horse of yours. 🙂
The aqueous chemistry of silica compounds is very complex and the chemical forms are often operationally defined. For example we often use the term “monomeric” to cover the molybdate reactive silica in solution. But of course the system is dynamic with olation and oxolation reactions leading to solid silica and it is difficult to define at what degree of polymerisation the species becomes non-reactive.
You may wish to assume all the silica produced in the hydrolytic decomposition of fluorosilicic acid remains as monomeric silica. However, if you do so you must also recognise that it will exist in drinking water as a small fraction of the total monomeric silica present and derived from natural sources.
If you are going to scaremonger about the reactive silica released from hydrolysis of fluorosilicates then to be honest you have to be far more concerned about the greater amounts of reactive silica naturally present in drinking water – including un-fluoridated drinking water.
Now I have obtained a more detailed answer to your original question.
No, the owners never got any kind of a settlement. They told the water municipality that if they ceased fluoridation, they would not sue. At that point they had lost nearly a million dollars, for all the lost horses, vet/medical/necropsy costs, travel taking horses to CO State Univ., medicines, etc. and couldn’t afford more expense getting a lawyer, The chronic slow poisoning went on for years until the last horse with skeletal fluorosis, fibromyalgia, skin disorders, etc. was lost. The expert fluoride toxicologist who diagnosed this suggested a lawsuit because it was so cut and dried. But the owners were then part of a homeowners association lawsuit and it was blatantly clear how corrupt the court system is non this issue, no matter how cut and dried the case. These are the reasons they didn’t sue and their prime goal was to have regular water back again anyway, which it has been ever since, and all horses since then have been fully normal of course.
Again, fluoride toxicology depends on prevailing conditions. The softer the water, the more is assimilated. Understand?
By the way it was the poisoning of these horses that caused my concern for the possible effect of fluoridated water on racehorses not allowed to pasture graze, as at racetracks in Cypress and Inglewood. Indeed, the breakdown incidence increase after fluoridated water began caused Hollywood Park to eventually close down. And Los Alamitos halted purchases of the L.A. drugged water, and switched to use only well water.
(Fluoride, Racehorse Breakdowns and Artificially Fluoridated Water in Los Angeles, 2013).
Dr. Richard Sauerhaber, much of what you have said is laughable. Dr. Slott rightly pointed out that Skeletal Fluorosis in the U.S. is extremely rare. There have been less than a dozen documented cases in a nation of over 425 million, in the nation that has been practicing CWF longer than any place on Earth. Your response, if I understood you correctly, is that much of the arthritis in the U.S. is undiagnosed SF. At best this is speculation, but more likely it is reaching on your part. It is not my intent to sound cheauvinistic, but medical diagnostics in India, where SF is common, are simply not superior to those in the U.S. Your speculation is a load of crap.
I brought up the incident of the Justus family who lost their expensive horses because it smacked of an anecdote, fed to you through the Fluoride Action Network with no scrutinization, so you could throw it in Dr. Perrott’s face with such self-righteousness (How did you put it? “Try telling that hogwash to the Justus family who lost their expensive horses . . “) that one would have expected you to have a firm grasp on the story. So tell me, Dr. Richard, why didn’t they sue anybody?
My point in questioning your story is that if you lose credibility anywhere, you lose credibility everywhere.
And of course you know that I pointed to the Titanic as an example of archaic standards that have since improved. Industrial accidents happen in every area. Infinitely more people have been injured and killed by chlorine than all forms of fluoride put together. Water system treatment equipment and standards have improved drastically since the Alaska incident, and you probably know that too.
Apologies, Dr. Sauerhaber, I was posting my comment before I had seen your answer to my original question. So, if I understand you correctly, the family decided that it was in their best interests to have the municipality end CWF, after they had lost millions of dollars worth of property.
Wouldn’t it have been better in their financial interest to seek the millions of dollars of compensation that, according to you, they could have easily gotten in court since it was clearly provable, and to have just gotten an inexpensive water filter?
Yeah, Richard, the horse tale was as “cut and dried” as are all other frivolous antifluoridationist nonsense. The woman had at least 6 vets who had examined her horses pre- and post-mortem tell her that their illness was not due to fluoride. Undaunted, she shopped around until she found one who agreed that the symptoms she described to him, which she had deemed her animals to have exhibited, could be consistent with fluoride poisoning.
Could this tale even be any more ridiculous?
Steven D. Slott, DDS
I don’t know how much you know about the legal system in the U.S., but if anybody has a cut and dried case, easily provable, and millions of dollars are on the line, it is not difficult to find a law firm that will initially take the case pro bono. I submit: Your story is full of holes.
Some relevant information about this horsey story.
Cathy Justus of Pagosa Springs, Colorado (the owner of the horses) is Fluoride Action Network’s National Spokesperson against Fluoride Poisoning in Animals. Given her “activism” and beliefs one would have thought she would litigate like hell. Especially as there are backers (like those who paid for publication of Richard S’s paper) only too interested in supporting a worthwhile case.
Perhaps she didn’t have anything to go on as far as the water supply was concerned as it is usually thought that fluorosis in horses is caused by other things like “ingestion of forages or waters contaminated with fluoride-containing industrial waste, high-fluorine rock-phosphate supplements in animal feeds, and fluoride-containing rodenticides, insecticides, and other chemicals ( see Expert discusses fluoridated water and horses ) in http://horsetalk.co.nz/
Oh dear me.
Stupid? How? Yes I can name some but why would I expose their names to you, to be called names as you did here?…
You know people who advocate removing fluoride from rivers lakes and the oceans.
Good luck to them with that.
And I completely understand that you want to protect their identities.
I also know many misinformed people who are anti fluoridation activists who refuse to drink fluoridated water, and say they would do so even if they were in the desert without any other water source. Even temporary ingestion they oppose, to their own detriment.
Yes, that sounds like a watertight example of stupidity to me.
You appear comfortable saying misinformed people are anti fluoridation activists, are you implying that informed people on the subject can’t be anti fluoridation activists? Just trying to get my head around where you are coming from, it seems to be all over the place.
..blah, blah blah…God Created fluoride compounds. Who can dispute God?
Many do. Not all of us live in the USA where the god superstition is endemic.
And now you say it instead means anti fluoridation activist, which is more acceptable, but only if you mean what I described above, not some other meaning for it.
No. Read carefully.
You disputed the term anti fluoridation activist, arguing it was pejorative.
The term AFA implies that the person is insanely or nonsensically opposed to fluoride, which is absurd. Fluoride in the ocean where it belongs at 12 ppm is natural and harmless to fish due to the thousands of ppm calcium and magnesium in which it is present which buffer or block the assimilation of fluoride..
In case you missed it:
The term AFA is a denigration.
You even provided the “AFA’ as a convenient initialism.
Which leads us to
And now you say it instead means anti fluoridation activist,which is more acceptable
Cross out the word “instead” from the sentence and it would be accurate description of what I said. Yes, I say that anti fluoridation activist means anti fluoridation activist.
I even supplied the dictionary meaning of the words. They mean the same as they did last week and the decade before then: Someone who actively opposes fluoridation.
And why do you suggest I risk “looking stupid”?
For the exact same reason as I wrote earlier: a weak and pedantic objection to the use of anti fluoridation activist as a descriptive term.
Cathy Justus of Pagosa Springs
She shopped around for quite a while before she found an expert to agree with her a priori bias.
Yes, she and her friendly vet even published a paper on the poisoning, in the journal Fluoride! Absolutely no checking for sources of the poisoning – we just have to take their word for it that it was fluoridated water.
Fluoride poisoning of farm animals is not unknown in NZ and is often caused by releasing animals into freshly fertilised pasture without the recommended withholding period. I am not yet aware pf any NZ farmer suggesting fluoridated water is to blame.
Perhaps FFNZ should get onto this.
Ok, Sauerheber, ask and ye shall receive……..
“Controlling for covariates, water fluoridation method was significant only in the models that included dwellings built before 1946 and dwellings of unknown age. Across stratum- specific models for dwellings of known age, neither hydrofluosilicic acid nor sodium silicofluoride were associated with higher geometric mean PbB concentrations or prevalence values. Given these findings, our analyses, though not definitive, do not support concerns that silicofluorides in community water systems cause higher PbB concentrations in children. Current evidence does not provide a basis for changing water fluoridation practices, which have a clear public health benefit.”
—-Blood Lead Concentrations in Children and Method of Water Fluoridation in the United States, 1988-1994
Environ Health Perspec. 2006 January; 114 (1): 130-134
Mark D. Macek, Thomas D. Matte, Thomas Sinks, and Delores M. Malvitz
“Overall, we conclude that no credible evidence exists to show that water fluoridation has any quantitatable effects on the solubility, bioavailability, bio- accumulation, or reactivity of lead(0) or lead(I1) compounds. The governing factors are the concentrations of a number of other species, such as (bi)carbonate, hydroxide, or chloride, whose effects far exceed those of fluoride or fiuorosilicates under drinking water conditions.”
——Can Fluoridation Affect Lead (II) In Potable Water? Hexafluorosilicate and Fluoride Equilibria In Aqueous Solution
Urbansky, E.T., Schocks, M.R.
Intern. J . Environ. Studies, 2000, Voi. 57. pp. 597-637
Steven D. Slott, DDS
a. I did not say that medical diagnostics in India are “superior” to that in the U.S. Where do you guys get the right to distort things I say, to retain the luxury of continuing to argue? I was referring to the fact that no one in the U.S. (or any other country for that matter) has sufficient knowledge to know at precisely what level for example fluoride in bone will cause pain. It’s a seemingly simple question but yet varies widely among different people and between various bones. This is because fluoridation of bone can be considered a quite random process. It’s sort of like ingestion of tritium water, where there is no useful MCL for it and its biologic effect too is random. If tritium water molecules emit beta decay onto a point in DNA that is critical, then a deleterious result can occur at even a modest tritium water systemic concentration. If it hits less critical areas then the result is completely different—the luck of the draw. The same with fluoridated locations in the bony skeleton. Some regions are enriched in nerves, others are less enriched, hence some have severe bone pain at low total fluoride overall average levels in bone than others at that overall average level without pain. Bone growths in the Pagosa horses inward into the marrow occurred at bone fluoride levels of only about 4-500 mg/kg. Some fluoride incorporates into compact bone, some in spongy bone, some causing spicules to grow inward, some causing bony outgrowths, but all fluoride incorporation is abnormal and biochemically not reversible. The NRC 2006 Report lists stage II skeletal fluorosis occuring even at as low as 4,300 mg/kg in bone (p. 173) in some individuals but lists a very broad range for it because people are so different and fluoridated scattering of bone is again the luck of the draw. The differentiation between prediabetes and diagnosed diabetes (Type II) is also similarly problematic. There is no easy paradigm to determine whether one should be labeled in a diabetic state, a prediabetic state, or simply an elevated normal, etc. The ADA uses 130 mg% as a cutoff for glucose levels 13 hours after fasting to distinguish, but this depends on whether the patient ate a huge amount of wedding cake the night before or not, etc. Other agencies use a completely different number. Likewise, the point where pre-skeletal fluorosis becomes skeletal fluorosis with boen weakening or bone pain occurs over even a more broad fluoride incorporation range. How does one decide if a hip should be replaced when one has pain? Should the bone fluoride level be above X or above Y? Neither the U.S. nor anyone has adequate answers for that—it’s a game of intuition or art, and in the U.S. this is brought on intentionally because of water “fluoridation” which is unnecessary and useless in the first place. The fluoride content of the bloodstream in fluoridated U.S. consumers is about 75% due to water fluoride consumption (NRC).
b. I already told you why they did not sue in Pagosa Springs, but you refuse to accept the truth, so there is little point in repeating it. As for myself, I don’t believe in suing people unless there were absolutely no other recourse for some tragic event. And I would be even more reluctant to sue a public facility, because they are supposed to be public service agencies that can’t go bankrupt because they simply charge the customer for it. Why sue a water utility, when you pay are the one who pays their bills anyway? Sue yourself? Ridiculous. Notice, the owners got what they demanded. Pagosa Springs remains non-fluoridated to this day and their horses are now fine. You can claim Dr. Krook lied if you choose, but you can count me out. No it would not have been likely to “win” a court case against a water district. Did you even comprehend what I posted? The U.S. Surgeon general announces regularly “fluoridation” is considered a great public health achievement, and water districts announce to customers how great fluoridation is to reduce dental decay by 40%, while not harming a single bodily function when ingested for the rest of your lives no matter who you are. Win a court case? Wow.
There were three rare separate court cases where fluoride water was determined beyond reasonable doubt to have exacerbated cancer mortality, but even this did not halt water fluoridation in those locations. One was overruled by a higher court with the proclamation that a court cannot “decide what people drink.” (the ultimate in irony). Again, the horse owners got what the demanded, which is a permanent end to water “fluoridation” in their home town. Got it fluoride pushers? You can leave soft water Pagosa Springs alone now, thank you.
David, it’s not “my story”, it’s “the” story. When were you in Pagosa?
c. The handling of noxious chlorine is nothing as difficult as the handling of corrosive fluosilicic acid with HF. Window glass is etched by HF, not by chlorine. And by the way employees handling the toxic corrosive are in far more danger living their lives working daily with that than with natural calcium fluoride, another reason why calcium fluoride is preferable to noxious fluosilicic acid for you “fluoridation” nonsense, for the improved safety of the employees, the protection of district equipment and facilities and plumbing fixtures, etc. And again, don’t twist these words into what you want, which is “Richard said it’s better to use calcium fluoride than fluosilicic acid fluoride for fluoridation”. Not true. I denounce “fluoridation” in its entirety. But if you insist on doing it to people, then why not use the safe source material calcium fluoride which is not an officially recognized poison, while fluosilicic acid most certainly is. And calcium fluoride does not leech lead like released silicic acid does (see below).
d. Richard, I’m not “all over the place.” The term anti fluoride activist is different than anti fluoridation activist. If one doesn’t define what he refers to, then he is the one who is “all over the place.” That’s why labels usually have only limited use. Hence your present confusion. You wrote “You disputed the term anti fluoridation activist, arguing it was pejorative.” No, I wrote “AFA” ( defined in your first use context as anti fluoride activist, not anti fluoridation activist). In that sense yes it’s absurd. Again, there are people who hate all fluoride, even that in the ocean, and if the term AFA means that, then it is absurd. If the term means as you later stated, anti fluoridation activist, that is completely different because fluoridation is an intentional act committed by uninformed humans using industrial fluosilicic acid infusions into water supplies which dissociates into silicic acid, sodium ion, and fluoride ion, none of which belong in or are found in clean pristine fresh drinking water (see JEPH 49490, 2013). And BTW I own several dictionaries.
e. As stated by Macik, the analysis was not definitive. That is an understatement. Lead levels in school drinking fountains and in sinks of many homes here in North County skyrocketed after fluosilicic acid infusions began. Those detected were replaced, but the water district stopped testing after that and declared “homeowners will be required to check their own water for lead and to mitigate as needed.” How convenient. “Lead free plumbing” was adopted legally in CA years ago, but who spends money to refit their entire home plumbing systems to accommodate senseless “fluoridation”? (hint—almost no one). And whatever the heck are homes of “unknown age?” What a bizarre attempt to cover over the fact that silicic acid reacts with lead salts on lead-containing plumbing, the older the more lead salts accumulate on the fixture. And notice that “lead free plumbing” is a false name anyway. Here in CA we lead the Nation in procuring such fixtures, but they ALL contain lead, just at lower levels than before.
f. This idea that the U.S. is not a Godly Nation, or as you claim that God is a “superstition,” are common misunderstandings. There is no need to discuss that with you because the AFA comments above, for which this was brought up, have been made clear for the reader.
And Fluoride is not a “bottom feeding” journal as claimed. Is my article worthless or somehow incorrect in totality because (as argued here for the Pagosa horse article) it too is published in Fluoride? That 7 year analysis of 12 years of racing in So CA involved nearly a quarter million horse racing starts and is not “bottom feeding” caliber. What you seem not to understand is that even a journal of “lesser esteem” than another can contain accurate data and good analysis. “Activists” still make statements that are correct. Those who exaggerate to make a point make other statements that are correct. Even a broken watch is correct two times a day. There is no such thing as anyone who should in reality ever be classified as a “liberal” or a “conservative” because no one is only conservative on every issue that exists, and vice versa. Labels for persons who all have infinite minds are very misleading. For example, this discussion began with the assumption that I promote use of calcium fluoride for water fluoridation. Where did this nonsense come from? Someone misquoting me or labeling me with a label that has no exact meaning, like a political term?
Again, GB Shaw said the problem with communication is that it seems to be achieved. When does one person ever actually totally understand another? .
Richard S, no need to climb out of your tree.
I agree that just because something is written by activist or published in a shonky journal does not, by itself, discredit the work. Although it is natural to ask why it wasn’t submitted to a real journal.
I believe any paper must be analysed for its content – good journal or bad journal. After all, there is plenty of bad work in good journals.
That is something I advocate strongly here – the scientific literature must always be approach intelligently and critically. And that is what I have attempted to do in the articles where I evaluate papers.
I believe I have taken that approach to you paper and have judged it naive and rambling in the process.
As for your little rant about someone assuming you are promoting CaF2 for fluoridation – I think you are mistaken and are diverting.
You have claimed that Ca in drinking water somehow prevents the toxic effects you have claimed for the optimum levels of F. All I have asked, several times, is what is the concentration you claim necessary to “neutralise” the F and what is the evidence for that figure? I could not see that in your paper – that is why I asked.
Its a simple question and you should be able to provide a sensible answer if you indeed have a rational theory on the subject.
Richard S, you are now spinning on the difference in meaning between anti fluoride and anti fluoridation.
Ohhh Kaaay,… if you really, truly, think that is reasonable in the context of the articles in question.
Speaking of the articles in question, you wrote
It’s interesting how this site has introduced an ad hominem attack on Dr. Peckham referring to him as an anti fluoride activist.
Let’s examine the contexts.
Can you please provide a link to Ken doing as you claim (or it didn’t happen).
f. This idea that the U.S. is not a Godly Nation,
“godly” is a faithist term. I’d never use it.
I simply observe the fact that the overwhelming majority of USA citizens self identify as having faith in a god. Mostly the christian one, although others claim that their non christian one is the real one.
or as you claim that God is a “superstition,” are common misunderstandings.
There is no need to discuss that with you because the AFA comments above, for which this was brought up, have been made clear for the reader.
One wonders why you brought it up then.
Dr. Sauerhaber, I am convinced now, more than ever, that anti-fluoridation activists believe as they do because they can’t read. Your quote: “I did not say that medical diagnostics in India are “superior” to that in the U.S. Where do you guys get the right to distort things I say, to retain the luxury of continuing to argue?” Please, copy and paste my text – so that I can see it – where I accused you of saying medical diagnostics in India are “superior” to that in the U.S. Ok. No, sir, it is you who distort things that I say to retain the luxury of continued argument.
The horse story: Yes, you explained why they didn’t sue. Let’s recap. The Justus’ lost millions of dollars worth of horses because of CWF which originated at the municipality. First you said that they had run out of money after all the vet bills. So I pointed out that any normal law firm would drool at the chance to get millions of dollars in damages for a client – pro bono, initially. Then your story was that they didn’t sue because they believed it was in the best interest of the community to get the municipality to end the evil practice of CWF. Wow, this is the stuff of movies. One plot flaw . . If the Justus family really wanted to end CWF, it would have made more sense to sue the EPA for the millions of dollars. After all, its the EPA which allows up to 4 ppm of fluoride in drinking water, and a blow to the EPA would have done much more to end CWF, nationwide, than suing one small municipality.
Oh yeah, the courts are corrupt. The courts are part of the conspiracy of silence. Even though you said that this case was cut and dried, and so I’m not accused of misquoting I will copy & paste your text: “No it would not have been likely to “win” a court case against a water district. Did you even comprehend what I posted? The U.S. Surgeon general announces regularly “fluoridation” is considered a great public health achievement, and water districts announce to customers how great fluoridation is to reduce dental decay by 40%, while not harming a single bodily function when ingested for the rest of your lives no matter who you are. Win a court case? Wow.” Wow is right. Dude, any good lawfirm would have jumped at the chance. After all, look what can happen with the right lawfirm. A guy slashes up his wife and another guy. There’s enough DNA to put him away for life. Up steps F. Lee Baily and he gets away with murder because he pretends that his own glove doesn’t fit him. End of story? Not quite. Now he is sitting in prison for trying to steal back his own stuff in Las Vegas. In the U.S. Court System, anything is possible. Everyone knows that.
By the way, there’s some lunatic in Dallas who want’s to sue the City because of CWF. You might want to let her onto your little insight that it’s a lost cause.
Your quote: “The handling of noxious chlorine is nothing as difficult as the handling of corrosive fluosilicic acid with HF. Window glass is etched by HF, not by chlorine. And by the way employees handling the toxic corrosive are in far more danger …” You’re trying to bullshit the wrong guy on this. When was the last time you handled either bulk sodium hypochlorite or FSA? “Window glass is etched by HF, not by chlorine.” Wow that sounds pretty bad. I guess you forgot to mention that chlorine is considered a weapon of mass destruction, not HF. (that sounds worse, doesn’t it) I guess you forgot to mention that many millions more have been killed by chlorine than by the handful killed or injured by FSA. This argument is a joke.
I have handled both FSA and sodium hypochlorite, and you’re right. I was injured by handling FSA. I hurt my back by trying to lift a fifteen gallon carboy onto a scale. My fault, I should have gotten help.
The fact that you note FSA is used for glass etching does, however, counter the anti fluoride conspiracy theory that CWF is the only means of disposal for industry.
I’m done with you. You either lie to yourself, in which case you are not rational, or purposely lie to everybody else, which would probably mean there is some money in it for you somewhere.
Mercola – Please tell me I’m wrong and that you were being evasive, when questioned about funding, for another reason. Please tell me it had nothing to do with Mercola. What are your views on vaccinations?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Ken wrote: “I thought it was very noticeable that despite you own pet “theories” about calcium in drinking water you refused to come to the aid of Sauerheber who was putting forward his own pet “theories” on Ca. Surely if you were really interested in a discussion (rather than planting links) you would have done so.”
I’ve spent time with Steve Slott on this before. Perhaps now we could look at whether reductionist thinking needs to be considered here. Physicist Fritjoff Capra was looking into it 30 years ago. (Just listening to “Mindwalk.”)
Even if water may be considered the sum of its parts in its effects. they still need to be thought of in balance. It’s like vitamin B1 can make a person feel great until they run out of the synergistic other B vitamin store in the body. If you eat natural food and use propoer ways of cooking you may get the balance better.
So it’s what other minerals which we may be lucky to get in balance in water, molybdenum &c even for teeth.
Now we eat food which sticks to the teeth. From previous discussion here that seems to have be accepted as one or the postulates that cannot be changed. So we increase fluoride which increases some tooth health. We see fluoride in the tooth structure but do not really know how it gets there.
(I have written on this before but Sauerheber may not have come across it. This seems to be a thread of long articles so I hope that is OK. If you want links please ask.)
I report of Dunedin dentist DB Ritchie reporting that mature pellicle on the tooth surface has biota which concentrate fluoride on the tooth surface and incorporate phosphate with help of magnesium and calcium to apatite. I have also noted pH changes occur in the process.
Nowadays we tend to abrade the pellicle off the tooth with paste and brush though some has softer abrasive. Maori in the Ureweras had very good teeth (about 1% decay) till they went to Auckland. I don’t know if they used abrasive toothpaste but I presume food, (as opposed to complex pellicle) stuck on their teeth and stopped the saliva getting to them.
I have reported that I think, after reading some papers/theses, that fluoride blocks the switch off of the saliva stimulating hormone.
The message is something else is needed to go with sticky food. Now I’ve stated some of the minerals which work together in the mouth.
The talk of calcium and fluoride in water is a bit difficult since often, as Ken says, a calcium compound is used to adjust the pH. That has incidental effects on lead in drinking water which can be increased if the water is left too acid. So when Steve says it is not the fluoridation making the difference he needs to remember that when water starts to be fluoridated the opportunity may also taken to adjust pH and often one without the other does not occur. However his point is about the small quantity from fluoridation. But then when you get rid of reductionist thinking you realise that seawater has 0.05ppm iodine but the seaweed which grows in it extremely concentrates that to some 10,000ppm so sometimes iodine was obtained by burning seaweed. So its really hard to know about water and its effect.
I was an early poster on this thread and asked about Gosford water. I have posted this table before, now I add the sodium levels. Gosford said they adjust pH with Sodium Carbonate. But that is hard to see in the figures.
Gosford water average milligrams per litre
1 jul – 30 jun magnesium calcium pH sodium
2005-06 6.04 11.44 7.78 30
2006-07 7.26 8.86 7.82 61
2007-08 3.6 7.23 7.8 39 Fluoridation started January.
2008-09 3.94 9.27 8.1 42
2009-10 5.65 14.1 8.1 55
2010-11 3.965 15.377 7.87 33
2011-12 3.4492 15.2 7.87 31
2012-13 3.4967 13.6583 7.76 34
2013-14 3.8592 15.0083 7.81 33
Need to look at the other minerals, too.
I can understand that to swallow a calcium fluoride tablet would likely be different from a sodium fluoride tablet. But things are a bit different in water, in my viewpoint.
Sorry if my writing does not adapt to all your requirements. Been to a worrying Salinger lecture yesterday evening.
I am asking a question of analysis which may have some relevance here:
There is a very useful critical analysis of this paper written by toxicologist Gary Whitford. http://www.fluoridescience.org/assets/FullReview_Sauerheber2013.pdf
The lack of understanding the dissociation constant of CaF2 implications to free fluoride ions in drinking water with 0.7 ppm F- and the physiologic naivete with respect to the total unimportance to health of the dynamic changes of HF concentration as the fluoride ion is absorbed utterly discredits this paper.
Billy Budd, Whitford’s article loses power when it writes such as: “Contrary to the author’s claim, fluoride is a normal constituent of the blood and therefore it is present in all tissues of the body including the hydroxyapatite of enamel.”
What about sodium and potassium? Just because something is in blood does not dictate its functional presence in all tissues of the body.
Fluoride is concentrated on the tooth surface with magnesium, calcium and phosphate by the biota in the mature pellicle on the tooth. Its concentration is high compared to in blood or saliva.
^ Do we have to put up with this nonsense.^
There’ll be a bit of sodium and potassium in tooth enamel.
Whitford’s article is written in a sort of put down news style. So it loses power.
“Contrary to his assertion, fluoride has been a measurable component in every substance, animate or inanimate, that has ever been analyzed including sea water, polar ice caps and the atmosphere.”
Besides pandering to two-valued thinking rather than quantity.
Sauerheber says wrong things in my view, but answering ought to be more academic.
On p24 of the book below a figure shows the non-soil fluoride content of some polar ice to be less than 0.05 parts per billion for a lot of the first half of last century.
There was a spike of 1.5 parts per billion in 1947 owing to the Hekla volcano. But by 1990 the general level had been constantly hovering near 0.2 parts per billion or more since 1960. As opposed to sea water which is more like 1,000 parts per billion fluoride. Coal burning?
Fluoride in the atmosphere can be strong near a fertiliser plant in west Christchurch and make glass windows go cloudy. I also suspect it gets rained into an upper aquifer making that water stronger in fluoride than some fluoridated water.
Brian, what about telling us where Sauerheber is wrong?
Ken, thanks for the link to Sauerheber’s article:
“The chief ingredient in normal teeth enamel is hydroxyapatite that contains calcium phosphate, not fluoride.”
That seems a confusing sentence.
Teeth contain hydoxyapatite and fluorapatite. (Amongst other things.) Both of those have calcium phosphate as building block.
two fluorine atoms against 6 phosphates.
Ken do you have access to this?:
S.H. Yoon, F. Brudevold, D.E. Gardner, and F.A. Smith
“Distribution of Fluoride in Teeth from Areas with Different Levels of Fluoride in the Water Supply”
J DENT RES July 1960 39: 845-856, doi:10.1177/00220345600390041101
Here’s another: little difference in fluoride content of outer layers of enamel at less than 10 micrometers depth, when comparing low fluoride area 0.1 mg/L with an area at 1.9 mg/L.
Brian, I am surprised you found so little to critique in Sauerheber’s article.
I agree he is wrong to describe teeth enamel as “hydroxyapatite” – that idea is very naive. But I disagree that it is a mixture of fluorapatite and hydroxyapatite. In the real world things are never that simple, although they sometimes described that way to make explanations simpler.
The pure end members, fluorapatite and hydroxyapatite will be rare in natural systems like bones and teeth. In reality these will be apatites – or in more detail fluorocarbanotohydroxy apatites where there are variable amounts of carbonate, hydroxide and fluoride substituting. And of course other cations and anions will substitute in small amounts.
Maybe a detail but I think mistakes have been made in the past where hydroxyapatite a have been used a model systems for tooth surfaces.
But, come on Brian. Surely you found far more to criticise in that article?
Since fluoridation seems not to make much difference to the fluoride in the tooth surface, then how does it affect teeth? Could it be that it is only protecting by shutting off the hormone which stops saliva flow?
Another Sauerheber fault: “Ironically, the level of fluoride in saliva that filters from the bloodstream after swallowing water with 1 ppm fluoride is a miniscule 0.02 ppm average ( p. 71, personal communication K. Theissen, co-author of NRC Report). This is unable to influence teeth caries at 75,000 times lower concentration than in toothpaste at 1,500 ppm.”
Here learn about how helpful bacteria on the tooth surface can concentrate salivary fluoride on the tooth surface from the very low levels in normal saliva:
Something I have taken the liberty of copying before and posting, for thought, and maybe adjustment. I wonder if Sauerheber is still reading:
I had always thought that plaque was a bothersome layer on the teeth which should be got rid of.
I quote from “Balance of Health 1 Care of Teeth”, by D.B.Ritchie,
University of New Zealand Dental Degree.
page 1. -‘by the skin of our teeth!’-
Teeth, like any other component structures of all forms of life, have a skin, a very special sin. It may be, and often is, called the ENAMEL INTEGUMENT. More often, it is called the DENTAL PLAQUE. It is an invisible, strong and extremely thin membrane covering the enamel and is anatomically and naturally an enduring part of the tooth. It has important vital significance in maintaining health just as the skin of
our face preserves the health of the underlying tissue.”
-“magnesium is the most important di-valent cation of all tissues” –
Twenty years ago, when patients were beginning to copy my initial experiments in the supplemental mineralization of teeth, it was noticed that those who still used tooth paste had an undiminished rate of tooth decay; while those who did not use tooth paste developed a much more caries resistant tooth. This matter was put to Dental School Authorities, who were unable to explain it. Under Prof. Edwards,
Chemistry Dept, Otago University, many repeated tests of this phenomenon showed that saliva from these two classes of patients was significantly different in magnesium content. Under Prof Campbell, I developed a highly technical analytical test for tooth-surface magnesium. I clearly
demonstrated a highly significant deficiency of this element in tooth-surfaces which had suffered abrasion by tooth paste. On the other hand there was a very high magnesium in whole, unabraded tooth-surfaces which naturally retained their dental plaque. Such whole tooth surfaces were
characteristically from teeth free from decay or fillings. Teeth which had suffered toothpaste abrasion (known in research circles as having artificially altered tooth-surfaces) were almost always broken down by intense dental caries. About 5% of the many teeth investigated seemed out of line with these observations. In later years it had been
considered that these lucky few were of children born with almost perfectly constructed teeth, which were apparently unaffected by toothpaste abrasion. The above study was reported (1) (1961) and well received internationally.
-“blind leading the blind”-
Interest was aroused in these results, and the Dental School was requested (2) to carry out a high-level investigation of this phenomenon of abrasion related to the preservation of the dental plaque and subsequent mineralization. After a two-year double blind study carried out on 140 children at the Half Way Bush Primary School, Dunedin, it was
found that children who used toothpaste, regularly or even indifferently suffered a high rate of tooth decay. Children who did not use tooth paste, had almost no tooth decay. The result was highly significant as testified by the Otago Medical School Statistician. (3)
An interesting side-issue was the fact that children whose diet was supplemented by a phosphate mineral powder and who used no toothpaste had 16 times less decay experience than children who did use toothpaste whether with, or without, a phosphate mineral supplement! This latter
result was also highly significant.(4)
The Experimental Salt Mixture in the Half Way Bush study
Mag phos tribas 16 : Calcii phos 8 : Potass phos 4 : Sod phos 1 : Ferri phos sacch. 0.5 : Sod sulphate 2.
Average Incremental Smooth Enamel Decay
Months 0 6 12 19 26
Sub-Control (Paste) 2.1 2.1 2.7 4.4 2.2
Control (No Paste) 2.2 2.2 2.7 1.2 1.3
Mineral Salts (No Paste) 2.2 2.2 1.7 0.3 0.2
The table shows the results reported by D.B.Ritchie of a two year double blind experiment carried out on 140 children at Half Way Bush Primary School, Dunedin, Otago, New Zealand, years 1959 -1961.
The high peaks of caries incidence in the toothpaste section (deficient plaque) coincides significantly with the summer acid-fruit season in Otago.
-“strands of research” –
In the years which followed, reports of similar studies appeared in many scientifically prominent research journals. Nizel and Harris (5) reported over 100 studies in which phosphates successfully reduced the incidence of tooth decay. In these test, animals were used where their
dental plaques were kept intact and capable of storing the supplementary mineral obtained from special diets.
A.E.Russell (10) of the National Institute of Dental Research, Bethesda, U.S.A. travelled the world studying the teeth of children and adolescents of different nations. These indigenous children wereuntouched by the customary procedures of dental care (no tooth pastes, no dental supervision), as carried out in the U.S.A. He stated “the very
low caries experience of children and adolescents in different parts of the world as compared with the decay rate seen in America and similar western countries, cannot be explained by diet alone”. The natural tooth-surfaces of these native children compared with the toothpasted, altered tooth-surfaces of American children, explained the great
pages 9-10. It is born out by many native populations, and is certainly my experience professionally, that children’s teeth, maturing in a natural, healthy environment, should be kept clean by the eating of fibrous foods, including fruits and vegetables, at the end of a meal.
Perhaps starting at 8 or 9, the use of a soft nylon brush could be helpful at night time. The brush is dipped into a simple mineralizing solution of baking soda (1 teaspoon) plus crude sea salt to taste (up to about half a teaspoon) in half a cup of water… Bacteriologic tests (7) have shown the survival in this solution of larger proteolytic organisms
which are helpful in “policing the plaque”… can be slightly improved by a small amount of strontium chloride, and a very little fluoride (below 50 ppm). Only a faulty diet will leave unsightly debris (possibly materia alba), and then brushing becomes a necessity.
For adult dental hygiene, I have long recommended a mixture of phosphate powders (Dentamin), quickly soluble and reactive with saliva, which produce an excellent mineralising effect within the dental
plaque….However such dentrifice powders have a very restricted use for children, as the possible hurried application to anterior teeth before the careful mixing with saliva might give these powders a slightly abrasive effect on the young teeth. Instead I have produced a safe gel-paste (Biodentamin-C) based on the research of Dr Wei (8) who has demonstrated the possibility of using a “pre-enamel” formula in restoring defect enamel surfaces.
-‘pre-enamel, one stage removed from true enamel’-
Dicalcium phosphate dihydrate is such a pre-enamel compound, and it has been formulated into a pleasantly acid gel. It can be safely brushed upon the young teeth, using a very tiny amount, and gives a highly
successful build up of plaque mineral which appears to stabilize even visible defects in the enamel surface. It is followed, of course, by a copious flow of saliva which washes the teeth, and should be swallowed.
It contains traces of dicalcium\dimagnesium phosphate dihydrate, a very important mineral nutrient, particularly for a growing child. The bicarbonate of the saliva raises the tooth-surface pH to a point where the pre-enamel is converted to true enamel, or hydroxy-apatite. Also in the presence of the high plaque fluoride (possibly as magnesium
fluoride) the hydroxy-apatite is converted to fluor-apatite, the most stable form of enamel known to man. This simple biochemical sequence need not worry you, it all happens automatically. The pre-enamel gel paste is best used at night time, as resting saliva (when a child is asleep) becomes highly alkaline, and will help the more thorough
conversion to fluorapatite. After breakfast, a quick brush with the baking-soda-salt solution would ensure a safe plaque environment throughout the day..
Home dental care in these terms is the practical enhancement of natural protective oral conditions, and produces clean shining teeth with a sweet mouth odour.
” – “what about fluoride?” – public query
What about fluoride? The dental authorities have neglected to inform the public many things about fluoride, the most important being of course, that a natural concentration of fluoride (much higher than in our common
foods) exists at the tooth surface – and this fluoride is destroyed quickly and completely by abrasion with common toothpastes. The importance of fluoride in relation to maturing of young enamel lies in its natural concentration, form, and location in the plaque at the
enamel surface. Gedalia (9) of the Hebrew College of Medicine, Hadassah, has shown that the tooth-surface fluoride varies little, indeed, whether
a person has been born and bred in a region of high fluoride (1-2 ppm) or in a region of low fluoride (0.1 – 0.2 ppm) in the water supplies.
In South Africa, some 20 miles from Johannesburgh, native high school students were surveyed for dental caries. Their decay experience was extremely low, mostly that from teenage girls who used abrasive clay and
ashes to clean stains from their front teeth. Such stains were due to fluoride in their drinking water (3ppm). In the neighbouring district, a similar survey again showed a low caries experience. But in this latter district, there was no fluoride in the drinking water/ In both districts
a lightly-milled (whole grain) mealie meal was the staple diet. No toothpaste was used. Surely this is a most revealing research study of the value(?) of high fluoride in water supplies!”
(1) D.B.Ritchie, “Nature” 190 : 4774; 456 – 458, (1961).
(2) Otago University Council (1959).
(3) G.Spiers, Official Statistical Report, H.W.B. Research Study, Otago
Daily Times, 4 August 1961
(5) Nizel and Harris, Journal of Dental Research; 1123 – 1136, 1964
(6) T.Koulourides, Arch. Oral Biol., 14; 1407 -1417 (1969)
(7) Otago Univ. Bacteriology Dept., (circa 1964).
(8) Wei and Wefel, Journal of Dental Research, 55 : 1; 135-141 (Jan
(9) J. Dent. Res. 39; 4; 849 (1960)
(10) A.E.Russell, Journal of Dental Research, 40; 3,602 (1961).
Apologies for confusions caused as I look at this little known, but possibly very significant, and emotionally charged, topic.
I am probably spoiling this a lot by taking these short abstracts from this 12 page booklet.
What is current thinking on this?
Colgate in New Zealand now make a tooth paste with calcium phosphate in it as a mild abrasive. Their gels have no calcium but rougher silica abrasive.
Triclosan is an antibacterial agent in them, and I wonder how that affects the “larger proteolytic organisms”. They also now make a toothpaste with baking soda, but no calcium, and some other abrasive ingredient, titanium dioxide, which I wasn’t too sure about for myself.
Brian R.Sandle. Please teach me.
With all due respect for the education and intelligence of the posters here, a lot of this reads like “this is your society on fluoride”. No competent medical prescription should ever be given without a complete patient profile, and that means at the individual level. And if you want to say that “well, this is more like an OTC medication” then ABSOLUTELY no such product should ever be allowed promotion on the basis “everyone use as much as you need all day every day, lifetime sentence, double or triple the dosage if you try to stay healthy with vigorous exercise.” Should any cancer patient of any kind ever be given entirely indiscriminate doses of an EPA carcinogen in something as essential as the bathing/cooking/drinking water? Absolutely not. Blowing it all out of proportion with extremely complicated over-analysis is a great way to cloud the issue, but in reality it is just plain dirt simple. Abortion is murder, so is fluoridation, just much longer and slower, especially given the near impossibility of ever getting a fluorosis diagnosis out of an AMA doctor or ADA dentist much less an effective root-cause-addressing therapy recommendation out of them.
Dave – you comment is completely irrelevant to the post.
So you claim that community water is murder – well show us the bodies.
But, I guess the last thing you will rely on is actual evidence.
Hello, Ken. I realize I came in a bit from left field above and I have only very recently discovered the materials on this board so I have quite a bit of study yet to do.
One form that “murder” may take is to not kill them outright but make their lives a living hell. Fluoride certainly does appear to work that way.
I was born in 1953 in Evanston, IL which was fluoridated in 1947, so I never had a chance to opt out of the program. The predominantly Jewish “enclave” of Skokie was right next door, and their muni supply was all from Evanston, which would seem to be an important historical consideration. I was never in the loop but I am very skeptical they would have been either disinformed or uninformed about the agenda, and I at times imagine there may have been some clandestine large-scale filtering implemented, but that’s pure speculation on my part.
As a lifetime sufferer of allergies and other immune-related issues, I have certainly deal with my share of the living hell, and I always suspected fluoride was playing a role but could not find accredited professional support in those concerns. This “caries” even to the point of having been prescribed Flonase for allergic rhinitis, which is a fluorinated medication, which produced some rather strange and mixed results, none of which were ever professionally attributed to the Flo aspect of the flonase. Also switching off fluoride toothpaste did not seem to provide the expected relief, although it certainly is fluoride-toxic in other ways.
I had tossed the towel on ever finding a safe and manageable fluoride detox method until a recent episode with CFC refrigerant release in my home prompted new readings and I discovered the information on tamarind, which prompted some personal experimentation with an Asian import tamarind paste purchased at the local food coop.
At no point in my readings on tamarind did I find any suggestion that it might provide rhinitis relief, although it is documented to provide therapeutic benefit for much of the laundry list of ailments most often suggested by your “psychos” to be at least in part caused by fluoride toxicity. Lo and behold, I have found that loratadine alone has never been any better than marginally effective in managing my rhinitis, but when I consume tamarind paste, all rhinitis symptoms vanish for 6 hours or more. In season, I am now finding I can detect allergenic fluoride content in any food, most notably some varieties of sea salt which have a very aggressive sensitization capability even in organic food products.
No attempt has been made as yet to develop “accredited evidence” regarding this. I would be greatful for any understanding the distinguished participants on this board might provide.
And as well, given I was originally looking for enlightenment “in-topic” as regards soft water, calcium and membranes, any comments that anyone here might have on how fluoride might transport into the inner ear, and what the consequences might be, would be greatly appreciated.
Fluoride ionicly bounds to calcium. That’s why it leaches calcium from our bodies and leads to ostiperosis.
Dentists spend a fortune pushing it in our water supply because brittle teeth is good for business. Same reason why many dentist traditionally give kids sugar candy such as lollipops after a checkup.
The real issue here is fluoride in drinking water should be a personal choice not mandated by some idiot politician. I was subjected to fluoridated water when growing up and it made my teeth yellow but did nothing to prevent tooth decay. My entire family has had thyroid problems including thyroid cancer. I should have a choice that doesn’t involve spending a small fortune on a whole house filter.
Sorry “Osteoporosis” That was a late nite typo. Les is right we should have a say in what goes in our water or at least a vote. Why do the Dental Association and chemical company Lobbyist get to choose for us? One a brighter note, In the future chemical companies may make more money selling their fluoride salts to power companies running Thorium reactors rather then selling it to the public water utility districts.
Todd, who the hell is suggesting we not have a say on issues like community water fluoridation (CWF)? Certainly not me – you are raising a red herring – and in the wrong place.
I came into this issue for 2 reasons:
1: Our local council, under pressure from anti-fluoride campaigners stopped fluoridation of our drinking water – despite clear support for this effective and safe social health measure as shown by a previous referendum and council polling. After protests and petitions the council eventually allowed a referendum which showed 70% of the voters wanted community water fluoridation so it was eventually returned. The council ended up looking silly – and undemocratic.
2: I became aware that the anti-fluoride activists were telling lies about the science behind community water fluoridation. As a chemist I have been writing articles, like this one, to correct that misinformation.
You are wrong in your scientific claims too. The low concentration used in CWF is well below the solubility of CaF2 – it does not cause leaching of Ca from our bodies. It does not cause osteoporosis – Who the hell told you that.
In fact, fluoride is a normal and natural component of the bioapatites (bones and teeth) in our bodies. Without it our bones would be weak and too soluble.
You are also mistaken if you think there is no market for fluorine compounds – they are essential in the chemical, pharmaceutical, electronic and other industries. We don’t have to wait around for molten fluoride reactors to find a marker.
As for you conspiracy theory about dentists and the chemical industry somehow pressuring local bodes – also wrong. In fact, quite the opposite. The anti-fluoride campaigners are actually financed and ideological/commercially supported by the “natural”/alternative health industry – big business.
Sorry that was “On a brighter note”. The reason Cacium Fluoride is safer is because the two Fluoride molecules have already made their ionic bond to one Calcium molecule and no longer need to rob a Calcium molecule from your body.
No, Todd, you are wrong. CaF2 will maintain a fluoride concentration of about 8ppm – much higher than used in CWF and well above safe levels. In areas of endemic fluorosis such as in China, India, etc., it is the CaF2 mineral which supplies the excessive fluoride concentration.
In solution the hydrated F-, Ca2+, etc., exist quite independently – they are only bound in an ionic bond when in the solid form.
Actually, apatites have a far lower solubility than CaF2.
F in CWF does not “rob” Ca from the body – that is ludicrous.
Who has been telling you this stuff?
I never said CaF2 robs calcium.
Nor did I, Todd.
You claimed: “two Fluoride molecules have already made their ionic bond to one Calcium molecule and no longer need to rob a Calcium molecule from your body.” You seem not to understand the nature of ions in solution. Calcium in blood, bones and teeth exists as an ion – not a molecule. And F in fluoridated water does not “rob” Ca from the body.
Here is an article that might help you get your head around the subject – Some chemistry issues involved in the fluoridation debate
Have a read of it and get back to me if you have questions.
The Sodium Fluoride MSDS classification is TOXIC (lethal in small doses)
In comparison the Calcium Fluoride MSDS is classified as Xi (Irritating to eyes, respiratory system and skin) So one is lethal in small doses and the other is just an irritant. I would call that a difference. Also found several .gov sites that says Calcium neutralizes the bioavailability of Fluoride. According to the CDC Lime neutralizes fluoride. Every science site i found says Calcium fluoride is insoluble but Sodium Fluoride is. Seams like there are a lot of differences between these two Fluoride compounds. If Calcium Oxide neutralizes Fluoride what is the chemical reaction?
LikeLiked by 1 person
tkolin, Material Safety Data sheets do not describe the problems of chemicals in small doses. They are meant for people who handle, transport or manufacture the concentrated chemicals. These safety data sheets are irrelevant to the question of safety of the water that comes out of your tap.
The concentration of a chemical determines its toxicity. Calcium fluoride has a low solubility but can support a concentration of about 8 ppm F. That is why it is responsible for the problems in regions of endemic fluorosis. Yet the usual target for community water fluoridation is 0.7 ppm. At this concentration fluoride is not toxic.
Ken, you say that Flouride in CWF does not rob the body of calcium, however this is straight from the CDC.gov website. “the fluoride ion, which is able to penetrate tissues and bind intracellular calcium and magnesium. This results in cell destruction and local bone demineralization. Systemic deficiency of calcium and magnesium and excess of potassium can occur.”
Isn’t bone demineralization part of osteoporosis? Ken you may be a scientist but your not a nutrionalist, or an expert in human biology.
That quotation is about hydrogen fluoride. It has nothing to do with CWF.
Ken does not need to be an expert in human biology to understand there is a major difference between the effects of hydrofluoric acid on human tissues and the effects of community tap water on the same tissues.
Tkolin â I cannot find any quote like this on the CDC site. Can you provide a link? That is always good practice anyway.
A google search showed such quotes on pages describing the toxicity of hydrofluoric acid â a very different animal to CWF.
OK tkolin, I have found the section you quoted from the CDC. It is on their page âMedical Management Guidelines for Hydrogen Fluoride
Now, isn’t it a bit dishonest to omit the section referring to hydrogen fluoride, or hydrofluoric acid, and imply the quote is relevant to CWF??
Actually, I think it is very dishonest to make the implications you have with this quote and it is obvious why you refused to provide a link.
So Ken, you disagree with the statement that Flouride negatively effects the bio-availability of calcium in the body?
Beware internet experts talking about something called flouride.
tkolin – I disapproved of your dishonesty in using a quote referring to hydrofluoric acid to justify your claim that community water fluoridation is harmful. It surprises me that you have not even apologised for this deception.
There is absolutely no evidence I have seen to support the claim that F at concentrations used in CWF is harmful to the body – quite opposite. I suggest you have not seen any evidence for that claim either – otherwise you would not have sunk to the deception of using an out of context quote to justify you position.
Ken, I apologize about the hydrofluoride reference. The point I was trying to make with the reference was that free Fluoride ions do in fact negatively effect the bioavailability of Calcium.
To spend this much time debating the pros of CWF you must be real passionate about dental carriers. Seems like several members of this blog have a real vested interest in CWF or just WAY to much free time on their hands.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Debating CWF on this blog is paramount to arguing religion. The true believers will never convince the Atheists that God exists and the Atheist will never get the believers to loose thier faith. No empirical evidence of any kind will get the other side to sway from thier core beliefs. This is why I am going to bow out of this debate. Also because my specialty is integrated electric propulsion systems and not science or biology although I find both fascinating. Adios Amigos 🙂
tkolin, you are “bowing out” because you didn’t have empirical evidence and manufactured some by using an inappropriate quote. That is completely against the scientific ethos.
Worse, you then try to accuse others of refusing to accept evidence.
This is not the first time I have had commenters do this here. It doesn’t win my respect.
Ken wrote: “There is absolutely no evidence I have seen to support the claim that F at concentrations used in CWF is harmful to the body – quite opposite. I suggest you have not seen any evidence for that claim either ”
Ken recently you linked to an old TED presentation which gave statistics of large numbers of deaths in the world from measles. The bulk of those come from malnourished peoples. You made no complaint about that dietary consequence not being explored.
Previous studies I have posted suggest fluoride worsens effect of too little or too much iodine. You disagree, but here is a study with fairly average iodine (iodised salt)
“Fluoride, a goitrogenic substance in drinking
water, is another contributing factor to high GP (goiter prevalence). The fluoride concentration of drinking water was as high as 1.00 mg/kg in
Chongqing municipality, which led Chongqing to have the
highest GP (18.37%, 18 of 98)”
Assessment of Iodine Status in Children, Adults, Pregnant Women and Lactating Women in Iodine-Replete Areas of China
The circumstantial evidence is building up.
Jilin had slightly lower median urinary iodide (just below 200 vs Chongquing just above) but fluoride not detected in Jilin.
It would be nice to see a few more figures.
Interesting, Brian. You have followed my exchnnage with tkollin yet you have not commented on his lies and the way he was caught out. What is your view of commenters who misrepresent the facts this way? What is your view of commenters who do this then accuse others of approaching the issue like a relgionist who ignores the facts?
This was a very informative set of comments. Even without being a chemist or having any background in biology, I learned a lot about fluoride. Also the endless logical fallacies spouted by Ken and Steve combined with the clear, concise, and patient rebuttals by Richard Sauerheber makes me side with the anti-flouride crowd it seems.
Kaisha, what specifically did you object to in my article? I am happy to clarify but, at the moment, I can only interpret your lack of example as indicating a bias.
I am sure Steve would also be happy to respond to specific examples or questions.
Possibly the most powerful toxic effect of fluoride is to be an ENZYME INHIBITOR in the human body. Particularly, fluoride inhibits trypsin and chymotrypsin -pancreatic proteases needed for protein digestion- (Penn et al. 2007; Fahrney and Gold 1963); esterases -enzymes needed for fat metabolism and anti-oxidant role- (Myers and Kemp 1954); the antioxidant enzymes superoxide dismutase, catalase, and glutathione peroxidase (Morales-González et al. 2010); and phosphatases – enzymes needed for phosphorus metabolism- (Yamaguti et al. 2013).
In the human body, enzymes are needed for the basic work of nutrition which is predominantly an enzyme hydrolytic process. Enzymes are also needed for detoxification, as for example, the Cytochrome P450 activity. The immune system relies on enzyme activity for its control on antigen substances. The first line of defense against oxidative stress is provided mainly by antioxidant enzymes. Certainly, fat metabolism is also dependent on enzyme activity, thus low levels of certain enzymes may predispose individuals to obesity. Particularly, obesity, diabetes and cancer are associated with low levels of pancreatic enzymes (Partelli et al. 2012; Teichmann et al. 2011; Bilgin et al. 2009).
Furthermore, low levels of antioxidative enzymes are associated with cancer, obesity, diabetes, autism, ADD/ADDH and Alzheimer and Parkinson diseases (de Carvalho and De Mesquita 2013; Battisti et al. 2011; Matés et al. 1999).
REFERENCES FROM MEDLINE
Battisti V, Maders LD, Bagatini MD, Reetz LG, Chiesa J, Battisti IE, Gonçalves JF, Duarte MM, Schetinger MR, Morsch VM (2011); “Oxidative stress and antioxidant status in prostate cancer patients: relation to Gleason score, treatment and bone metastasis”; Biomed Pharmacother.; 65(7):516-24.
Bilgin M, Balci NC, Momtahen AJ, Bilgin Y, Klör HU, Rau WS (2009); “MRI and MRCP findings of the pancreas in patients with diabetes mellitus: compared analysis with pancreatic exocrine function determined by fecal elastase 1”; . J Clin Gastroenterol.; 43(2):165-70.
de Carvalho MD, De Mesquita JF (2013); “Structural modeling and in silico analysis of human superoxide dismutase 2”; PLoS One. 2013 Jun 13;8(6):e65558.
Fahrney DE, Gold AM (1963). Sulfonyl Fluorides as Inhibitors of Esterases. I. Rates of Reaction with Acetylcholinesterase, α-Chymotrypsin, and Trypsin. J. Am. Chem. Soc.; 85 (7), pp 997–1000.
Matés JM, Pérez-Gómez C, Núñez de Castro I (1999); “Antioxidant enzymes and human diseases”; Clin Biochem.; 32(8):595-603.
Morales-González JA, Gutiérrez-Salinas J, García-Ortiz L, Del Carmen Chima-Galán M, Madrigal-Santillán E, Esquivel-Soto J, Esquivel-Chirino C, González-Rubio MG (2010). Effect of sodium fluoride ingestion on malondialdehyde concentration and the activity of antioxidant enzymes in rat erythrocytes.Int J Mol Sci.;11(6):2443-52.
Myers DK, Kemp A (1954). Inhibition of Esterases by the Fluorides of Organic Acids. Nature;173, 33 – 34.
Partelli S, Frulloni L, Minniti C, Bassi C, Barugola G, D’Onofrio M, Crippa S, Falconi M (2012); “Faecal elastase-1 is an independent predictor of survival in advanced pancreatic cancer”. Dig Liver Dis.; 44(11):945-51.
Penn AH, Hugli TE, Schmid-Schönbein GW (2007). Pancreatic enzymes generate cytotoxic mediators in the intestine. Shock.;27(3):296-304
Teichmann J, Riemann JF, Lange U (2011); “Prevalence of Exocrine Pancreatic Insufficiency in Women with Obesity Syndrome: Assessment by Pancreatic Fecal Elastase 1”; ISRN Gastroenterol.; 2011: 951686.
Yamaguti PM, Simões A, Ganzerla E, Souza DN, Nogueira FN, Nicolau J (2013). Effects of single exposure of sodium fluoride on lipid peroxidation and antioxidant enzymes in salivary glands of rats. Oxid Med Cell Longev.;2013:674593.
Victor – I have deleted your duplicate comment.
Can you please let us know the relevance of your comment to this article?
Ken, Regarding risks and benefits of water fluoridation, I have been observing that the role of fluoride as an enzyme inhibitor in the human body is not reported. Its inhibitory effect is dose dependent and there is no a low safe concentration that prevents enzyme inhibition. Again, enzyme activity drives all metabolic pathways in the plant and animal kingdom, so any exogenous agent that reduce/block enzyme activity in the human body implies a risk for various types of diseases. Briefly, if pancreatic enzymes for example (amylase, lipase and protease), are reduced by an external factor, an individual may be at risk of suffering pancreatitis, with intestinal dysbiosis, which leads to small intestinal bacterial overgrowth, intestinal bacteria/yeast translocation to the portal system and derived pathologies, which may include intestinal inflammation, colitis, obesity, diabetes and cancer.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Victor, I am suprised at your claims that aspects of health effects of fluoride are “not reported.” If they haven’t been – then what is the source of you list of possible effects?
I note that in fact there have been several scientific reviews of the possible health effects of community water flupodiation. An excellent one I recommend to you was that done by the Royal Scociety of NZ and the Office of the NZ Prime Minister’s Chief Science Advisor. It is Eason, C., & Elwood, JM. Seymour, Thomson, WM. Wilson, N. Prendergast, K. (2014). Health effects of water fluoridation : A review of the scientific evidence.
Ken, thanks for the paper. It allows me to highlight my point: there is no any single comment on enzymes inhibition. My way of thinking is the following: I found various papers in MedLine indicating that fluoride is an enzyme inhibitor. Those papers reported inhibition of pancreatic enzymes, esterases, anti-oxidative enzymes and phosphatases. Then, I can look at MedLine for physiological/pathological consequences of low levels of enzyme activity. I did that. Thus, the complete concept is: Fluoride is an enzyme inhibitor and see what happens in the human body when enzymes are inhibited. Regarding enzymes deficit in the human body, I have a good review on that, so I can provide several MedLine references about diseases linked to low levels of enzyme activity in the human body. That is why I posted some of the references. Just, please, take a brief look. Besides this discussion, one may discover the important role of enzymes in keeping a healthy body.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Victor, you did not post any references. You have not provided anything to look at.
One has to interpret the literature sensibly and critically to establish if they are relevant to community water fluoridation – without citations how can one do that?
Sorry – checking back I find you have posted a list of general citations some time ago.
Could you please indicate which of them you consider relevant to CWF – in terms of concentration etc., and I will have a look at them.
Fluoridation in NZ began in 1957. Other places in the world began earlier.
The reason fluoridation started was that people in areas of naturally occurring high water fluoride were observed to have greater resistance to tooth decay, although they had some tooth mottling (fluorosis). No other effects were noted.
We’ve been observing the health of people in naturally high fluoride areas for over four generations, those with CWF for over two generations.
None of the enzyme inhibition that you find so interesting in the Petrie dish have been observed to have an effect in populations with fluoridated water. Possibly because they are dose related and only occur at doses in excess of those found in fluoridated water?
Subtle enzyme inhibition found in the Petrie dish, where fluoride concentrations are well above those seen in CWF, have not been found to have an effect in humans exposed to CWF or even in those exposed to higher concentrations of naturally occurring water fluoride.
Tens (hundreds?) of millions of people with fluoridated water supplies have been observed for multiple generations. Effects found: teeth that are more resistant to decay, dental fluorosis in areas with high naturally occurring fluoride, possible dental fluorosis in areas with CWF.
My first glance at Victor’s list of papers suggested they were not relevant to CWF for a number of reasons.
That is why I am asking him to specify the ones he considers most relevant so that we can look at them in detail.
Victor seems to base his speculative concerns upon the following mechanism
Its inhibitory effect is dose dependent and there is no a low safe concentration that prevents enzyme inhibition.
And from that all his concern follows.
Of course this simply fails to consider if there is a ‘dosage level’ where enzyme inhibition has negligible effect on human health.
I believe we have to ask if there is a dosage level beneath which there is no enzyme inhibition in vivo.
There are certainly many prescription medications that need to be prescribed at a certain level before they have any effect on the human organism, no matter their effect on human cells in the Petrie dish.
I believe there have been many potential medications, based on Petrie dish results, that have had no effect on animal models and so their development has been halted by their respective developers.
After reading the comment that “Fluoridation in NZ began in 1957”, I was thinking for myself that if the fact is true, then there shall be a high prevalence of obesity in NZ. So, I visited the web site of the NZ Ministry of Health (http://www.health.govt.nz/) and sadly found the following:
“New Zealand has the third highest adult obesity rate in the OECD, and our rates are rising. Almost one in three adult New Zealanders (over 15 years) is obese, and one in ten children”.
“The adult obesity rate increased from 27% in 2006/07 to 31% in 2014/15”.
An article in the on-line Guardian Journal (http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/feb/19/new-zealand-battles-obesity-epidemic-as-third-fattest-country-in-the-world) pointed that “New Zealand battles obesity epidemic as third fattest country in the world – Country ranks third behind US and Mexico for worldwide rates of obesity in its population”.
After finding this data, and without any pre-judgment, one should ask: what is happening in NZ?. Why this high prevalence of obesity? What is happening in NZ that differentiates this country from others with lower incidence of obesity?
But before somebody says that I am postulating that fluoride exposure is the cause of obesity, I need to clarify some points: Regarding enzymes in the body, there are three factors that account for the overall level of enzyme activity:
1) Exposure to high levels of dietary antigens: In 1945, Paul Kouchakoff received the Nobel Prize for its research on the phenomenon called “digestive leukocytosis”. Kouchakoff found that cooked/processed foods are received by the body as antigen substances, thus activating an immune response upon digestion of those foods. Then, digestive leucocytosis refers to an increase of white blood cells after having a meal with cooked/processed foods. It is an immune response similar to a case of infection. Kouchakoff also reported that raw foods do not produce digestive leukocytosis. The briefing of the Kouchakoff research can be found in the paper “Influence of Food on the Human Blood Formula”. Translation is mine from the French “L’Influence de l’Alimentation sur la Formule Sanguine de l’Homme” (Kouchakoff, 1937). If an individual is having three meals per day with cooked/processed food, it implicates a continuous activation of the immune system and, as the immune system relies on enzymes for antigens destruction (i.e. phagocytosis by using lysosomal enzymes), it involves an excessive expense of enzymes.
2) Exposure to high levels of xenobiotics. The body has a mechanism to detoxify xenobiotics. It is the Cytochrome P450, a group of enzymes that produces chemical changes that make a toxic compound more hydrophilic, so it can be effectively eliminated by the kidneys. Enzymatic activity of the Cytochrome P450 usually involves hydrolysis, oxidation or reduction mechanisms. An excess of xenobiotics such as plaguicides, naphthalenes or any other endocrine-disrupting substance implicates also an excessive expense of enzymes in the body. Fluoride shall be considered as a xenobiotic having the particularity that it links to the active site of enzymes, thus impeding the enzymes to continue to do their job.
3) As enzymes are used, they shall be replaced through dietary sources. In fact, enzymes shall be considered a kind of ESSENTIAL NUTRIENT. Furthermore, the body is so sensible to this way of recharging body enzymes that our first source of enzyme ‘reload’ is through the maternal milk. An interesting paper from Shahani et al. (1980) reported 23 enzymes present in maternal milk. An individual that do not have an adequate consumption of enzyme-rich foods such as raw vegetables, fruits or fermented foods is at risk of developing disorders associated to low levels of enzymes, such as obesity.
As a conclusion, an individual having a basic diet of cooked/processed foods, that is exposed to various xenobiotics – between them, the fluoride – and that did not take a sufficient amount of enzyme-rich foods is at high risk of developing disorders associated to low level of enzymes, between them, obesity.
In order to emphasize the point of obesity and its relation to low level of enzymes, the research from Teichmann et al. (2011) found that human body mass index is associated with the loss of pancreatic enzyme production. Nakajima et al. (2011) also found reduced pancreatic enzyme output in obese subjects, additionally reporting that the condition is also noticeable in subjects with type 2 diabetes.
The most important enzymes in charge of fat metabolism are found reduced in obese subjects:
For example, the lipoprotein lipase (LPL) an enzyme in charge of promoting the cellular uptake of chylomicron remnants, cholesterol-rich lipoproteins, and free fatty acids is reduced in obesity (Wang and Eckel 2009; Mead et al. 2002). Particularly Mead et al. (2002) also reported LPL deficiency in atherosclerosis, Alzheimer’s disease, and dyslipidemia associated with diabetes, insulin resistance, and infection. Saiki et al. (2007) reported that LPL deficiency reflect systemic oxidative stress and might be a biomarker of metabolic syndrome.
The adipose triglyceride lipase and the hormone-sensitive lipase are specific enzymes of the adipose tissue, they are in charge of triglyceride hydrolysis in order to produce and deliver fatty acids to the blood. Both enzymes are reduced in obese subjects (Jocken et al. 2007; Steinberg et al. 2007; Coppack et al. 1992).
Anti-oxidative enzymes are also reduced in obesity. In obese subjects, antioxidant defenses are lower than normal weight counterparts and their levels inversely correlate with central adiposity. Recently, the paraoxonase (PON) enzyme family has emerged as a new class of antioxidant enzymes, playing an important role in obesity-associated illnesses, including cardiovascular disease and diabetes mellitus (Savini et al. 2013). PON expression is reduced in obese subjects as reported by Aslan et al. (2011) and Ferretti et al. (2010).
Anyway, I found two papers (one in MedLine, the other in Researchgate) linking obesity to dental fluorosis: Merdad (2013) found that overweight/obese subjects were more likely to have dental fluorosis than subjects with healthy weight or underweight. Finally, a recent study in Russia (Galkina et al. 2015) found high prevalence of fluorosis in children and adolescents diagnosed with obesity.
For New Zealand, a study by Gentles et al. (2007) reported that “The prevalences of metabolic syndrome were significantly higher in Pacific people and Maori compared to Others and measures of obesity accounted for most of the ethnic differences”.
Another study for New Zealand developed by Coppell et al. (2013) and published in the Journal of the New Zealand Medical Association reported that “overall, prevalence of diabetes was 7.0%, and prevalence of prediabetes 25.5%. Prevalence of diabetes was higher in men than in women and was higher among the obese, compared with the normal weight group”.
Finally, in the NZ Ministry of Health website and regarding colorectal cancer, it is reported that “New Zealand has one of the highest bowel cancer rates in the world”.
Regarding this last data, I want to add that any agent that promotes pathological changes in the normal gut microbiota (bacteria/yeasts) may produce intestinal dysbiosis and consequent inflammation of the bowel tissue. Systemic inflammation is then a big risk for cancer. The loss of pancreatic enzymes normally produces intestinal dysbiosis. Both pancreatic enzymes and bicarbonate helps to maintain a normal symbiotic microbiota.
Oral ingested fluoride may be one of the main agents that reduce pancreatic enzyme activity as well as other enzymes located ‘downstream’ of the gastrointestinal tract, thus exposing an individual to a high risk of obesity and associated disorders.
Aslan M, Horoz M, Sabuncu T, Celik H, Selek S (2011); “Serum paraoxonase enzyme activity and oxidative stress in obese subjects”; Pol Arch Med Wewn.; 121(6):181-6.
Coppack S, Evansa R, Fishera R, Frayn K, Gibbonsa G, Humphreys S, Kirka M, Pottsa J, Hockadaya T (1992); “Adipose tissue metabolism in obesity: Lipase action in vivo before and after a mixed meal”; Metabolism; Vol. 41, No. 3, 264–272.
Coppell KJ, Mann JI, Williams SM, Jo E, Drury PL, Miller J, Parnell WR (2013). Prevalence of diagnosed and undiagnosed diabetes and prediabetes in New Zealand: findings from the 2008/09 Adult Nutrition Survey; NZMJ; Vol 126 No 1370; ISSN 1175 8716.
Jocken JW, Langin D, Smit E, Saris WH, Valle C, Hul GB, Holm C, Arner P, Blaak EE (2007); Adipose triglyceride lipase and hormone-sensitive lipase protein expression is decreased in the obese insulin-resistant state. Clin Endocrinol Metab.; 92(6):2292-9.
Ferretti G, Bacchetti T, Masciangelo S, Bicchiega V (2010); “HDL-paraoxonase and membrane lipid peroxidation: a comparison between healthy and obese subjects”; Obesity (Silver Spring).; 18(6):1079-84.
Galkina IuV, Gavrilova OA, Piekalnits IIa, Dianov OA (2015). Dental status in children and adolescents diagnosed with obesity. Stomatologiia (Mosk). ;94(1):57-8. (Abstract).
Gentles D, Metcalf P, Dyall L, Sundborn G, Schaaf D, Black P, Scragg R, Jackson R (2007). Metabolic syndrome prevalence in a multicultural population in Auckland, New Zealand. N Z Med J.;120(1248):U2399.
Mead JR, Irvine SA, Ramji DP (2002); “Lipoprotein lipase: structure, function, regulation, and role in disease”; J Mol Med (Berl).; 80(12):753-69.
Merdad, HE (2013). Predicting Dental Fluorosis Using Indicators of Childhood Obesity. Conference Paper. Conference: IADR/AADR/CADR General Session and Exhibition 2013.
Nakajima K, Muneyuki T, Munakata H, Kakei M (2011); “Revisiting the cardiometabolic relevance of serum amylase’; BMC Res Notes.; 4:419.
Savini, I., Catani, M. V., Evangelista, D., Gasperi, V., & Avigliano, L. (2013). Obesity-Associated Oxidative Stress: Strategies Finalized to Improve Redox State. International Journal of Molecular Sciences, 14(5), 10497–10538.
Shahani KM, Kwan AJ, Friend BA (1980); “Role and significance of enzymes in human milk”; Am. I Clin. Nutr. 33: 1861-1868, 1980.
Steinberg GR, Kemp BE, Watt MJ (2007); Adipocyte triglyceride lipase expression in human obesity. Am J Physiol Endocrinol Metab.;293(4):E958-64.
Wang H, Eckel RH (2009). Lipoprotein lipase: from gene to obesity. Am J Physiol Endocrinol Metab.;297(2):E271-88.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Victor – there is an otustanding issue.
In my last comment I said:
Could you please respond to that before going off on a speculative diversionary tangent about obesity using the very naive Declan Waugh approach.
One thing at a time please.
Ken, interestingly, regarding your question I was thinking the same of you: it is diversionary tangent about the main topic. So, I would say that all together the presented references provide a support to what I wanted to expose.
Second, the concern of fluoride toxicity against enzymes has been already established by various scientists, as indicated in the following link: http://www.fluoridedebate.com/question23.html. I just wanted to clarify the idea with more references.
Third, I am considering that as a human normal behavior, you want to take care of yourself and your relatives (family), so that is why you support water fluoridation. Your idea is that fluoride will prevent your caries and those of your relatives without any secondary effect. I am just considering that your intention is good but that you don’t have the complete information. For example, that happens to Dr. John Colquhoun who was the Principal Dental Officer of Auckland and head of the Fluoridation Promotion Group that changed his mind about fluoridation after receiving more complete information.
Finally, instead of personal attacks it may be wiser to request your government for a study of a possible link between fluorosis and obesity. The results may discredit the presented thesis or in any case they will provide more information for taking decisions on the fluoridation topic.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Asking you to clarify your references is not a personal attack. Neither is asking you to stick to the topic.
Which of your references do you consider applicable to CWF?
Victor – it amazes me that you consider diversionary my straightforward question:
You had provided a long list of citations which did not seem relevant to CWF from their titles so I was asking for a simple clarification. It is surely impolite to request me to read papers which may be completely irrelevant (have you read them all yourself? 🙂 ).
Now that is simply an observation and polite request- it is not a personal attack. How the hell could such a request for evidence be considered that way.
Let’s just take the first citation you mentioned:
“Battisti V, Maders LD, Bagatini MD, Reetz LG, Chiesa J, Battisti IE, Gonçalves JF, Duarte MM, Schetinger MR, Morsch VM (2011); “Oxidative stress and antioxidant status in prostate cancer patients: relation to Gleason score, treatment and bone metastasis”; Biomed Pharmacother.; 65(7):516-24.”
– I checked the abstract and the word “fluoride” does not even occur!
So surely you can see my point. I have no wish to waste time on irrelevant papers – but I will read the ones you identify as relevant to CWF. I you are unwilling or unable to identify such papers I must only conclude you are actually not familiar with the papers yourself.
We are familiar with John Colquhoun and his arguments here in NZ – I am also aware of how bad many of those arguments were.
You should not make assumptions about either my motives or level of understanding. In fact, I am driven more by the need to counter the misrepresentation and distortion of the science that anti-fluoride campaigners indulge in. as for CWF itself – I think that is a decision for communities – at least in this country.
You say I lack the complete information – could you specifically show me where I have made a mistake – I am always happy to check out any claim and reconsider. But general comments like that are unhelpful.
Our health authorities are already concerned about obesity and there is ongoing research on the topic. They are not concerned about dental fluorosis as the moderate and severe forms are almost non-existent here.
If you think they need to look at dental fluorosis as a factor in obesity could you point me to a specific research report that is relevant to the extremely low level of moderate and severe forms typical of NZ, rather than the more serious forms in China and India.
You understand my request for specific reports – not a long list of irrelevant papers obtained by thoughtless literature searchers.
It says No Ad Hominems but it is obvious that the supporters of fluoride only speak with swords and attacks.
Just reading the conversation here is proof that fluoride supporters only wish to discredit those who wish to avoid water with added pharmaceuticals (whether it be rat poison or medicine).
Discrediting opposition seems to be the name of the game. Talking about college and publications like that really matters? Sounds like these fluoride supporters are paid or have a vested interest in water fluoridation. It seems odd that anyone would push adding chemicals to water with such zeal.
It saddens me to see so much wasted energy promoting an obviously corrupt and bankrupt policy. The public health is at an all time low and we have supposed accredited “scientists” supporting practices like this. Might as well put the fascist bumper sticker right on.
Also, I recommend all fluoride supporters to take a look in the mirror. Simply to analyze the symmetry of the face. Most of you will have faces that are tight on one side, causing twist. As we all know symmetry is natural beauty. Fluoridation (among other ingested toxins), however, distorts the vertical integrity of the spine and of the mind. This is what causes facial imbalance. This is also the source for the narrow-minded, science-is-god, mentality as fluoride activates the left-brain, only.
Get off the toxins and one day you might be able to dream again, or even visualize images within the mind. Until then, be aware that you can heal your dis-ease if you let go of the knowledge that you worship. Remember, knowledge and science can be used to prove completely different sides to an argument. Truth comes from a higher power. Kundalini. DMT. Pineal gland. Creativity. Kindness.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Michael, there is also something to be said for the truth. If it wasn’t for scientific truth we would all still be living in caves and your statement that, “public health is at an all time low,” would actually be correct. The fact is that human beings are living longer now than at any other time in history.
By all means, get yourself a time machine and go back to Europe in the 1350s if you think you will have a healthier lifestyle.
Your comments are in reference to statements made to and about Dr. Richard Sauerheber, correct?
If you place a title like that in front of your name, it carries a certain responsibility . . a regard for the truth. Lay people see that title and expect credibility. People can reasonably expect that title to carry with it the truth.
I had a private email correspondence with Dr. Sauerheber after I read a statement by him that in the United States the EPA does not have regulatory authority over water fluoridation; therefore, water fluoridation is illegal in the U.S. This was news to me. So I asked him for evidence of this claim. I would be very happy to produce those emails for you, Michael.
Long story short, there is no evidence for that bizarre claim; and while I am not a mental health professional, I can say that there are either two possibilities with that guy. Either he has no regard for the truth, or he is unbalanced.
So, Michael, if you want to allow untruthful or unbalanced people to make authoritative claims without being challenged, find yourself a nice island where truth has no meaning – where the average lifespan would be about 30 years. I for one, enjoy a world in which people are expected to be able to support what they say with actual evidence.
How will the amount of fluoride in water effect a person who has a untreated exposure to industrial HF? And what if that same person also swallowed toothpaste as a child?
The EPA does “not” support the use of fluoride in drinking water.
Take a look at this video of the EPA telling congress that they no longer support water fluoridation
Tony, someone burned by hydrofluoric acid (HF) in an industrial accident has a lot more to worry about than the extremely low concentration of fluoride in drinking water.
Swallowing toothpaste as a child may slightly increase the risk of mild dental fluorosis – but again the fluoride in drinking water has an extremely minor effect.
Tony, you are wrong. This video does not show the EPA saying anything. It is a video of Bill HIrzy – who had a union position at the time. He is speaking for his union (and probably an extreme minority of the union, not for the EPA.
Bill Hirzy is currently a paid worker for the Fluoride Action Network , an activist group financed by the “natural”/alternative health industry. He has no scientific credibility.
This is the most ad hominem blog I’ve seen yet, with all the “experts” attacking Dr. Sauerheber while providing precious little relevant scientific response to his warnings: this blog reads like a propaganda clinic aimed at Dr. Sauerheber. Admittedly though my understanding is that fluoride is considered an essential mineral/has an established RDA.
Ramon, did you not read the post?
If you did, what specifically do you object to in my scientific discussion?
Yes, I did call Saueerheber’s paper a “meandering and naive anti-fluoridation rant.” But I think I justified that description.
If you don’t agree, please tell me specifically how I have not.
I think Sauerheber has been criticised because he has misrepresented the science. That is not ad hominem.
Have you done the research? Or just looked into this one researcher? I’ve done some digging in PubMed — independent of any proponents or opponents — and what I’ve found in the actual research suggests that:
1. Fluoride is most definitely toxic, to numerous body systems (neurotoxin, reproductive toxin, etc.) when taken in, in excess.
2. (Not from the research, but just common sense: the dosage cannot be accurately controlled when it’s simply dumped into the water supply, because not everyone consumes the same amount of water.)
3. Calcium is essential to detoxifying *excess* fluoride from the body. Thus calcium fluoride is probably less toxic because what isn’t needed is more likely to be eliminated, while other forms of fluoride simply build up.
4. *Calcium* fluoride helps teeth, probably to a large extent by providing the *calcium*. When compared in studies, the phosphorus fluoride typically used in the dental industry is of negligible benefit — but calcium fluoride makes a notable difference. Calcium fluoride is simply *not* the same substance as phosphorus fluoride or sodium fluoride.
Titus, yes I have researched this issue. You can find my articles on various aspects of the topic at https://openparachute.wordpress.com/fluoridation/fluoridation-articles/
1: All substances are toxic in excess – including, for example, water. Your comment is irrelevant.
2: The term dosage is not applicable to deficient elements like fluorine, iodine, etc. There is no need for such precise control and intake is usually satisfactory over a broad range.
3: We never consumes “calcium fluoride” as this chemical only exists in the solid form. When dissolved the ions exist separately as the hydrated Ca2+ and F- ions. For a relatively simple overview of the chemistry involved read this Fluoridation: Some simple chemistry
4: Both calcium and fluoride “help” teeth – both elements are natural and normal constituents of bio apatites like bones and teeth.
Could you please explain what chemical you refer to by the name “phosphorus fluoride?” Such compounds just do not exist normally and are not used by the dental industry. Sodium fluoride and calcium fluoride are simple ionic salts – when dissolved the fluoride is exactly the same – the hydrated fluoride anion. But your “phosphorous fluoride” is a mystery to me – and I am a chemist.
Look forward to your reply.
1. It is not “irrelevant.” Yes, even water is toxic in excess, but the point is, the body is not designed to *eliminate* such excess fluoride as is often found when it’s artificially added to things like drinking water — especially without the accompanying calcium that’s necessary for carrying it out of the body. This is why there is study after study showing neurological issues and more in areas where there’s too much fluoride in the water. Sodium doesn’t help the body excrete any excess of the fluoride (and, in fact, most people already have too much sodium, so that’s a double whammy — build-up of fluoride *and* increase in sodium-potassium imbalance).
2. Baloney. The FDA doesn’t set recommended upper intake limits for necessary vitamins and minerals because dosage is “not applicable.” Water fluoridation is mass medication — or at least mass supplementation — without consent, which is both problematic when the consumption rate cannot be controlled for, and unethical.
3. This is beside the point. Whether the substance is taken in whole, or already dissociated, the fact remains that the duo is different than other mineral salts containing fluorine. (See point 1.) Consider this study which demonstrates not only that dosage matters (and yes, that’s the term the researchers used), but that different fluoride salts caused damage at *different* dosage levels.
4. I haven’t the foggiest idea, to be honest. I’m not a chemist; I’m a nutritionist (or soon to be). I just know I’ve come across it in the literature. I’ve done a little bit of digging since you asked, and although it appears “phosphorus fluoride” is actually a “thing” (although a slight misnomer), I’m not certain if what’s used in dentistry (when it isn’t simply NaF being used) is truly “phosphorus fluoride” or just product containing both substances and poorly-named.
https://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/compound/Pentafluorophosphorane (Pretty sure this, at least, is NOT the substance in question!)
Maybe you can make more sense of the nomenclature than I can.
Ken all substances are toxic in excess but what is excess for one person may not be for another. And it depends what be in the water. People working hard like sheep shearers in hot weather have been said in one of my nutrition books not to drink enough water if it is not slightly salted.
!! In other words in Ken’s language it is short on sodium ions and chloride ions. Going by your theory of the ions only being important they could be added from potassium chloride and hydrochloric acid. Well they could not because the potassium ions could be a problem with a sodium balance and the hydrogen ions could be a problem.
Water with sodium fluoride added is different in effect on diabetes from water with a silicofluoride added. I am not sure if it be the silicon compound reducing the diabetic effect or what, but the sodium fluoride was found to be bad for diabetes.
Fluoridated water is often treated with a calcium compound to raise the pH. But sometimes just sodium hydroxide is used I think.
I invite you to think of an analogy of composite dental fillings in which correct balance of hardener is required or toxic amounts of unreacted substance may remain in the filling to be eluted out into the mouth in slow fashion (which may be worse than a fast pulse.)
It needs to be known, and I don’t know if experiments have been attempted, about balances of osmotic pressures and electropotentials to which the human organism may have developed adaptation.
“The term dosage is not applicable to deficient elements like fluorine, iodine, etc. There is no need for such precise control and intake is usually satisfactory over a broad range.”
I think fluoride is not homeostatically controlled as for example sodium and potassium are (within limits.) So there needs to be more care with intake levels. That will depend on the individual health, kidney function that people may not know about, and other nutrient intakes such as calcium.
Other substances for which there is a narrow window of use between deficiency and excess are copper, selenium, that I know of. Selenium deficiency produces white muscle disease in sheep and Keshan disease in humans if Cocksackie virus is present at the same time. Or Kashin-Beck arthritis. Excess can cause a number of serious problems and also stained teeth. https://ods.od.nih.gov/factsheets/Selenium-Consumer/ An interesting point is that the toxin mercury can alleviate some selenium excess problems.
So to say that it to be no different adding sodium fluoride to water compared to calcium fluoride you need to include restrictions about the prior history of the water and what else is being added and taken out. Else you only look like a propagandist.
Sorry I meant adding potassium chloride and sodium hydroxide to water is not the same as adding salt, even though it adds sodium ions and and chloride.ions.
1 is very relevant Titus. We are always hearing claims of toxicity for fluoride in excess – but excess is not the issue with community water fluoridation (CWF).
Fluoride, like all nutrients, goes through the body – some is incorporated into growth (bone and teeth in the case of F which is a natural and normal constituent of bioapatites) and the rest excreted. Excess fluoride is excreted providing the intake is not excessive.
Calcium exists as a separate in – it is not connected to fluoride in solution.
There is no credible study indicating a neurological effect from community water fluoridation – quite the opposite – see Broadbent, J. M., Thomson, W. M., Ramrakha, S., Moffitt, T. E., Zeng, J., Foster Page, L. A., & Poulton, R. (2014). Community Water Fluoridation and Intelligence: Prospective Study in New Zealand. American Journal of Public Health, 105(1), 72–76. http://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2013.301857
In fact, the poor quality studies from China suggesting IQ differences are from areas of endemic fluorosis where fluoride intake is excessive – nothing to do with CWF. I have suggested this may be simply a physical development effect rather than a chemical poisoning effect – see Perrott, K. W. (2015). Severe dental fluorosis and cognitive deficits. Neurotoxicology and Teratology, 48, 78–79. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.ntt.2015.01.001
2. Your reference to consent and medication have nothing to do with the science. In this country communities are consulted before fluoridation is started. In most cases referenda have shown support for CWF.
The added fluoride in community water fluoridation is minuscule and has no effect on sodium or potassium levels which are naturally much higher. You can check this out mathematically.
3: What study are you referring to? I am always to keen to read genuine scientific studies.
“Phosphorus fluoride” is not a thing regarding dental practice. You may be thinking of the use of sodium fluorophosphate in toothpastes – which contain a number of chemicals you might find surprising.
Inevitably those who do half an hour of “research” on google and find themselves in opposition to the position statements of the planet’s entire medical, public health and scientific establishment on a particular subject, have failed to ask themselves a pertinent question that “the planet’s entire medical, public health and scientific organisations might know something I don’t?”
I invite you to identify a single credible scientific body, public health system or professional medical dental organisation, anywhere, that disagrees that properly instituted* CWF is not a safe and effective means of improving community dental health.
* Not including areas where CFW is undesirable or unnecessary e.g. areas of high naturally occurring fluoride or communities using other means of delivery such as addition to table salt or foodstuffs.
I think you might find the nernst equation and GABA receptors interesting. My nerves seem to have a bit of extra spark, from my mothers insistence on avoiding sodium chloride will drinking fluoridated water.
Nice try. Pointing to water hardness is a different topic than molecular make up fluoride topicals. Ha!
Well, D, redress the balance. Tell us all about the “molecular make up fluoride topicals.” I am just aching to find out what you mean by this.
Hey, here are two books I highly recommend you to read:
1. The fluoride deception by Christopher Bryson
2. The case against Fluoride by 3 PhDs
I’m in the process of developing our toothpastes and the ingredient called “fluoride” was such a hot topic I started digging very deep on this issue.
Antifluoridation myth? We’ve all been human experiment rats!!! Brainwashed by the propaganda promoted using exactly the same tactics and strategies that are used now. It was never about the public health or science but it was all about the politics. During early 20 century, professionals opposed to/against fluoride/water fluoridation were all fired from their positions (doctors, scientists, researchers). Their researches were never published and if published, those journals and scientific data were never disclosed to the public for several decades.
“Our” government does not exist for us Americans. The government is to pursue their own interests and for the rich and the powerful (Corporate America). Gosh…… Shame on ADA (American Dental Association). Shame on Public Health Department. Shame on National Health Institutes. Shame on Environment Protection Agency. Shame on federal regulators. Shame on top researchers and scientist who were involved in fluoridation projects. Lastly, SHAME ON CORPORATE AMERICA (that are involved with all this mess)!!!!!! You can buy top lawyers with your rich status and cover up the mess you are responsible for. You are nothing but criminals. Know that?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Hanna Jun, why have you made this specific comment here? It is not at all related to my post. I can only conclude you are blatantly using my post to post your own anti-science propaganda.
All the claims you make are patently untrue and you don’t even attempt to support them.
Come on . . I welcome people making comments and criticising my posts. But please stop this blatant and opportunist propaganda. Discuss the issues properly.
and down with Obamacare!!!!!
Christopher Bryson’s “The Fluoride Deception.” Yes. Excellent recommendation. In this book, Mr. Bryson implies that Community Water Fluoridation has its roots in the U.S. Nuclear Weapons Program. A very well-thought out, rational theory.
What he didn’t say is that Crest Toothpaste, which has over 2000 times the concentration of fluoride as optimally fluoridated water, was part of U.S. efforts to weaponize anthrax.
In fact, in the 1971 Charlton Heston Film, “The Omega Man” which explores the possibility of mankind destroying itself with biological weapons, you will notice that Not One Tube of Crest Toothpaste can be seen anywhere in the film. . . Did you ever ask yourself Why?
Did you ever ask yourself Why?,/i>
I bet Brian Soundhill knows why.
The problems also come down to the amount of sodium flouride in toothpaste on top of the sodium flouride in water. Toothpaste sits under your tongue while you brush for two minutes. Readily being absorbed . The studies done showing that flouride helped with healthier teeth is flawed. Other countries during the studies had just as good dental health as countries using flouride and they did not use flouride. There is no need to force people to have sodium flouride put in there water . There no dose regulation. As a child I played ice hockey and I drank a lot of water and was smaller. Where is the regulation of my dosage of water? How did this affect my mind and body . Most countries have stop the flouridated of water. I do not drink flourdated water or use flouridated toothpaste and my teeth have never been healthier . I floss and never get cavities and my dentist says I have perfect teeth . I refuse there flouride teeth cleaning though 🙂 I have sole in the morning and at sea salt to my ketogenic diet and I’m golden 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
Calcium Fluoride is LESS harmful than Sodium Fluoride, because Sodium Fluoride has high solubility (4%) while Calcium Fluoride has vey low Solubility =.0016%, – almost insoluble- and MFP (in some toothpastes) 25% then, if water contains NaF, the energy of water dissolves the chrystals easily so many trillions of Fluoride ions are free and able to attach to Calcium (or other metal ions) they find on their path. Since CaF2 is much LESS soluble, much fewer Fluoride ions separate and thus it is less harmful. That is why if someone has Fluoride poisoning (for example if one children ate toothpaste or drank some fluoride gel) he must drink MILK or other compounds with Calcium ions, so each Calcium ion will bind to 2 Fluoride ions to form the almost insoluble CaF2 that will be sent out of the body. All free fluoride ions in blood may attach to positive ions in the body, bones, teeth, pineal gland, etc. so the LESS fluoride ions we have in the body, it is better for us. We only need a little amount in the external layer of enamel to form some fluorapatite and make it less soluble to a low pH of liquids or dental plaque. The NaF is more soluble because it is polar while Calcium Fluoride is non polar (or much less polar) so it is not easily dissolved by water, a polar compound.
The absorption of Fluoride ions on enamel needs an acidic environment, that is why dentists use generally Acidulated Gels (APF) with pH of about 3.5, and for 4 minutes of contact, and those gels contain 12,300 ppm of Fluoride, so I dont see how can enamel absorb “protective” Fluoride ions from drinking water, since people only keeps the water in mouth, when drinking it, for only a few seconds, only at 0.7 – 2 ppm concentration, and in an oral pH of about 6.5. so that “protection” by fluoridated water does not exist, it is a big lie. Even great experts of Preventive Dentistry like Dr Featherstone, say that the benefits from Fluoride are obtained by topical applications. NOT systemic. I think Fluoridation of water should stop everywhere, it is useless. A last point, since NaF is soluble, it means that in water, the Fluoride ions separate from Sodium ions, in that moment, they can bind to Hydrogen ions, it is logic, since Fluoride ions have negative charge and Hydrogen ions are positive, like metal ions. So Hydrogen Fluoride can be formed. Fluoride ions can react with all positive ions, so if F ions are in blood, they can bind to Calcium ions of bones, making them less soluble but brittle. (sorry for spelling mistakes)
LikeLiked by 1 person
Miguel, I am not sure what point you are making. Yes, CaF2 is less soluble than NaF – but so what? Naturally high levels of F in drinking water usually originate from the mineral fluorite (CaF2) – a saturated solution will maintain about 8 mg/L F – and in alkaline solutions even higher. This is well above the recommended safe level of F in drinking water (1.5 mg/L).
Yes, in cases of poisoning Ca from milk etc helps reduce the F concentration. But toxic concentrations are well above the optimum levels recommended for community water fluoridation.
Fluoride does not indiscriminately “attach to positive ions in the body, bones, teeth, pineal gland.” It reacts with active forms of calcium – bones, teeth, and calcified tissues. It does not cause calcification but can be used to detect calcified areas.
In fact, F is a normal and natural component of bioapatites – the minerals in our bones and teeth. At normal levels F confers strength to the bioapatites.
You may not see how the low concentration of F in saliva can help prevent mineralisation but the fact is that it does. Research shows that – it is not a lie. And the source of the F in saliva is fluoridated beverages, food, etc.
Yes, research shows that the beneficial effects of fluoridated water for existing teeth are mainly duer to reactions at the tooth surface, rather than incorporation after ingestion. But research also shows that ingested F has a beneficial effect on developing teeth, before eruption. Anmd, of course, ingested F is involved in the turnover of minerals in bone so has a beneficial effect for bones – provided the dietary intake is not too low or too high.
Yes, the hydrated fluoride ion in solution (from whatever source) exists in equilibrium with other species – including HF. But the concentration of HF is minuscule at normal pH values. It really only exists in acidic solution.
Ken, but you mention a *saturated solution*, and drinkable water is NOT a saturated solution of Fluoride. It contains much less Fluoride to be saturated, so if for example, one liter of water is fluoridated with 2 miligrams of Calcium Fluoride, it would be less harmful than if it is fluoridated with 2 miligrams of NaF. I mean, the toxicity of the water is different depending of the type of Fluoride they put in it. I think that if water of a city contains 2 mg of CaF per liter, it does not cause any damage because the Fluoride ions are strongly bound to Calcium ions, but if each liter contains 2 mg of NaF, it will be above the safe level of 1.5 mg per liter, as you say, so it is toxic. What you say is correct regarding the 8ppm of CaF2, but only in a *saturated* solution of CaF2.
But 2 mg of Calcium Fluoride per liter will NOT produce a level of free Fluoride ions of 8ppm. But using NaF, all the molecules would separate in Fluoride ions and Sodium ions, because NaF has a much higher solubility than CaF2.
I think the degree of solubility of Fluorides makes them more or less dangerous. If Zero solubility, zero danger.
As far as I have read, most cities use Sodium fluoride or Fluorosilicic Acid, not Calcium Fluoride.
My point is only that CaF is less harmful than other types of Fluoride. and that Fluoridation is not necessary, cities should stop adding fluoride to water, besides, since many foods contain fluoride in a higher level than 1.5 ppm, that is another factor in favor of the anti-fluoridation movement. If people is consuming many different types of food that contain much more fluoride than water, then there is no reason to add Fluoride to water. It only leads to an excess of Fluoride ions entering the organism. I think it is more convenient to use filters to eliminate Fluoride from water because it may contain soluble Fluorides from natural sources.
There are a lot of scientific articles about the damages Fluoride causes in several organs. And scientific information seems to confirm that antifluoridationists are right.
There is also a lot of information that in many countries that don’t fluoridate water, children have less decay than in fluoridated countries.
I think also, that since the purpose of fluoridation is to have less possibilities of dental caries, it is NOT necessary because 1- systemic fluoride does not make humans immune to caries, it only decreases a little, the possibilities to have caries. Even enamel of sharks, that contain much more fluoride – 30,000ppm – than human enamel, suffers demineralization if it is placed in a human mouth. And since dental decay, as you surely know, is produced by the combination of 4 factors, host conditions (tooth anatomy, pits and fissures) acidogenic bacteria (Streptococcus, Lactobacilli) substrate (sugar, food for bacteria) and TIME, we can prevent it by eliminating at least one of the 4 factors, without using any Fluoride.
If at least one of these factors is eliminated, caries does not occur. It is like a car of 4 wheels, you eliminate one wheel and the car does not run. We may avoid caries eliminating only one, for example, by mechanical removal of bacteria (brushing) or avoding sugars to stay enough time in mouth, or sealing the pits and fissures, flossing the teeth, etc. and we dont need to consume fluoridated water. The use of fluoride implies collateral damage.
2018-02-11 21:23 GMT-06:00 Open Parachute :
> Ken commented: “Miguel, I am not sure what point you are making. Yes, CaF2 > is less soluble than NaF – but so what? Naturally high levels of F in > drinking water usually originate from the mineral fluorite (CaF2) – a > saturated solution will maintain about 8 mg/L F – and in” >
LikeLiked by 1 person
MQ – you seem unaware that it is the hydrated fluoride anion in the solution that is toxic at high concentrations. CaF can amintain concentrations of fluoride high enough to do harm
A solution containing about 8 mg/L of the hydrated F anion is used in community water fluodiation – it is quite safe – whatever the origin – solid NaF or solid CaF2. It makes no difference when dissolved what the source is.
No, in solution F is not strongly bound to Ca. Only at higher concentrations when it precipitates. In soluitoin both the Ca and F exist as the hydrated ions – they are quite separate from each other.
Here is an article which provides a simple description of the chemistry involved – https://openparachute.wordpress.com/2016/01/24/fluoridation-some-simple-chemistry/
CaF2 is only described as more toxic than NaF because it can only maintain a relatively low concentration of F – but still high enough to be harmful as the health problems of people living in endemic fluorosis areas shows.
CaF2 is not suitable for fluodiation because of its low solubility and the presence of impurities. Fluorosilicic acid is very pure and liquid making addition much easier. NaF is only used nowadays in small treatment plants.
Decisions on community water fluoridation, of course, take into account local dietary intakes. There is no point in fluoridating water if the dietary intake is high enough
As a chemist, I can assure you the anti-fluoridationist argument of harm from community water fluoridation is just scaremongering. These people are well known for misrepresenting and distorting the science.
I think I have previously explained to you how ingested F in food and beverages help maintain concentrations of F in saliva which have a beneficial effect on existing teeth. And that ingested fluoride also contributes to strong enamel during tooth development in children.
Ken, thanks for the link, I will read it. But in your response you write this: ” CaF2 is only described as more toxic than NaF because it can only maintain a relatively low concentration of F – “- Are you sure that CaF2 is MORE TOXIC than NaF? Or that some people describe CaF2 as more Toxic than NaF? they say that? And that is because it mantains a relatively low concentration of F-? ???? I think it is a mistake. If CaF mantains a low concentration of Fluoride ions then it is safer than NaF as I said before. It is not more toxic. Maybe you meant LESS toxic instead of MORE toxic. If you put 20 miligrams of CaF2 in a glass of water and 20 miligrams of Fluorosilicic Acid in other, which one is more toxic? I am sure the one with Fluorosilicic Acid. Am I wrong?
If you agree, then the people anti-Fluoridation is right if they prefer
more Calcium in water, NOT Fluorosilicic Acid or Sodium. I think more Calcium ions in water would combine with Fluoride ions and diminish
its toxicity. Of course, within safe limits for Calcium. Or maybe it is convenient to add some harmless compound that releases Magnesium
ions in water. This Magnesium would help also to reduce the toxicity of Fluoride, just like it protects the animals that eat grass. I hope I am not wrong.
Also, if as you say, “No, in solution F is not strongly bound to Ca. Only at higher concentrations when it precipitates”- OK, that is why dentists use 12,300 ppm And therefore, fluoridated water is not useful to help teeth to form fluorapatite. It is clear that since the Fluoride in water is only 1 ppm, it can not make any benefit to the enamel in the amounts used to fluoridate the water. IN saliva the concentration of Fluoride is even lower than in drinkable water I think it is something like 0.021 ppm ( I am not sure but it is much less than 1 ppm). This amount of F- in saliva can not protect the teeth. In general I think fluoridated water is too much risk for very litte benefit. But if some people prefer to drink Fluoridated water, it is their decision.
I have no internet coverage at the moment but you seem to misunderstand my point. It is the hydrated fluoride in water which is toxic at high concentrations. CaF2 can maintain a hstmfk concentration if F – 8 ppm or so. Nag us more soluble so can maintain an even higher concentration if F in solution.
The reaction at the tooth surface is not precipitation of CaF2 but incorporation of F into the apatite crystal structure. This occurs at much lower concentrations and the appetite surface becomes more resistant to Did attack.
Ken, all your doing is deconstructing everything Richard is saying. You’re a pathetic fuck. Even by the EPA’s own standards, we’re getting way too much fluoride exposure on a daily basis in areas where water is fluoridated. Every time you take a shower, fluoride is absorbed by your skin and the vapors are inhaled which also contain fluoride.
Every time you boil pasta or make rice with fluoridated water, you’re also ingesting fluoride. It’s all cumulative.
Furthermore, fluoridation of water violates people’s rights and is unethical. You can not force a medicine or treatment on someone, which is exactly what fluoridation is doing.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thanks for this article. If I am able I will share with some friends who are discussing this issue and have similar misunderstandings of the chemistry.
This couldn’t be a more incorrect conclusion. Yea there is calcium occurring in the same water supplies that are fluoridated, but that doesn’t mean they are compounding into calcium fluoride. It’s just calcium AND industrial fluoride, which cannot bind the same way calcium fluoride naturally does. This entire article is obviously got intentions of suppressing the truth whether the author knows it or not. This article isn’t even combating the obvious problem that fluoridated water is toxic it’s just saying that the doctors are wrong about calcium fluoride being a healthy alternative, which it would be, and is why it got so much backlash.. Ask yourself, honestly, they are fluoridating water to prevent your and my tooth decay? Open your eyes.
Anthony, could you please explain the difference between “industrial fluoride: and “natural fluoride.” Specifically the electronic structure of the F- anion which determines its chemical properties.